[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18733-18735]
[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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2606.

                              {time}  2313


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page 18734]]

House on the State of the Union for the further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
was pending.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendments 
shall be in order except the following amendments, which may be offered 
only by the Member designated, be considered as read, shall not be 
subject to amendment, or to a demand for a division of the question in 
the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, except for the Burton amendment, which shall be debatable 
for 50 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a 
Member opposed thereto:
  No. 1, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) regarding a reduction in aid to India;
  No. 2, an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) transferring $4 million from IMET to ERMA and ESF;
  No. 3, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 
prohibiting funds for family planning and abortion;
  No. 4, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 
prohibiting funds for Eximbank, OPIC, and TDA;
  No. 5, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) requiring a report on actions in Kosovo;
  No. 6, an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
expressing the sense of Congress regarding flower imports from 
Colombia;
  No. 7, an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) prohibiting military funds for Eritrea and Ethiopia;
  No. 8, an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) expressing the sense of Congress regarding peace between 
Eritrea and Ethiopia;
  No. 9, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
regarding OPIC;
  No. 10, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) regarding Man in the Biosphere.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be 
limited on the pending amendment to 10 minutes, as all the rest of 
them.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Is the gentleman from Alabama requesting that all amendments to the 
pending amendment be included?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I was not 
quite clear, was the gentleman talking about a total of 10 minutes, 10 
minutes on each side? What was the gentleman talking about for the 
Andrews amendment, how much time?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. 10 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. A total?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. 10 additional.
  Mr. SANDERS. Five and 5?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, would the 
gentleman withdraw his objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. I withdraw my objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, let me ask the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, we have been told that what 
has happened is there have been four or five speakers in a row on this, 
on one side. So we are getting objections, both from that side of the 
issue, as evidenced by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and we 
have objections on the other side of the issue.
  Could I ask, would Members on both sides be satisfied if it were 20 
minutes apiece?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. No, 10 minutes each.
  Mr. OBEY. Ten is fine with me, but I am told that we have objections 
if it is 10 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, continuing under the reservation of 
objection, if the gentlewoman will yield, if I could ask the chairman 
how many speakers does he have left?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not know. We did not anticipate this amendment 
would be introduced. We were informed by one of our colleagues, the 
gentleman from Texas, that he had an agreement with the sponsor of an 
amendment where it would not be introduced.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would it be agreeable to all sides if we 
went 10 minutes on each side, finished it tonight, took the votes, went 
home and took the rest on Monday?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I want to amend my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, under my 
reservation, unfortunately, I happen to be the ranking member on the 
authorizing committee on this issue. None of the people who support 
OPIC have had an opportunity to speak. So depending upon how those 10 
minutes are divided, otherwise, I would have to object.
  If the 10 minutes are to be divided on behalf of those who have not 
had any opportunity to speak in favor of OPIC and against the 
amendment, we may be able to do that, but if the 10 minutes are to be 
divided between all the parties, I would have to object.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I 
would agree with the gentleman, that the proponents of the amendment 
have already spoken 20 minutes without any opposition having the 
opportunity to speak, and it is unfair to those of us who disagree with 
the gentleman's amendment not to have the same amount of time.
  But I do not think the gentleman would agree to give me 30 minutes 
and take 10 himself. But I also make that request, if the gentleman 
thinks he would agree.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully object to that.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to limit debate 
to 30 minutes to each side of the issue.
  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will yield, is that tonight, on Monday?
  Mr. SANDERS. Thirty minutes each side tonight?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Fifteen minutes on each side tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN. The request of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) is that each side have 15 additional minutes on the pending 
amendment and all amendments thereto.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would it 
be out of order to ask unanimous consent, of course we cannot, there is 
one pending, but for us to go ahead and suspend this, have the 30 
minutes debate, have the four votes first, and then conclude with the 
Andrews amendment?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. First, the unanimous consent has to be agreed to by the 
Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama, 15 minutes on each side?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, let me 
understand the unanimous consent request again. It is to have 15 
minutes on each side of the aisle?
  Ms. PELOSI. Each side of the issue.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Each side of the issue?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 18735]]


  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I 
will object, I ask unanimous consent that we suspend with the Andrews 
amendment, that we proceed with the votes, and then they have their 30 
minutes to conclude the Andrews amendment, and that vote will be taken 
Monday.

                              {time}  2320

  It will give everybody an adequate amount of time. We will have the 
votes. Members want to leave here. Everybody who wants to speak will 
have an opportunity to speak, and that will be a pending vote coming 
Monday. All those other members that are pending can be handled Monday.
  The CHAIRMAN. The pending request is the unanimous consent request 
offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), limiting time on 
the pending Andrews amendment and amendments thereto to 15 minutes for 
each side.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the 
pending amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) be 
suspended and that the Committee proceed with the votes that have been 
scheduled.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, why does the gentleman from Ohio not 
first establish the amount of time of debate, and we will rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asks all Members to suspend.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) would have to, by 
unanimous consent, withdraw his amendment and get permission in the 
full House, where a special order has already been entered on 
permissible amendments, to reoffer his amendment for such a procedure 
to be permitted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The pending amendment is the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, and under the way 
the 5-minute rule works, that is, people come and it is not divided on 
each side of the issue, which is the way the 5-minute rule works, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and I have worked very hard to 
try to bring something that was honed down, with minimal controversy, 
to the floor.
  Clearly, the House must work its will, and it is doing so, largely 
with authorizing issues, I might add, I mean debates that have been 
carried over from the authorizing committee; and that is completely 
appropriate.
  But recognizing all that we have been through today, I ask unanimous 
consent that each side of the amendment have 10 minutes, and then we 
take the vote and proceed with the other votes this evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Andrews amendment be given an additional 30 minutes to be equally 
divided and that the debate take place after the House has completed 
its votes on the pending amendments; and any recorded vote, if called 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), would be then, thus, 
held Monday as the first order of business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) that the Committee of the Whole does not have the authority 
that the gentleman is requesting.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if we are still in the Committee of the 
Whole, I rise to speak in opposition to the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the effect of the Andrews amendment, which we really 
did not anticipate would be introduced, especially at this late hour of 
the night, comes at a surprise because we were of the understanding 
that he was not going to introduce it.
  So with the misinformation that I had regarding that what someone 
thought was a commitment, I speak against the Andrews amendment 
because, effectively, what he does, he shuts down the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation.
  The Andrews amendment would devastate the ability of our American 
companies from doing business in any foreign country. It would give 
such tremendous advantage to our foreign competitors, because every one 
of the G-7 Nations have, in effect, in their country an organization 
similar to this.
  The sponsor of the amendment indicated that OPIC costs us money. In 
reality, Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues that OPIC makes money. 
They intend to return nearly $200 million to the Treasury to help us 
continue to decrease our level of deficit spending. We should 
compliment organizations such as that.
  It would hurt U.S. jobs, because when we have the inability to 
transfer our technology, to transfer our American interest to foreign 
countries, those jobs are going to go to other countries. So we are 
going to lose an estimated 70,000 U.S. jobs alone in the next 4 years.
  It would hurt our export. It would hurt small businesses who 
contribute to the multifaceted involvement of our American firms doing 
business in foreign countries.
  It hurts our competitiveness. It hurts everything that we stand for 
with respect to our ability to recognize that we are in a global 
economy, that if we are going to expand, if we are going to have 
exports, our American companies must have the same advantages, a level 
playing field, as does Japan, as does France, as does Germany, as does 
the Great Britain, and all of the countries that we are competing with 
for our businesses overseas.
  For an example, if General Electric or Westinghouse, if we built a 
power plant that is not financed by, but guaranteed by OPIC, they do 
not put some type of Japanese generator there. They put an American 
generator there. As a result, jobs are created here in the United 
States of America.
  This is not something that is new. It has come up in the past. I am 
sure it will come up in the future. But the sponsor of the bill, in my 
opinion, is making a very serious mistake in his amendment, which 
effectively shuts OPIC down entirely.
  It tells the bank, OPIC bank, that they can continue to collect the 
monies that they are collecting now, but they cannot have any new 
deposits, they cannot have any new business at all coming in in the 
future.
  So it is a very, very definite move, I think, in the wrong direction.
  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. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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.

                          ____________________