[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23862-23876]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2606, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, 
             AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 307, I call 
up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 27, 1999, at page H8831).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2606, and that I may 
include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This matter that we are addressing now is something that has been 
discussed for a great many months. During the rule we talked about the 
amount of money. True, it is $2 billion below what the President 
requested. True, it is less than last year. But it is all the money 
that we can afford under the circumstances this year.
  So I ask the Members to consider where we are and what we are 
offering, and that is an opportunity for the administration to have an 
effective foreign policy capability with the monies that are available 
without increasing taxes. The President has suggested that we increase 
taxes to meet these new needs. This Congress, Mr. Speaker, is not going 
to do that, and I think both sides of the aisle as well as the 
President recognize that.
  So we are not going to include any new taxes. This Congress has said 
that we are going to live within the budget caps so we are not going to 
break the budget caps. This Congress is not going to interfere with the 
ability that we fund adequately Social Security. So we are not going to 
break Social Security. We are going to cut foreign aid below the 
President's request, cut foreign aid below last year. I think it is a 
responsible thing to do because this is the very thing we are asking 
Americans to understand in every domestic policy that we have facing 
us.
  So we have a good bill. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion to 
bring together a bill that recognizes and facilitated the needs of most 
every Member of Congress that came before us. They came and they asked 
for assistance to Africa. We increased the assistance to Africa. They 
came and they asked that we increase child survival. Mr. Speaker, I 
created the child survival account so I willingly went along with the 
gentlewoman from California to increase child survival to $700 million, 
a great step in the right direction.
  We tried to hold down on earmarks where we would not hamstring the 
administration into having to spend money in areas that they did not 
want to. So we removed most all of the earmarks. We have given them a 
responsible piece of legislation that affords the President and the 
Secretary of State to have an effective capability of running the State 
Department and running our foreign policy.
  So we have a good bill, no one disputes that. The only argument that 
we are going to hear this afternoon is, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough 
money. But keep in mind, it is not uncommon for this Congress, in fact 
to the best of my recollection, in every Congress for the last 25 
years, the Congress has reduced the President's request. This request 
is lower than his request, and I am sorry, Mr. President, but we do not 
have any more money. We are not going to raise taxes; we are not going 
to take it out of the national defense.

[[Page 23863]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC99.001


[[Page 23864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC99.002



[[Page 23865]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC99.003



[[Page 23866]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05OC99.004



[[Page 23867]]



                              {time}  1730

  We are not going to break the caps, and we are not going to touch 
Social Security. That is our position.
  We received a letter today from AIPAC, the Jewish lobby who is so 
interested in helping our ally, Israel. AIPAC is supportive of this 
bill. We have provided, I think, as best we can; and certainly the 
Armenian people feel like we have provided adequately for them under 
the circumstances.
  Everybody would like to have more money. But more money is not 
available for everybody. We can recommend to the White House some 
things they might do. The President might stop going to places like 
Africa with 1,700 people with him, spending $47 million of taxpayers' 
money. We might save some money in areas like that.
  I suggested earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we might impose a visitors' 
tax on the White House, not for American citizens, but for foreign 
dignitaries who come to the White House and are greeted with a royal 
dinner there.
  Then after dinner, they all sit around with a glass of wine, and they 
toast one another, and they talk about what great friends we are. 
Inevitably, the President of the United States promises them some more 
money and then calls it an obligation that we, the Members of Congress, 
who have the responsibility of appropriating the monies that are 
available to us, must then decide on whether or not it is merited.
  So we have a good bill. We have a bipartisan drafted bill. We have a 
good bill for the administration, because it gives them the flexibility 
that he needs, and it does not raise taxes, does not hurt Social 
Security, does not take away from the national defense.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Having recently returned from Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian 
Authority, I wish to urge the House to consider the great opportunity 
before us to use American food surpluses as a tool to build stability 
in the Middle East and aid in sustaining the peace process.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate the fiscal year 2000 Foreign Operations 
Appropriations conference report, I wish to focus the attention to the 
House on a nation in the Middle East is rarely mentioned on this floor, 
Lebanon. There are strong historical ties between the Lebanese people 
and the American people--ties that have been repeatedly reinforced by 
new generations of Lebanese who have immigrated to the United States.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, as we, hopefully, move toward a lasting and 
just peace in the Middle East, we must recognize the importance of 
regional stability for the maintenance of that peace. Lebanon is 
critical to that stability. The pro-market orientation of Lebanon's 
economy has not alone been sufficient to create economic health in that 
country. The Lebanese people are struggling to rebuild a society and 
infrastructure devastated by 15 years of civil war.
  We now have an opportunity to assist by allocating U.S. surplus 
commodities to Lebanon and allowing the proceeds of the sale of these 
commodities to be invested in medium and long-term development projects 
in that country.
  A preliminary assessment by the Faculty of Agriculture and Food 
Security at the American University of Beirut suggests that commodities 
such as corn, soybeans, alfalfa, rice, and red meats would be well 
suited to the country's needs and circumstances. These commodities have 
high water requirements and are therefore not produced in water-scarce 
Lebanon.
  Agriculture is an important sector in the Lebanese economy, and there 
are many areas in which its economic performance could be improved by 
investments in irrigation networks, an agricultural extension service, 
modern agricultural processing and marketing systems, scholarships, or 
endowments for agricultural science, establishment of a land resource 
database, or many other investments important to developing an 
agricultural economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to consider the importance of Lebanon 
to a long-lasting Middle East peace and urge the Departments of State 
and Agriculture to think creatively about ways to use American 
agricultural surpluses to sustain the peace process.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. As I have 
said earlier in the day, I do so with great regret, because I had hoped 
that, in the course of the legislative process, we would be able to 
come up with a bill that would meet the needs that we have as a leader 
in the world as well as one that addressed our concerns about export 
finance and helping to promote U.S. products abroad.
  I do this, though, with great admiration and commendation to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Agencies. He did the best that he could with what he had, and that was 
not much. It was not enough. But he did have a balanced set of 
priorities in the bill that he did right.
  I take issue, though, with what has been said here in this discussion 
so far and earlier when we debated the rule. It has been said that 
there is not going to be any more money for foreign aid because the 
Democrats want to take money from the Social Security fund to spend it 
on foreign aid.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and his colleagues know 
that that is a disingenuous proposal. The fact is that this bill would 
not be supported by the organization that the gentleman cited as 
supporting this bill unless they knew that the funding for the Wye 
agreement would be put before this Congress and put before this 
Congress soon.
  So do not on the one hand tell us we do not want to spend any more 
money on foreign aid and then on the other hand tell the outside 
groups, do not worry, the money for the Wye River agreement will be in 
the bill, just later, so we can make a presentation that says we do not 
want to spend money on foreign aid. They do, and they want to take it 
out of one's Social Security, when they know very well that that money 
is going to be in this bill but at a time that will not be in time for 
the Wye River agreement. That is why I have a serious concern.
  The commitments for the assistance to the parties made at Wye River 
have become even more important now given the new timetable outlined in 
the Sharm-El-Sheikh agreement. This agreement calls for the completion 
of the framework status negotiations by February of next year.
  The Wye funds are targeted to fund critical activities for both 
Israel and the Palestinians. It would make these negotiations more 
viable.
  There are conflicting messages, as I said, coming from the other side 
about whether the Wye agreement, Wye funding would occur this fall. I 
for one say it is very, very important for us to have the money in this 
bill. Let us be honest with the American people about what funding is 
necessary for us to honor our commitments.
  There are also other cuts in the allocation that are serious in 
addition: Two hundred twelve million dollars or 31 percent is cut from 
the President's request for democratization and economic recovery 
programs in Africa, Latin America, and Asia that are meant to give the 
administration tools to respond to new threats and crises.
  Five hundred million dollars is cut from international banking 
lending programs to the poorest countries in the world, including from 
IDA, the Asia America Development Bank, InterAmerican Bank, and from 
the environmental mitigation programs of the global environmental 
facility. Eighty-seven million dollars is cut from debt relief 
programs. The additional resources the administration requested to fund 
the new historic G-7 plan for debt relief has not even been considered.
  Two hundred ninety-seven million dollars was cut for the New 
Independent States programs, severely cutting back on the funding for 
combined threat reduction initiative. Also cutting funds for pro-reform 
governments, nongovernmental democratic reforms, and nuclear threat 
reductions. And $80 million is cut from the request for the Ex-Im bank 
which helps American companies sell their products abroad.

[[Page 23868]]

  I enumerate some of these cuts for the following reasons: Three of 
the pillars of our foreign policy which ensure our national security 
are stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This 
bill cuts the funding for that.
  Promoting democratic values throughout the world so that we are 
dealing with democratic governments, not authoritarian regimes which 
attack their neighbors and oppress their people. That funding is cut 
from this bill.
  The funding for the Ex-Im Bank. One of the pillars of our foreign 
policy is growing our economy by promoting our exports abroad. That 
funding is cut $80 million in the Ex-Im Bank alone.
  When we are cooperating with other countries to help them grow their 
economies and promote their democracies, we are doing what is the right 
thing. But we are also developing markets for U.S. products abroad.
  All of what we talk about in this bill is in the national interest of 
the United States. We are a great country. We are probably the greatest 
country that ever existed on the face of the earth. Yet, we act like 
pikers. We do not understand what our responsibilities are in the world 
when it comes time to living up to our responsibilities. Certainly we 
intend to save Social Security. We intend to save it first.
  The Democrats will be second to none in saving Social Security. But 
do not hand this Congress and this country a bill of goods to say that 
my colleagues are not going to spend the money on the Wye River 
agreements when we know that they are. If they were not going to, there 
would be no way an organization like AIPAC would be supporting this 
bill, as the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) indicated that 
they were. They know they have a guarantee that that money will be 
there.
  Well, we want it there now when it is in time for the February 
framework talks. We want our colleagues to be honest with this Congress 
about how much money will be spent.
  When they do the Wye River money, are they contending that that money 
will be coming out of the Social Security account? If they are 
contending it when we are proposing it, then they have to contend it 
then. I do not think it is in either case.
  So I encourage our colleagues to let us be honest about what we are 
talking about here today. Let us live up to our responsibilities. I 
said earlier today, the city I am proud to represent, San Francisco, 
was named for Saint Francis. The prayer to Saint Francis is our anthem.
  The first line is familiar to my colleagues while they may not 
recognize its title. That is, ``Oh, Lord, make us a channel of thy 
peace.''
  Our country can be a channel of peace in the Middle East, in the 
Balkans, in Northern Ireland, and other places throughout the world, 
but we cannot do it unless we have the resources to commit to promoting 
pro-democratic reform and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. And we cannot do it unless we have the appropriate tools 
for the administration to carry out that great mandate that our country 
has.
  Why should we, this great country, be about the last per capita in 
terms of the assistance and the cooperation we provide to other 
countries in the world?
  So let us heed the words of John F. Kennedy who at his inauguration, 
my colleagues may be tired of hearing me say this, but it is my clarion 
call. Following his very famous statement, ``My fellow Americans, ask 
not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your 
country.'' The very next sentence said, ``Citizens of the world, ask 
not what America can do for you; but what we can do working together 
for the freedom of mankind.''
  For the freedom of mankind, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
bill until we can come back to the floor with a product that we can all 
be proud of, and we can all support. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out just how small a part of 
the Federal budget this foreign cooperation and assistance is. It is 
this little blue line in this big yellow pie.
  So we are not talking about an opportunity cost for anyone in America 
taking money from anything else. What we are talking about is investing 
in a way that it rebounds to the benefit of every person in our country 
in terms of peace and freedom and exports abroad for America.
  So I urge my colleagues to see what a small percentage, less than 1 
percent, less than 1 percent, 0.68 percent of the national budget is 
spent on this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I might just address the chart that the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) was talking about, that little sliver of pie. 
What she fails to say is that, included in our foreign aid policy is 
foreign assistance in the form of the military.
  Every time there is a problem in the world, they call on the United 
States of America. They called on us in Kosovo. They called on us at 
Desert Storm. They called on us at Haiti. Part of that pie must be 
expanded.
  That sliver becomes almost half the pie of our domestic spending 
because we utilize our military as foreign assistance to these 
countries who cannot afford to defend themselves, including Israel, 
because every time Israel is in trouble, the United States of America, 
where do my colleagues think we get the money for those missiles to 
shoot down those missiles that Saddam Hussein was shooting, that is 
part of our foreign assistance. No country can stand up to the United 
States of America when it comes to spending money to protecting and 
helping our allies.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. He is 
exactly right. Very much of the military budget is for foreign aid 
purposes and for foreign policy purposes. How much more expensive it is 
to go into an area because our foreign policy did not work.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), one of the members of our subcommittee, a 
man very knowledgeable in all aspects of foreign policy.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report to H.R. 2606, the Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations 
Bill for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Agencies.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I want to again commend the 
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for the outstanding work 
that he has done, hard work. Shepherding an appropriations bill, 
particularly this bill, to the process is no easy task. Yet, he has 
done it with diligence and impartiality, and he has done it, frankly, 
with extraordinary fairness, I think; and I commend him for that.
  I also, of course, want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the ranking member. I am disappointed that she is going to 
oppose this bill.
  But I want to thank the staff as well who have contributed so much to 
bringing this bill to the floor in a shape I think that is 
satisfactory.
  From the beginning, we have worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft a 
foreign operations bill that reflects our Nation's international 
priorities, and the chairman mentioned those, while adhering to the 
budget constraints that we face today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight on a provision 
in the conference report designed to prevent back-door implementation 
of the Kyoto Protocol.
  Despite what was said during consideration of the rule, in no way 
does this provision prevent the United States from engaging developing 
countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change signed by 
President Bush in 1992 and ratified by the Senate. Specifically, 
Articles 4, 6, and 17 allow voluntary measures and give developed 
country parties authority to engage in

[[Page 23869]]

international education, listen carefully, international education, 
develop technologies, promote sustainable development, and assist 
vulnerable developing countries.
  I point out to my colleagues that not one of these activities arises 
out of the Kyoto Protocol.
  The funding prohibition states that no fund shall be used to 
implement or prepare to implement the Kyoto protocol.

                              {time}  1745

  Not one of the aforementioned diplomatic activities arising out of 
the U.N. Framework Convention is prevented by this prohibition.
  The administration is free to engage developing countries under the 
U.N. Framework Convention. However, the administration cannot cross the 
line and engage other nations regarding ratification and implementation 
of the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States deems totally unworthy 
of ratification and implementation.
  The conference report was crafted, again, in a bipartisan fashion and 
taking into consideration all of the views, certainly of everybody in 
this House. And the subcommittee, I think, has worked very well to 
bring all this together. 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 certainly on the other side to rethink their 
thoughts about voting against this bill. We need to support this 
conference report.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), a very distinguished member of the subcommittee 
and a champion for democracy and peace throughout the world.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, during the August debate, I was quite clear in 
expressing my strong reservations about this foreign aid bill. But I 
voted for it, hoping that some of the most egregious funding cuts would 
be remedied in conference and the overall flaws in the bill would be 
repaired through bipartisan negotiations.
  I want to commend my friend and our distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and our ranking member and my 
good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for their 
hard work in crafting this bill. Despite their best efforts, however, I 
believe that this bill, plagued by poor funding levels from the start, 
still has serious problems.
  The $12.6 billion measure remains $2 billion under the President's 
request, $1 billion below last year's level. Passing an inadequate 
foreign aid package will severely harm the United States' ability to 
maintain its position of leadership in world affairs.
  And referring to the comments before of my good friend and chairman, 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), in my judgment it will be a 
costly mistake. Conflict and problems that could be avoided with a 
modest allocation today may turn into expensive crises down the road. I 
would think that by now we should all have learned that lesson.
  Let me take a moment to highlight a few of the conference report's 
biggest problems, in my judgment. First, the Wye River aid package is 
nowhere to be found. Implementation of the Wye agreement between the 
Israelis and the Palestinians is now on track and steadily moving 
forward. Both sides have begun to act on their commitments, and we must 
act on ours. But we have received no commitment from the leadership to 
include Wye in this fiscal year. Waiting until the spring for a 
supplemental is just unacceptable. This is a priority of the United 
States foreign policy, and it should be addressed immediately. Now is a 
dangerous time to turn our backs on the Middle East.
  Secondly, debt relief in this bill is woefully underfunded. A debt 
relief program for the highly indebted poorest countries is not even 
authorized.
  To further burden the poorest of the poor, the bill cuts $175 million 
from the International Development Association. IDA is the primary 
World Bank lender on primary health care, basic education, microcredit, 
and a number of other critical development programs.
  And in a final blow to the poorest of the poor, the bill provides $22 
million less than the President's request for international 
organizations and programs. This will be disastrous for the United 
Nations Development Program, which attacks the roots of poverty by 
creating jobs, promoting economic growth, and providing education and 
basic social services. Underfunding this program will decrease our 
contribution to UNDP and will decrease United States leadership in this 
critical organization.
  The list of underfunded accounts is too long to enumerate. The bill 
is not good for our programs in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and 
throughout the world.
  I stated very clearly during the initial House debate on this measure 
that my continued support was contingent upon an increase in overall 
funding levels and inclusion of the Wye aid package. I had high hopes 
that we would craft a final package that would merit everyone's 
support. But, regrettably, I must oppose this measure. I think we can 
do better, and I think that in the interest of our national security we 
need to try.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. 
Let us hope we can get back together again, work in a bipartisan way, 
and meet our priorities. The United States is the leader of the world. 
And, again, I think by investing now, we are saving millions and 
millions of dollars later on.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
the foreign operations conference report, and I want to commend the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), for 
performing magnificently under very difficult circumstances.
  I especially commend the gentleman from Alabama for the sections in 
his bill on family planning. While the gentleman has differing views, 
this bill clearly reflects the will of the House on U.S. contribution 
for the U.N.'s Population Fund.
  Next week, the 6 billionth person will be born on this planet. When I 
was born, we had just over 2 billion people. World population is 
growing at such a rapid pace, we will likely have to support 12 billion 
people before our world's population stabilizes. It is long past due 
that we address this problem by rejoining the UNFPA.
  I also want my colleagues to know that while this bill regrettably 
does not have the vital Wye River Accord Middle East Peace funding, it 
does contain over $5 billion in current funding for our partners in the 
Arab-Israeli peace process. No one really doubts that Congress will 
eventually approve the Wye River Accord funding, which the gentleman 
from Alabama supports. And I am confident that that will happen. What 
is important to remember now is that this bill contains the full 
regular funding for our Israeli allies and their partners in peace.
  This foreign operations appropriations legislation fully funds the 
administration's request to wage our war on drugs at its source and 
continues vital support for the International Fund for Ireland to 
promote economic justice at a critical point in the peace process.
  I also commend the chairman and his committee for sustaining other 
key programs to support microenterprise development programs. These 
programs are the only ones that truly work in reaching the poorest of 
the poor throughout the world.
  Moreover, this bill contains important funding to fight the spread of 
highly contagious tropical diseases. Our country already suffers from 
the AIDS epidemic that swept out of central Africa. My home State of 
New York now suffers from a new outbreak of encephalitis. We are going 
to have to

[[Page 23870]]

fight these diseases far from our shores to prevent future outbreaks of 
that nature.
  On the whole, this legislation is a good compromise, supporting our 
key allies in programs with the limited resources we have in this 
year's budget. We all wish we could do more, but we are also committed 
to protecting Social Security and other important social programs. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this foreign 
operations appropriations legislation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished ranking Democratic member on 
the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her wonderful leadership in international 
relations and foreign affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the conference report 
for H.R. 2606, the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2000. This bill makes drastic cuts in vital foreign assistance 
programs and endangers the lives of millions of children and families 
who live in poverty in Africa and Latin America.
  This conference report cuts funding for debt relief for poor 
countries to only $33 million. That is $87 million below the 
President's request. Moreover, it completely eliminates funding for the 
Highly Indebted Poor Countries, HIPC, initiative that provides debt 
relief to countries that desperately need it.
  Last week, the International Monetary Fund, IMF, held its 1999 annual 
meeting right here in Washington, D.C. At this meeting, President 
Clinton announced his support for the cancellation of 100 percent of 
the debts owed by poor countries to the United States. As the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary 
Policy of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I 
applaud the President's decision; and I urge Congress to appropriate 
the funds necessary to make full debt cancellation a reality.
  Many impoverished countries have been forced to make drastic cuts in 
essential social services, such as health and education, in order to 
make payments on their debts. In Tanzania, debt service payments in 
1997 were equal to nine times the spending on basic health services and 
four times the spending on basic education. In Nicaragua, over half of 
the government's revenue was allocated to debt service payments in 
1997. This was equivalent to 2\1/2\ times the spending on health and 
education combined. Now is the time for Congress to cut debt relief 
funding.
  This inhumane conference report cuts funding for the African 
Development Fund to $77 million. That is $50 million below the 
administration's request. The African Development Fund is a vitally 
important program which provides low-interest loans to poor countries 
in Africa. Furthermore, the conference report also cuts funding for the 
African Development Bank, which provides market-rate loans to 
qualifying African countries.
  The conference report also cuts refugee assistance to $625 million, 
which is $35 million below the administration's request. There are 6 
million refugees and internally displaced people in Africa today. The 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said recently that the 
world is neglecting the plight of African refugees. Now is not the time 
to cut funding for refugees.
  I just want to say that some people who would like to make it 
difficult for us to get up here and be advocates for other parts of the 
world would have us believe that we are taking the taxpayers' money and 
we are literally throwing it at undeserving people. Well, I do not 
think that is true. We are leaders, and we should act like leaders and 
do the right thing by these very poor countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this conference report.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There has been a lot of conversation about debt forgiveness for these 
poorer nations or developing countries. Let me tell my colleagues when 
that came to our attention. Two weeks ago, as we were in the middle of 
our conference, then the President requested that we include an 
additional $900 million. That was right after his trip to Africa where 
he took the 1,700 people with him and at the same time spent $47 
million of taxpayer money entertaining his friends in Africa. Then he 
comes back and says we want an additional billion dollars to forgive 
debt.
  Let me tell my colleagues where that debt came from. The World Bank 
loaned it to these countries. So what we are saying is, we are going to 
forgive these countries and pay back the World Bank. We have already 
given the money to the World Bank. The World Bank made a bad 
investment, because these people cannot repay their loans. Now we are 
saying let us forgive their debts and open up their books to the poor 
where they will be more solvent and can borrow more money.
  They are not willing to say we will not borrow more money and get 
right back in the same shape we are in. When the people who borrowed 
the money that were running these countries at that time absconded, 
they did not spend it on the bridges; they did not spend it on health 
care. They took the money, and they put it in Swiss banks. So now they 
want us to forgive the debt. Well, maybe that would be the right way to 
go if they would agree not to borrow any more money.
  But the point is that personifies the argument I have been making 
about the President's foreign policy trips. He goes overseas, and he 
takes 1,700 of his closest friends with him, with the taxpayers paying 
the bill. They go over there and hold the glasses of wine up, and the 
President says, relief is coming. And then he comes back and he calls 
me, and he tells me to include $900 million more than what I have 
already requested.

                              {time}  1800

  And then it becomes an obligation. All of my colleagues, my great 
friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), which are standing up saying fulfill the 
President's request. He just requested it a couple of weeks ago.
  So how can we wait every week for the President to make another trip 
and come back and say, Sonny, now we need some money for Macedonia. Now 
we need some money for Albania. Whenever he goes, he comes back with a 
commitment he thinks that we must respond to.
  So we can talk about all of this debt forgiveness we want. The 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) mentioned the African 
Development Bank, said we cut them. We did not cut them. We gave them 
$1 million. We got zero last year. So we actually gave them more money 
than we got last year. And that was at the request of the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). He came back, and said we need to do this. 
So we gave it to them. Now they are saying, That is not enough. Now we 
need another $2 billion.
  Well, if we carry this thing over for another week or if we carry it 
over to October 21 when the continuing resolution comes out, good Lord, 
the President might make another trip and then the $2 billion he is 
requesting is going to turn into $3 billion. So let us go ahead and 
pass this thing today. Tell the President to catch up, slow down on his 
trips, slow down on his promises, and let us keep this budget balanced, 
keep Social Security intact, and maintain a strong national defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a leader in 
international relations for our country, a member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I 
have a great deal of affection for both the chair and the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. Even as we speak, my 
office is seeking

[[Page 23871]]

to facilitate one of the chairman's most recent requests.
  But even though ever since Mr. Callahan has become chairman of that 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I have never before voted against a 
foreign operations bill or a conference report. I am compelled to do so 
now.
  There are only two groups of people who should oppose this conference 
report: one are people who hate foreign aid, because this is $12.7 
billion of foreign aid; the other group are the people who like foreign 
aid, because this bill is woefully inadequate to meet the needs we have 
now.
  That is not the fault of the chairman. He was given an allocation. He 
has done as well as he could possibly have done with that allocation. 
But the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
have all pointed out defects in this bill.
  I want to focus on one particular item in the bill that is $1.9 
billion less than the President requested, a cut of more than 13 
percent. We are not talking 1 percent here, 3 percent, a 13 percent cut 
from the President's request, a billion dollars below last year's 
funding level, and when we count for inflation, way below any other 
bill that the chairman has asked us to vote for in the past.
  But on the particular issue that he has spoken about with respect to 
the Middle East, this bill does not meet the administration's request 
or the interests that are served by promoting the peace process in the 
Middle East. Because this bill includes no funding for the Wye 
plantation supplemental request of the administration.
  Now, some in the leadership on the other side say, oh, well, we will 
do that later. And I say, when? This year? And they say, oh, no, no, 
not necessarily. It might be next year. And I say to not do the Wye 
supplemental, to not appropriate those monies before the February 
framework agreement is to tell both parties that America's commitments 
cannot be accounted on, that the sacrifices and the compromises that 
need to be made cannot be carried out because the funding will not be 
there.
  Who knows what is going to happen next spring or next summer when the 
Republican leadership may choose to bring up a supplemental, and who 
knows what will be in that supplemental. This is the time to deal with 
it. This is when we are concluding our budget request. This accord is 
being implemented as the parties agree now, and we can do no less than 
to try to fund something that is so essential to American foreign 
policy interests.
  I urge a no vote on the conference report.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), who is a 
super guy and good friend of mine. And it has nothing to do with 
friendship, but I might tell my colleagues, he mentioned that there 
would be certain groups of people and mentioned how they ought to vote.
  Let me tell my colleagues, there are some other groups of people they 
might consider, too. We might consider that they are the fiscally 
responsible group, those people who think that we ought to continue to 
have a surplus rather than creating another deficit as we encountered 
during the first, I guess, 30 years before we took charge of this 
House. So we have the fiscally responsible group who ought to vote for 
this bill because it reduces foreign aid.
  Secondly, we have those of us who think that we ought to make 
absolutely certain that Social Security remains solvent. Who knows, we 
might even be able to solve the notch-baby problem if indeed we can 
make certain that Social Security is solvent. Who knows what the future 
holds there.
  There are those of us who want to maintain a surplus instead of the 
deficit that we experienced for the 40 years before we finally, just 
during the last 2 or 3 years, reached this magnificent level of a 
surplus instead of a deficit. So there are many groups that ought to 
look at this bill from many different points of view.
  One of them, those who want to protect Social Security, those who 
want to maintain a surplus instead of going back to deficit spending, 
those who want to protect the national defense, because one suggestion 
came that we take away money from the national defense and give it to 
foreign aid. This is a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the 
Democratic ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the charm of the chairman of 
the committee and the grace of the gentlewoman from California. I do 
not.
  But let me say it as plainly as I can. It is not the fault of the 
chairman. They have got a disastrous budgetary process forced on them 
by the whip and the leadership of their party. They refused to really 
sit down and work out a bipartisan proposal. And the failure of this 
particular bill will cost us an enormous amount of more money.
  We spent a billion dollars under George Bush in Haiti trying to deal 
with refugees that was flooding Florida, as the chairman of the full 
committee understands. We spent $61 billion on the Gulf War. We got a 
lot of that back. But we had to lay out most of it up front. We have 
spent $5 billion on Kosovo.
  My colleagues do not want this President to travel. I have watched 
the President travel from Ireland to Israel. Wherever this President 
has traveled, America's interests have succeeded; and he has moved the 
peace process forward. We ought to encourage him to continue to do that 
because it is better for America.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
good friend of mine to tell him that I do not mind the President 
traveling. I think the President should travel.
  We all know that in the last year and a half of any presidential 
term, especially when he is a lame duck, that every President wants to 
build up an international image. So we can expect the President to 
travel. I encourage that.
  Use Air Force One, that magnificent airplane. Fly all over the world. 
Impress people. But do not take 1,700 people with him, do not spend $47 
million every time the wheels touch down; and every time a glass of 
wine is raised, do not promise these countries the moon and expect it 
to be an obligation on the part of the Congress of the United States to 
fund.
  So let me encourage the President to travel. I wish he would go ahead 
and be gone this week. We could probably settle all this stuff if he 
would just take a trip. Just do not take 1,700 people with him. Do not 
take a blank checkbook and make all these promises and expect me to 
come before this floor and convince the American people that they ought 
to cut back on their spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say I should have added 
``charm''. I wish I was as articulate, but the proposition of my 
colleagues is wrong. We have got a proposal before us that does not 
meet America's interest. We ought to vote this down and come back with 
a bipartisan solution that deals with America's foreign policy 
interests. I thank the gentleman for his graciousness.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the gentleman would yield 
himself some more time so he could yield to me. He is so generous.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds in order to facilitate 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) as I have facilitated her 
at every segment of this process.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has been most gracious. It is 
just that there is not enough money in the bill to meet our 
international responsibilities. But I did want to point out because the 
gentleman said that the President asked for $900 million. That, as the 
gentleman knows, is not just for this year but over a period of time.

[[Page 23872]]

  I also want to make sure I am inferring correctly from the remarks of 
the gentleman that since we are not going to spend any more money that 
there will be no money for the Wye Agreement. That is the conclusion 
that I draw from the statements that have been made by the gentleman 
and the other speakers from his side.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleague that the Wye Agreement request 
was not in the President's request. He did not submit that in the 
budget he sent over here. That came as an afterthought. And now we are 
saying, well, the President not only wants $2 billion more, he wants $2 
billion plus the Wye monies. So we are really talking about the 
President wanting $4 billion more than what is suggested here in this 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very 
much for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise because I heard during the debate on the rule 
that we do not want to spend our money abroad, that we should not be 
spending all these tax dollars. Well, I suggest that we spend more 
money here at home that will have an effect all over the world.
  I suggest that we do that by spending more money on the Peace Corps. 
It may sound like a broken record, but the Peace Corps has been our 
most effective and most popular foreign aid program.
  The President requested more money for the Peace Corps because of the 
demand out there by the countries in which it serves up. The countries 
want us and American citizens want to participate in the Peace Corps. 
The only thing that is holding us from supplying that demand is the 
money that we appropriate.
  Now, it is not the fault of this House. It has been terrific. The 
chairman of the committee has been terrific. But it is the 
appropriators on the other side. I suggest that those Americans who are 
interested in the Peace Corps and want more money in the Peace Corps 
ought to be petitioning the Members on the other side, particularly the 
appropriators, to put at least as much money in the budget as the House 
has.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the 
ranking member the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the 
time and certainly thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) 
for his very evenhanded approach to drafting the House version of the 
foreign operations bill under very tight budget constraints.
  Unfortunately, the conference report further cuts programs that I 
feel are vital to serving those who are less fortunate around the 
world. I guess the questions that many of us are trying to ask today 
is, if not now, when?
  I was in the meeting when the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations met 
with Prime Minister Barak from Israel, where we gave him the impression 
that in this foreign operations bill that we would meet some of the Wye 
money agreement. There is no evidence in this bill that we are going do 
that. So, if not now, when will we do it?
  We made commitments to the Palestinian authority. If not now, when 
will we honor these commitments? We made commitments to the Jordanians. 
If not now, when will we honor these commitments?
  What are the costs associated with peace in the Middle East 
completely collapsing? Have we measured it in terms of cost to our 
national defense, to our national security in the Middle East what 
those costs ultimately will be?
  I cannot thank the chairman enough for the $1 million that he was 
kind enough to appropriate to fulfill one of our commitments to the 
African Development Bank. It is not enough, but it clearly is a start.
  I am also seriously concerned about the low level of funding for debt 
restructuring, only $33 million, $87 million below the administration's 
request.
  Many nations in sub-Saharan Africa are suffering from crushing levels 
of debt, both bilateral and multilateral, and these nations will never 
become self-sufficient until we help decrease some of these debt 
levels.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the question becomes: If not now, if not in a 
regular appropriations bill, at what point in time will we begin to 
measure these deficits in terms of national security, in terms of our 
obligations beyond our borders so that we can have a sustainable growth 
and sustainable development in the world, which will ultimately cost us 
if in fact the development is not sustainable and it is not growing?

                              {time}  1815

  I have really enjoyed working on the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and I certainly urge 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this inadequate 
conference report.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the debate in my office, 
and I was compelled to come to the floor because I heard the gentleman 
outline some priorities we as a nation should adhere to, and the first 
priority should be domestic spending.
  Now I have heard a lot of talk today about our responsibility around 
the world, and I agree we have a severe and awesome responsibility. But 
at the end of the day some of us who have voted to help Head Start, 
National Endowment for the Arts on this side of the aisle, that have 
participated in AIDS funding and things vitally important to our 
Nation, and I have to hear the demagoguery coming from the other side 
that we are being cheap?
  Let us find out how cheap we have been over these decades. Let us 
think about the money that went out of our taxpayers' wallets to 
Duvalier and the Marcoses and all these other regimes that pocketed our 
money and sent them to Swiss bank accounts.
  And let us talk about fiscal stewardship. We are in this Congress 
trying to save Social Security, and I keep hearing this constant 
refrain from the other side: we are being cheap. Well, Mr. Speaker, 
right outside the capitol door there are Vietnam veterans living 
homeless. We are doing nothing about them. But somehow today in foreign 
ops we have got to sit here, criticize the leadership, criticize the 
Republicans, call it a stacked deck. Somehow we are not caring for our 
overseas commitments. Has anybody asked where the money is from the IMF 
that went to the Russian drug lords? Has anybody asked where that cash 
is?
  The taxpayers of the United States of America are home right now 
paying the bills, and they pay them every April 15, and they pay them 
every day, and they pay our salaries, and we have to sit here and 
listen to this nonsense about our commitment and our responsibility.
  And I accept the notion we have that, and I respect the President. He 
has done wonderfully on the Wye accord, he has done wonderfully in 
Northern Ireland. My God, he has been everywhere in the world, saving 
the world, helping Africa. God bless America and God bless him. But at 
the end of the day we have to save our own people's Social Security, we 
have to provide and protect Medicare, we have to help our children in 
education. We have to do for our own people at times and sacrifice some 
of the spending in foreign operations. And I applaud the gentleman for 
his leadership; I applaud the gentleman from Florida who has done a 
masterful job on the appropriation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am going to encourage my 
colleagues to vote against this measure. I will agree with the previous

[[Page 23873]]

speaker that being a Member of Congress is all about setting 
priorities, and I will agree with him that the priorities start here at 
home.
  This is a list from a recent Washington Post article that talked 
about young people in the United States military living on food stamps 
and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Turns out that there is 
about 12,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are eligible 
for food stamps. Now in the defense authorization bill that was signed 
today, they got a 4.8 percent increase, but do my colleagues know what? 
4.8 percent of nothing is still nothing, and we are not doing enough 
for them.
  This young lady is the wife of a United States marine. Same article. 
She is picking up a used mattress off the side of the road so that 
other young marines will have someplace to sleep. 4.8 percent of 
nothing is nothing.
  This is a young Marine lance corporal. His name is Harry Schein. He 
works two part-time jobs so that he can live on his salary that he 
earns as a United States marine.
  It is all about setting priorities.
  In this bill is $5 billion for two relatively wealthy countries 
called Israel and Egypt. I happen to think that taking care of those 
folks is more important. I hope that a majority of my colleagues will 
think the same way.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
  I note that the gentleman from Mississippi was arguing my case. I 
assume he is supporting the bill because we are trying to save the $2 
billion out of the national defense that probably some are suggesting 
that we take in order that we can provide for these military people. 
With respect to the assistance to Israel and Egypt, it was this 
chairman that negotiated the reduction that is going to wean Israel 
from all economic support that then-Prime Minister Netayanhu agreed to. 
So we cut Israel by $60 million and $120 million in economic support, 
we cut Egypt, and we cut foreign aid.
  So the gentleman, no doubt, was arguing in favor of a yes vote on 
this bill because we are doing exactly what he wants us to do.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committee on 
Commerce and an expert on environmental protection in the world.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in strong opposition to this 
bill as it stands, and I would like to alert my colleagues to something 
they may not know in that this bill unfortunately is infected with one 
of the host of anti-environmental riders that have really infested our 
appropriations process this year.
  This bill currently has in it language which would shackle and stop 
the United States of America from negotiating with other countries, 
particularly developing nations, to try to get them to join us in 
efforts to stop greenhouse gas emissions from continuing, to do 
something about global warming. We must move forward to get other 
nations to join us.
  Section 583 specifically says that none of the funds appropriated by 
this act shall be used for issuing rules, regulations, decrees or 
orders for the purpose of implementation or in preparation, in 
preparation for implementation of the Kyoto treaty. This is a major 
defect in this bill. Why is it there? We have alerted the committee to 
this problem, but this language is there because unfortunately there 
are those who want to act like an ostrich and put our Nation's head in 
the sands and not deal with this problem.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this bill, take this out, and 
reconsider the issue.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) who is a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations as well and is very well knowledgeable in the foreign 
operations aspect of this.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the statement of managers notes that HIV/
AIDS is much more of a problem in Africa than perhaps any other 
country. It has great consequences for economic and political 
stability. The Morehouse School of Medicine, which is the only African 
American school to be started in this century, can be and should be 
part of the solution as we address this horrible problem of AIDS. The 
President of Morehouse School of Medicine is the distinguished Dr. 
Lewis W. Sullivan, the former Secretary of HHS.
  And the Senate has earmarked $5.5 million dollars in this effort. 
Accordingly, AID must not delay informing a partnership with Morehouse 
so that AID resources that focus on Africa can be maximized to their 
fullest extent. There exists a strong community of interests between 
the people of sub-Saharan Africa and the African-American citizens of 
our Nation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in this bill additional new 
resources were added by the managers to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, yes, that is correct. HIV or AIDS in 
Africa is a major issue, and Morehouse can certainly play an important 
role in fighting HIV/AIDS. I hope that the gentleman from Georgia has 
been able to convey my willingness to assist Morehouse College and 
especially the gentleman in whose district Morehouse college is, that 
it is imperative that we have a foreign aid bill in order to facilitate 
Morehouse, and I hope that the gentleman from Georgia can talk to his 
colleagues who are interested in seeing Morehouse College participate 
in this program, of the importance of voting yes on this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Obey for 11 years, I believe, was the 
Chair of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related Programs and is well aware of the challenge that we have.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) for the time. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years this House has been 
wrapped around the axle on foreign aid, or at least for 2 of those 
years because of Mexico City policy. For years those who supported the 
Mexico City provisions on family planning felt that that was so 
important that they needed to block assistance to some of the poorest 
people on the face of the globe. It was so important that they had to 
stop our payments of debts that we owed to the U.N. for years. It was 
so important that we had to block our contributions to the IMF in the 
middle of the Asian financial crisis last year.
  But then this morning the Washington Post carries a story which 
indicates that the majority whip told the Republican caucus last night 
that they had to pass this bill as is today without Mexico City if they 
wanted to remain in control of the House of Representatives. So 
suddenly conviction apparently evaporates. It took us 2 years to learn 
that? I am really impressed. So much for conviction, so much for 
principle.
  I think we need to understand why this is being done. It is being 
done so that the majority party can continue to prevent or to pretend 
that they are preventing this spending of the Social Security surplus 
for the coming year. The fact is that my colleagues have already spent, 
Mr. Speaker, they have already spent almost $25 billion of next year's 
Social Security surplus, and they know it even if they do not want to 
admit it. The soundness of Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do 
with this bill.
  This year and next year we will wind up paying down over $230 worth 
of debt. That is far and away the best thing we will have done to 
strengthen Social Security over the past 20 years. Only our Republican 
friends on the majority side can take a success like this and turn it 
into a crisis through false rhetoric. What this bill does do is fail to 
keep our word in the Middle East, it fails to do everything that we 
ought to be doing to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons within the 
former Soviet Union.
  It is another of the long list of items by which the majority 
politicizes foreign policy to the detriment of us all,

[[Page 23874]]

and it would be funny if it were not so sad. The majority party's 
budget, the plans which were announced today, declines to meet our 
responsibilities in housing, it declines to meet our responsibilities 
in education, it declines to meet our responsibilities in health care, 
it declines to meet our responsibilities to veterans, and a whole host 
of other crucial initiatives domestically and internationally.
  This bill declines our responsibility to meet our international 
obligations and to defend our international interests as aggressively 
as we can. As the gentlewoman has indicated, this bill, under our 
colleague's level or anybody else's is far less than 1 percent of our 
total national budget. That is a small price to pay for protecting our 
national interests around the world, and I think we do a discredit to 
this body and the political dialog that takes place here when we 
pretend that this bill has anything whatsoever to do with Social 
Security.

                              {time}  1830

  That is a small price to pay for protecting our national interests 
around the world, and I think we do a discredit to this body and to the 
political dialogue that takes place here when we pretend that this bill 
has anything whatsoever to do with Social Security.
  The only people I know who believe that are the people who are saying 
it. It is a laughing stock to everyone else in the country who hears 
it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, in doing so I want to point out a couple of issues that 
have come up in the course of the debate. First, let me say that I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this bill because it is beneath the 
greatness of our country.
  We have an opportunity for peace in the Middle East, and yet this 
bill does not include funding to the Wye River agreement, this historic 
opportunity. When Prime Minister Barak was here we all commended him, 
wished him well, and now we have no money to help meet our commitment 
to the Wye River agreement. Contrary to what has been said here, the 
President did make a request for the Wye River funding in his February 
budget submission, so this committee has in a timely fashion had that 
request.
  Not only do we not include the Wye River funding, we removed the $100 
million for Jordan, a commitment that we made to King Hussein with his 
strong commitment to peace. He gave his life for peace, and we are 
removing the funding from the bill, while saying all along that it is 
an emergency that we help Jordan through this transition time. This 
opportunity in Wye River can be missed if we do not have the money now.
  As I say, our colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot wink 
at that constituency that is concerned about Middle East peace with the 
idea it will be there later, and then say if we put it in today it is 
coming out of the Social Security fund. That simply is not a 
straightforward approach to this problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to save money too. This budget has been declining 
since the middle 1980s. We have a very low budget figure we are 
requesting. It is the least we can do for freedom and democracy and 
peace in the world.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at long last we are going to reach that stage where we 
get to vote on this document. I love this place, and I love the 
personalities here and the people here. We have so many brilliant 
people with such diverse opinions that it is interesting to witness, as 
a Member of this House, the greatness of this House.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin used to chair this very committee that I 
chair. I was a member of his subcommittee. But I will remind him when 
he was chairman of that subcommittee they created a $100 billion 
deficit, in addition to the Social Security monies. Now in the last few 
years, we have been able to reverse that. And now we have a $100 
billion surplus. What a great accomplishment.
  I do not take credit for doing all this by myself. I had a lot of 
help. The President takes credit for doing a lot of it, and he had a 
lot of help.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the gentleman that I led the 
opposition to those budgets 7 years in a row, the Reagan budgets, which 
saddled this country with $4 trillion worth of unnecessary debt.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this was during the 
Clinton administration.
  I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the President comes to the 
Congress, and this President has come to the Congress, and he has 
requested emergency supplemental assistance for Bosnia, he has 
requested emergency supplemental assistance for Kosovo, for Honduras, 
for Nicaragua. Now he is coming with Israel, with the Palestinian 
Authority and with Jordan. I will remind you also he came back in the 
middle of last year, in the middle of all of our negotiations, and 
wanted $18 billion for the International Monetary Fund. So we have not 
been discourteous to this President in responding to his needs.
  So we have to second guess what this bill does. I am contending it 
cuts foreign aid. We might second guess what the headlines might be. I 
do not have to go back to Alabama to apologize to anyone when I say 
folks, I voted against increasing foreign aid. They seem to like that, 
when I say to the people of Alabama that we have a more responsible 
piece of legislation because we are earmarking a great portion of it 
for child survival, to make certain that the money goes directly to the 
people we are trying to assist.
  So the headlines might be, ``Callahan votes to reduce foreign aid.'' 
That would be fine with me, if the Mobile paper wants to do that. It 
might say, ``Callahan refuses to respond to the insatiable appetite the 
President has to spend more money.'' It might say, ``Callahan saves 
Social Security.'' It might say, ``Congress refuses the President's 
ridiculous request.'' We do not know what they will say. You can go 
home and answer any of the things your constituents want you to hear.
  I am telling you, this is a responsible piece of legislation that 
responds to the needs of the administrative branch of government, while 
at the same time recognizing the priorities that we, especially on this 
side of the aisle, have, that we are going to insist that Social 
Security not be touched, that we are not going to tolerate taking money 
away from the national defense, as the gentlewoman from California 
suggested in the Committee on Rules, and giving it to foreign aid, and 
that we are not going to increase taxes in order to facilitate the 
whims of this President.
  So, Mr. Speaker, here we are today. We have a responsible bill. Yes, 
it cuts foreign aid. It cuts the President's request, it cuts it from 
last year. It does not raise taxes, it does not touch the Social 
Security program. As a matter of fact, it compliments that program.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the members to vote for this responsible 
bill, and let us deliver it to the President's desk.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  American spending on our foreign policy priorities represents a tiny 
percentage of our national budget. It is clear, however, that modest 
investment in key foreign policy initiatives saves us major expenses 
when regional problems explode into national security crisis. 
Unfortunately, the bill before us today is vastly underfunded. This 
measure will only weaken the world leadership of the United States.
  I want to take a moment to discuss what I believe is the most glaring 
omission in this legislation, the lack of any funding to implement the 
Middle East peace plan signed at Wye. The 1998 Wye Accord was a triumph 
in U.S. diplomacy. This agreement--which carefully balanced Israeli 
security considerations with Palestinian economic and territorial 
gains--put a long-stalled peace process back on track. And the Sharm 
el-Sheikh agreement, which the parties signed just one month ago, has 
already led to the implementation of key components of the Wye accord.
  A successful Middle East peace process is in the security and 
economic interests of the

[[Page 23875]]

United States. Now is clearly not the time for us to renege on the 
pledges we made at Wye. The $1.2 billion Wye package would provide 
critical security assistance to Israel, desperately needed economic aid 
to the Palestinians, and important economic and social funding for 
Jordan.
  Peace in the Middle East has been a paramount U.S. foreign policy 
goal for decades. This long-impossible dream is finally becoming a 
reality. Sadly, the funding bill on the floor today fails to address 
this exciting opportunity. I must oppose the bill and I hope that new 
legislation will be brought forward which enables the United States to 
continue its leadership role in world affairs.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2606--the 
Conference Report on Foreign Operations Appropriations. The report 
moves us in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the conference report 
moves us into a dangerously low budget from foreign opps. Let me just 
say that we spend less than 1% on the total foreign aid budget when we 
spend almost a trillion dollars on defense and other related expenses.
  People in my district when polled thought that we spend close to 15% 
on foreign aid. Recently, Governor Whitman suggested that we cut 
foreign aid to less developed countries. That's greedy and fails to 
accomplish what we are all about. How can we take away the meager $1 a 
day that we give to 1.3 billion of the people in these nations that 
depend on this.
  The conference agreement, which provides $12.6 billion in funding, is 
nearly $2 billion below the President's request and $1 billion less 
than last year's bill This low level of funding is untenable--it will 
be impossible for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in the world 
community with an inadequate foreign affairs budget.
  Nearly every major account in the conference report is underfunded, 
and one specific initiative, the Africa accounts, are nonexistent. This 
omission is particularly troubling, as it signals a lack of support for 
the recent strides made by the countries in Africa. The Development 
Fund for Africa (DFA) is being cut almost 40% from last year (512 
million). I know the other side will point to the other accounts like 
Child Survival that has funding for Africa. Let me say that the DFA 
traditionally supports less developed countries and the grassroots 
programs. Other egregious funding cuts include: $175 million cut from 
essential loan program for the poorest nations; $157 million cut from 
global environmental protection projects; $87 million denied for debt 
relief initiatives for the poorest countries; $50 million cut from 
African development loan initiatives; $200 million cut from economic 
development and democracy-building programs in Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America; and $35 million denied for Peace Corps programs, just months 
after Congress voted to support the expansion of the Peace Corps to 
10,000 volunteers.
  It is abundantly clear that this Foreign Operations bill just won't 
work. It will not allow the U.S. to continue to operate its important 
international programs at current levels, and will undoubtedly detract 
from the stature of the U.S. in the international community. We have 
learned from recent events that foreign assistance is a good 
investment--the dollars we spend today help avoid expensive national 
security crisis tomorrow. This bill will curtail our ability to help 
prevent the conflicts and curb the poverty that lead to instability 
throughout the world.
  We cannot adequately pursue our foreign affairs priorities with this 
conference report. And not only does this bill underfund existing 
needs, but it ignores emerging global needs, such as earthquake 
recovery in Turkey and Taiwan, peace implementation in Kosovo, and debt 
relief for the world's poorest countries. We urge you not to settle for 
this dangerously underfunded bill. Vote ``no'' on the Foreign 
Operations Conference Report.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from 
Alabama for bringing this conference report to the floor.
  While this subcommittee works with one of the smaller allocations, 
this bill is usually one of the most contentious. The chairman and his 
staff have done an outstanding job of trying to address numerous 
concerns while working within the constraints of, what I consider, too 
small a budget for the important programs that this bill supports. I am 
pleased that the conference committee continues to recognize the needs 
of areas of conflict, such as Armenia and Cyprus and I hope that a 
peaceful settlement will soon be reached in both of these regions.
  Further, I strongly support the committee's suspension of military 
aid to Indonesia and hope that this will be expanded to multilateral 
assistance until the results of the referendum in East Timor are 
permanently implemented. Finally, I am pleased with the language in the 
Statement of Managers supporting biodiversity programs within AID, 
specifically those implemented through the Office of Environment and 
Natural Resources, and strongly urge AID to increase funding for these 
programs to a level proportionally equal to that provided in 1996.
  While I am pleased with many of the issues addressed in this bill, I 
am concerned that the funding for implementation of the Wye Memorandum 
is not included. This obviously is due to budget constraints and not 
because of a lack of congressional interest in furthering the Middle 
East peace process. Israel has made great strides in furthering this 
process in the last month and I know that the U.S. will find a way to 
provide the Wye money before the end of the year.
  Finally, while I support this bill, I remain concerned with the 
continued decreases in U.S. foreign assistance. As I have said before, 
the U.S. is now the sole superpower and world leader. Yet, we are not 
leading. As our role in the world becomes more important, our budget 
for foreign operations continues to shrink, thereby, limiting the 
impact we can have on global development.
  It is simply embarrassing. We are the world leader, with the 
strongest most productive economy in history, yet we continue to refuse 
payments to global institutions, including the United Nations and World 
Bank, and provide the smallest amount of foreign assistance to the 
developing world of any industrial country, in relation to our GDP.
  Many of these global institutions were created over 50 years ago and 
needed reforms to eliminate bureaucracy and changes to update them for 
the next century. The U.S. was correct in demanding these changes. 
However, now that many of these reforms have been made, we must live up 
to our word and pay our contributions. As we refuse payment, we erode 
our word and reputation. This must stop. I hope that those who are 
concerned with our multilateral assistance will take a serious look at 
the progress that has been made in effecting change at these 
institutions. I believe that they will find that many of their concerns 
have been addressed.
  I look forward to reversing this decline in foreign assistance in the 
next century and furthering the values that we cherish here--democracy, 
human rights, rule of law and free markets--to other parts of the 
world. Again, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Alabama 
and his staff for their hard work and ultimate success in bringing a 
free-standing Foreign Operations Conference Report to the floor.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 211, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 480]

                               YEAS--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle

[[Page 23876]]


     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blumenauer
     Jefferson
     LaHood
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. STRICKLAND and Mr. BARCIA changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 480, I was unavoidably 
detained and was absent during the vote. It was my intention to vote 
``no'' on this rollcall vote.

                          ____________________