[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14000-14007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4811, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT 
        FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 546 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 546

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. When the 
     reading for amendment reaches section 587, that section shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in 
     the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on 
     page 11, line 23, through page 12, line 8; page 80, lines 18 
     through 24; page 121, line 1, through page 122, line 12. 
     Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, 
     points of order against a provision in another part of such 
     paragraph may be made only against such provision and not 
     against the entire paragraph. Before consideration of any 
     other amendment to section 587, it shall be in order to 
     consider, and to dispose of, an amendment to strike that 
     section. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. During 
     consideration of the bill, points of order against amendments 
     for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are

[[Page 14001]]

     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1545

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 546 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4811, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill 
for fiscal year 2001.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The rule also waives points of order against provisions in the bill 
for failing to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting 
unauthorized appropriations and legislating in a general appropriations 
bill or prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill, 
except as specified by the rule.
  The rule leaves exposed to points of order, two legislative 
provisions and one earmark restriction, areas under the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  The rule also waives points of order against amendments to the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting 
nonemergency designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations 
bill containing an emergency designation.
  The rule also grants the chairman of the Committee of the Whole the 
authority to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes 
provided that the first vote in a series is not less than 15 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition, the rule provides that Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration 
will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendments, if 
otherwise consistent with House rules.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides a fair approach for the consideration 
of the foreign aid appropriations bill.
  One controversial area, which always lends itself to important debate 
on the floor involves family planning funds and their potential use for 
performing or promoting abortion, and the so-called Mexico City policy 
which prohibits U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform 
abortions, or engage in lobbying activities to change such laws.
  While I am personally strongly pro-life, under the regular rules of 
the House, a Member will have the opportunity to strike the section in 
the bill related to the Mexico City policy and the full House will have 
an opportunity to debate and vote on this issue.
  Although several Members requested waivers for legislative 
amendments, the Committee on Rules chose to report a standard, open 
rule without granting waivers to any amendments. So no particular area 
is given special consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and also the underlying legislation. 
A lot of work has gone into it.
  I am pleased to see that this is the 11th appropriations bill to come 
before the House, and that this bill is within the committee's budget 
allocation.
  I think the pace of the work for the House this Congress has been 
truly remarkable. I think that the Speaker needs to be commended and 
congratulated especially for this, as well as all of those who have 
worked so hard in bringing forth the appropriations bills.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for their hard work on 
this important bill. I urge adoption of both the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule, which will allow for consideration 
of H.R. 4811, which is a bill that makes appropriations for foreign 
operations, as my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) has explained. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule will permit all Members on both sides of the aisle to offer 
amendments that are germane and that conform to the rules for 
appropriations bills.
  Within the severe funding restraints placed on the Committee on 
Appropriations, the subcommittee made a number of positive choices for 
which I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  The bill increases the child survival and disease programs fund to a 
level about $119 million more than last year's funding. This bill 
includes $110 million for UNICEF, the same as last year's level.
  These programs continue to demonstrate a commitment to the most 
vulnerable of the world's population, the children. Their health and 
well-being represents the hope for the future of the world.
  The committee report directs the agency for international development 
to consider initiating a school feeding program in Sierra Leone to 
boost nutrition and school attendance in this war-ravaged country. I 
recently returned with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), from visiting Sierra Leone and we can assure my colleagues that 
this program is much needed.
  The bill also contains funding for the global alliance for vaccines 
and immunizations. The lack of immunizations results in the death of 
about 8,000 children every day, and the funding in this bill will help 
close the gap between children who are immunized and those who are not.
  Though there are some highlights in the bill, I am deeply troubled by 
the overall low funding levels. The bill cuts the President's requests 
by 12 percent. In fact, the overall funding is even lower than last 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, cutting off foreign assistance in a time of enormous 
budget surpluses is irresponsible. It is unconscionable. Never before 
has the United States had so much wealth available to help the poorest 
of the world's poor. It is irresponsible to do so little when we have 
so much.
  We can eliminate tuberculosis in the world and polio and cholera and 
so many things that we can do. We can save so many lives with a few 
dollars.
  Most people in this country when we ask them how much money do they 
think we spend out of our total budget for foreign aid, most will say 
somewhere between 17 percent and 25 percent, when, in fact, all we are 
talking about today of foreign aid is less than 1 percent. And of the 
humanitarian part, it is less than one-half of 1 percent.
  Our basic principles tell us that when we reap of financial windfall, 
we save some, we invest some, and we donate some to charity. Is that 
not what we teach our children?
  As a Nation, we are going in the wrong direction. It is our 
obligation to help the needy, both in our own country and overseas. 
This is what a great Nation does.
  I am especially disappointed over the low funding for debt relief. A 
number of developing nations are struggling to overcome crushing debts 
that they can never repay, and now is the time to reduce these debts. 
But instead, the bill slashes the President's request for debt-
reduction programs by $180 million, more than two-thirds cut.

[[Page 14002]]

  The cut comes on top of the failure by Congress to provide any of the 
President's request for $210 million in fiscal year 2000 supplemental 
appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, by turning our backs on the debtor nations, we are 
condemning them to carry impossible financial burdens. I am ashamed.
  A number of amendments were proposed that would increase the funding 
levels for the most important foreign assistance programs, and these 
amendments required a waiver of the House rules; however, the Committee 
on Rules chose not to make any in order.
  So that while this is an open rule, the amendments needed the most to 
improve the bill cannot be offered. There are so many things that my 
colleagues can say about this bill that it does not do.
  As I said earlier, there are some good highlights, some good spending 
in it from the standpoint of child survival, but when it comes to debt 
relief and when it comes to development assistance, which has been cut 
by 50 percent since 1985, I remember when we had a budget that was 
around $19 billion, now the budget is below $12 billion. Egypt and 
Israel take half of it, and the rest goes to the poor.
  We could do so much better. We could end hunger, feed people, save 
lives, end so many diseases that we have in the world today. Yet, we 
become a Congress that is parsimonious and it is just not right.
  We need to do better, and if there is ever a Congress that could 
lead, ever a Congress that could be known for something that would be 
generous to our own country and overseas, it would be to lead in this 
area, to save lives.
  So for all of these reasons and because the rule is restrictive, was 
very restrictive and I thought there were very good amendments that 
could have been offered and were not protected by the Committee on 
Rules, I believe this rule should be opposed, it ought to go down.
  We ought to start over again. We can do better than this. We have a 
chance to save so many lives, and we are making a big mistake with this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any other speakers on 
our side of the aisle. We look forward to getting to the debate on the 
underlying legislation. It is a good bill. We have $13.340 billion in 
this bill for foreign aid, a lot of important programs we want to get 
to work on.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the Democratic 
side of the aisle will address their concerns about the bill before us 
today, citing the cuts in funding to some of the poorest countries and 
to international financial institutions, and adoption of this so-called 
Mexico City language.
  Mr. Speaker, I share many of these concerns and would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to use my time to 
focus on some of the more positive aspects of this legislation with 
regard to Armenia.
  These provisions are the result of the hard work of Members on both 
sides of the aisle, including both the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking Democrat, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as well as the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), I see out there, and others.
  Under the bill, the Republic of Armenia would receive 12.5 percent of 
the total account for the Independent States of the former Soviet 
Union, which translates into $92.5 million. While the dollar amount 
would represent a reduction from the $102.4 million in fiscal year 
2000, the amount in the current bill actually represents a slight 
increase in the percentage of the IS act.
  Given the fact that budgets are tight this year and the total level 
of assistance to the IS has been decreased, I appreciate the fact that 
the appropriators have recognized the need to continue our commitment 
to Armenia.
  Mr. Speaker, Armenia is a nation that has continued on the path of 
democracy and free market economic reforms, despite daunting challenges 
both external and internal. Armenia continues to suffer the effects of 
blockades imposed by its neighbor to the west, Turkey, and to its 
neighbor to the east, Azerbaijan.
  In addition, the tragic shooting last October from the Armenian 
parliament, claiming the life of both the prime minister and the 
speaker of the parliament, could have undermined Armenian democracy. 
But President Kocharian, who was our guest here on Capitol Hill just 2 
weeks ago, took resolute and effective action to prevent the situation 
from unraveling, thereby keeping Armenian democracy on track.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the members of the subcommittee 
for maintaining section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which restricts 
assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until that country lifts its 
blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.
  I also want to salute the subcommittee for providing funding for 
confidence-building measures to resolve the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, 
and also for language which urges the Secretary of State to move 
forthwith to appoint a high-level, long-term special negotiator to 
facilitate direct negotiations and any other contacts that will bring 
peace to the people of the Caucasus.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that as we get into the 
debate on the amendments to this bill, it is expected that our 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), will offer one or 
more amendments to single out India for a punitive cut in development 
assistance. Similar attempts to stigmatize India have been defeated by 
increasingly lopsided bipartisan margins in recent years.
  These amendments have been opposed by the chairman and the ranking 
members of the subcommittee, as well as the Committee on International 
Relations.
  The arguments against the Burton amendment are stronger this year 
than they have ever been. In March, President Clinton completed the 
first visit to India by an American president in more than 20 years. 
India is the world's largest democracy with over a billion people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a country that has made tremendous progress in 
free-market economic reforms over the past decade. Cutting development 
aid to India will only serve to hamper America's efforts to reduce 
poverty, eradicate disease and promote broad-based economic growth in 
the world's second most populous nation.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue Congress' long-standing 
bipartisan tradition of defeating ill-advised efforts to punish India 
through the Foreign Operations bill. I do not think this is the 
appropriate vehicle, and it is ill advised more than ever this year.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak in 
support of the rule and of course this bill, H.R. 4811, the fiscal year 
2001 appropriations bill for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related Programs.
  I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Alabama 
(Chairman Callahan), who I think, because of his leadership and 
determination in steering this bill through the legislative process, we 
have something that may draw some disdain from some, but I think it is 
a wholesome bill. It is a good bill.
  This rule is obviously one calculated to bring about some debate 
that, in the end, will bring us a product that I think will be proper. 
It is never easy for a chairman to do that. I believe that the 
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), with his fairness and his 
leadership, and frankly an

[[Page 14003]]

astonishing amount of patience, which he has done each year during this 
appropriations process, is something that we should make note of.
  I also would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the ranking member, who has provided leadership on many 
important issues and promoted, I think, her views with a great deal of 
energy and enthusiasm.
  Of course, I would be lacking if I did not support and thank the 
staff for the great work that they have done, all of them. I note Mr. 
Shank and Mr. Flickner are two that have been extraordinarily helpful, 
and all of them have been very much involved in this process to bring 
about a bill that is drafted, I think, for success.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible bill that effectively allocates 
the foreign assistance that we have available while providing crucial 
support for our country's national security.
  In the region of the former Soviet Union, this bill helps to 
strengthen our relationship with our friend and ally, Armenia. The U.S. 
relationship with Armenia is vital to our effort in promoting 
democratization, economic development, peace and stability in the 
independent states and particularly the Southern Caucasus.
  This bill contains much-needed funding for Armenia as well as 
important language directing the administration without further delay 
to release the remainder of the $20 million provided in 1998 for the 
victims of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.
  I believe we have produced a productive, positive approach that will 
facilitate peace in the Caucasus by emphasizing confidence-building 
measures which have been discussed among the parties at NATO and OSCE 
summits.
  This bill also contains critical assistance to Lebanon. I 
successfully sponsored an amendment during full committee consideration 
with support on both sides to increase aid to Lebanon from $15 million 
to $18 million.
  The withdrawal of Israeli forces, armed forces from South Lebanon, 
creates a great and immediate need for the U.S. and the international 
community to assist the people of that region. This additional funding 
will provide an important start by allowing USAID to expand its program 
in Southern Lebanon. However, I am hopeful that the U.S. will be able 
to provide a significant aid package to Lebanon in the near future to 
help rebuild its school, repair and rebuild its infrastructure, and 
further our goal of establishing a comprehensive lasting peace 
throughout the region. I look forward to working with the subcommittee 
on this effort.
  This bill also provides important protections for our national 
security. Once again, conditions have been included on aid to North 
Korea through the Korean Energy Development Organization. Since 1994, 
when the United States and North Korea established KEDO and the Agreed 
Framework, the United States has upheld its commitments to North Korea.
  I might add that North Korea is the biggest recipient of foreign aid 
from the U.S. in Eastern Asia and Southern Asia. However, hundreds of 
thousands of North Koreans have died from starvation while Pyongyang 
continues to divert our aid to their military.
  North Korea has repeatedly antagonized its neighbors and threatened 
to launch ballistic missiles capable of hitting America. The conditions 
of KEDO contained in this bill are necessary to ensure North Korea is 
living up to its end of the bargain and uphold the national security of 
the United States.
  I am also pleased there is language in this bill to prohibit the 
administration from implementing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change 
without first sending it to the Senate for advice and consent as 
required by the U.S. Constitution.
  Both USAID and the State Department have attempted to pursue programs 
and activities solely contained in the Kyoto Protocol. I have 
documented these efforts in subcommittee hearing. I have also discussed 
this matter on numerous occasions with USAID administrator Brady 
Anderson.
  Section 577 of this bill provides an appropriate balance by 
prohibiting the administration from engaging in activities specifically 
related to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, such as carbon 
emissions trading, while at the same time protecting the long-standing 
programs and activities within USAID which have been previously and 
specifically authorized by Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to support this rule for 
what I think is a very responsible bill. The subject of foreign aid 
often sparks heated debate on this floor, but I hope all Members will 
unite behind this fair bill and what I believe to be a good rule to 
maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence across the globe.
  I ask for Members on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and 
the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall) yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reference language that is contained in this 
bill that is identical to language included in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill that was offered as amendment No. 58 by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who just spoke relative to 
the Kyoto Protocol.
  I would like to follow up my remarks made during the floor debate on 
the Agriculture appropriations bill. I was supportive of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and as agreed 
to by myself and other Members.
  I also agree with the gentleman's characterization of the language as 
identical to the provision offered on Energy and Water and as contained 
in this bill today. Essentially, it is also the same language as 
contained in the VA-HUD and CJS appropriations bills.
  However, I would adamantly disagree with one of the gentleman's 
characterizations of the provision, both in his statement relative to 
the Agriculture bill as well as to his statement just made now relative 
to his use of the word ``specifically.'' They do not reflect our 
agreement with the statutory language that is now contained in the 
Agriculture bill and in this bill.
  I would note for the Record that the word ``specifically'' is not 
used in terms of authorization in the bill language in this 
legislation. The assertion of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) that activities must be specifically authorized from my 
perspective is not correct. There are many activities that the 
administration engages in that fall within generally authorized 
activities.
  He has stated that he has no intention of disrupting these 
constitutional authorities or the ability of the administration to 
negotiate the climate change treaty or to engage developing countries 
in a manner consistent with Senate Resolution 98, for instance; and yet 
his characterization in the Record that activities must be specifically 
authorized is not reflective of the statutory language that was agreed 
upon and adopted by this House.
  Additionally, the gentleman from Michigan has stated in the past that 
the United Nations Framework Convention, which was ratified by the 
United States Senate in 1992, requires specific implementing 
legislation for programs or initiatives. That is also, from my 
perspective, not correct. A ratified treaty carries the weight of law. 
The U.S. has many obligations and commitments that it agreed to under 
this ratified treaty and that are authorized without ``specific 
implementing legislation'' beyond the treaty. No one, I believe, can 
reinterpret the law or a treaty by making statements for the Record.
  Finally, there are many programs and activities that are funded by 
the Congress and carried out by the administration that are not 
``specifically authorized'' by Congress. I am very concerned about the 
use on the floor.
  The gentleman's use of the word ``specifically authorized'' in his 
floor remarks, for example, could include voluntary nonregulatory 
programs or initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases, programs that also 
reduce energy bills, improve the Nation's energy security, and reduce 
local air pollutants.

[[Page 14004]]

  I do want to make it clear that, again, I agree with the language 
contained in this bill, in the Agriculture bill, the Energy and Water 
bill, as well as CJS and VA-HUD.
  I would note that the word ``specifically'' is not included in any of 
the report language and is not included in any of the bill language, 
and I would not want there to be confusion about the use of this word.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi). She is the ranking minority member on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs. She is a great advocate for people hurting in our country and 
around the world.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him for his very impressive leadership on issues of 
concern to people in need throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are going to consider a bill that is very, very 
important because it will define how Congress sees our leadership role 
in the world.
  Unfortunately, we will not have the fullest of debates on the bill 
because of this rule that we have before us. So I, with great 
reluctance and great respect for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), who is presenting the rule, rise in opposition to it. I do so 
for the following reasons:
  The bill that we will consider later today, if this rule passes, is 
seriously deficient in the resources to match the responsibilities of 
our great Nation. In the past, I have tried to be cooperative, and if 
it was a close call, come down on the side of moving the process along. 
But this bill is a hollow shell. The only remedy we would have had is 
if the Committee on Rules would have allowed some amendments to be in 
order which would have helped correct some of the deficiencies in the 
bill.
  The Committee on Rules did not allow any of the amendments to be in 
order. These amendments would have addressed the serious concern that 
many Members in this House have about international debt relief. 
Several of us had amendments to redress the lack in the bill.
  One that I had proposed would have called for an increased funding of 
$390 million to bring the total in the bill up to the President's 
request for the supplemental and for the next fiscal year of 
approximately $470 million.
  My request was for the Committee on Rules to allow us to have this 
amendment come to the floor under emergency designation. There is 
already precedent in the bill that will be considered later.
  The distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman 
of our committee, placed in the bill funding for storm relief in 
Mozambique and Southern Africa; and that money, we are very grateful 
that that money is in there. It was really put in under the leadership 
of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). That money survived 
the process. We are grateful for that. It did also establish a 
precedent which is emergency designation within this particular 
appropriations bill.
  Indeed, the debt relief is an emergency. We have a situation where 
several of the highly impoverished countries are suffering under 
oppressive burdens of debt. Some of them pay more on their debt each 
year than they do for education or for health care for their people.
  Many of these debts have been incurred by previous regimes and now 
these countries have to bear that burden and are unable to lift 
themselves up and enjoy for their people some of the benefits of the 
more democratic systems that they have entered into.
  So the bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million in pending 
requests for debt relief, and we have no opportunity to address that 
under emergency designation. The bill contains only $2 million of $244 
million that we wanted for AIDS, global AIDS issues. At the same time 
as the whole world of those interested in HIV/AIDS is converging, on 
Durban, South Africa, in conference on how to deal with this pandemic 
that is afflicting the world and especially Africa and Asia at the same 
time we are deprived of having an amendment to acknowledge that 
emergency with a $40 million emergency designation. The rule does not 
allow that. I must oppose that rule.

                              {time}  1615

  And then there is the oppressive language on international family 
planning. The President had requested $541 million. The bill puts in 
$285 million with the stipulation that if the oppressive language is in 
there and the waivers are used, that is reduced by over $12 million, 
down to $372 as opposed to $541 that the President has requested. So 
the number is too low, the language is a gag rule, and we were not 
allowed to have an amendment.
  The Greenwood-Lowey amendment was not made in order so that this 
House could work its will. It was not a question of changing policy, it 
was a question of having this opportunity within this House of 
Representatives to have a clean vote on that. In the past, our chairman 
has provided that the bill would come to the floor clean of any 
language relating to Mexico City and the House would then work its 
will. This year is different. It contains the oppressive language with 
no remedy allowed in the rule.
  And so I must oppose this rule, urge my colleagues to do so, and also 
to oppose the bill that may follow.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill 
on foreign operations.
  I say this notwithstanding what I recognize to be a great deal of 
hard work on the part of the chairman and the ranking member, and 
notwithstanding what I think are very good provisions regarding aid to 
Armenia. But the sad fact is that this bill is another case in which 
our rhetoric far exceeds our actions. We talk a great deal about 
helping poor countries, but when we look specifically at the issue of 
debt relief, we find that we have provided a level of funding that is 
woefully inadequate.
  This bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million requested for 
multilateral debt relief assistance. I mention that because this debt 
relief is not the United States going it alone, this debt relief is in 
the context of working with the G-7 countries, the major developed 
countries in the world, who have made a commitment to provide debt 
relief jointly to sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries.
  Why is this problem so bad? For example, consider Tanzania. The 
government spends four times as much money on debt payments as it does 
on health and education combined. In Uganda, Zambia, Nicaragua, and 
Honduras, the government spending on debt service is greater than 
government spending on health and education combined. These countries 
cannot develop under this crushing burden of debt.
  I would also mention that debt relief is not conducted in a vacuum. 
It is tied to democratization. It is tied to economic reforms. These 
reforms have been occurring, but these countries still need debt 
relief.
  Probably most crucial today, however, in today's debate, is this 
simple fact. Twenty-two million have died in sub-Saharan Africa of 
AIDS. The crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is pandemic. We have a situation 
in which those countries cannot provide the health care that they need 
to, the education about AIDS that they need to because they are 
providing debt service, debt service which basically provides money 
going from the poorest countries back to the wealthiest countries.
  We have an opportunity to exert leadership, to say to the world that, 
working in concert with other developed countries, we are going to 
provide debt relief, to put some action behind our rhetoric, to provide 
relief for AIDS, and to provide general debt relief so poorer countries 
can develop and progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and the underlying bill.

[[Page 14005]]


  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. Firstly, let us have it clearly understood that 
foreign assistance is an aid to America, it is not a hindrance.
  When we came to Congress, those of us in 1992, we spent $18 billion 
in America on foreign assistance. Now we propose in this measure less 
than $12 billion. Overall, the bill cuts programs which benefit Africa 
and Latin America by 15 percent. The bill also cuts nonproliferation, 
anti-terrorism, de- mining, and related programs by 32 percent from the 
administration's request, and it cuts 27 percent from funding for 
Eastern Europe and the Baltic states.
  Mr. Speaker, I just returned from a CODEL to Bucharest, Romania, led 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and Senator George 
Voinovich, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and several others of us. 
There we met with more than 350 parliamentarians representing 54 
countries. And let me tell my colleagues that the whole week we were 
there we were touting the leading role that the United States plays in 
the world. Frankly, I hope none of our colleagues from those 
parliamentary bodies are watching the procedures in this House today, 
because I am embarrassed.
  Setting aside the procedural problems with this rule, the fact that 
several amendments that would make this bill stronger have been 
disallowed, the underlying bill itself is weak to the point of 
impotency. We tout ourselves as being one of the most charitable 
nations in this world, and yet this bill appropriates less than 20 
percent of the President's request for debt relief. This level of 
funding will deny relief to some countries, such as Mozambique and 
Bolivia, who have already met the conditions necessary to obtain debt 
relief. In addition, this low level of funding would seriously 
jeopardize the highly indebted poor country initiative because it may 
lead other bilateral donors to reduce their contributions.
  Defeat this rule and defeat this bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair 
rule. The foreign operations appropriations bill is one of the most 
important pieces of legislation we will consider this year.
  It is up to this Congress to provide the resources that are adequate 
to maintain the United States' leadership in the international 
community. That is why I am deeply disappointed that this rule denies a 
voice to some key constituencies in this Congress and denies the House 
the opportunity to respond to some of the most urgent global needs.
  For instance, this rule denies Congress the opportunity to debate our 
amendment to eliminate the anti-democratic Mexico City language that is 
already included in the bill. The very same amendment passed the House 
last year during the debate over foreign operations. I am outraged that 
we are prohibited from even letting the House express its will on this 
issue and have a free and fair debate.
  This rule also denies Congress the opportunity to respond adequately 
to the global AIDS crisis. Our ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), sought to offer an amendment increasing 
funding for the AIDS crisis and giving these funds an emergency 
designation. Our administration has made it clear that the AIDS crisis 
is a national security emergency, and former Treasury Secretary Robert 
Rubin called it the biggest impediment to economic development in 
Africa.
  How can we, as the international health community gathers in Durban, 
South Africa to discuss this pandemic, turn our backs on this crisis? 
Debt relief has been severely underfunded, and the committee denied the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and others the opportunity to 
designate this important funding as an emergency.
  As developing nations are crushed under the burden of mounting debt, 
unable to devote the necessary resources to the health and education of 
their people, we continue to deny this funding. Without this relief, my 
colleagues, we are dooming countries that have tried hard to break the 
cycle of poverty to repeat this cycle indefinitely.
  Extreme poverty worldwide is an emergency. We should have been able 
to designate it as such, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), a member of the Committee on Rules, and 
to express to him the value of his contributions to end world hunger 
and his leadership on this issue.
  Let me also comment on the chairman and the ranking member of this 
subcommittee, realizing that in many instances they have worked 
together on issues, and I particularly thank the members of the 
subcommittee the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), and others on that 
committee that have worked so hard on the issue of HIV/AIDS 
internationally.
  I rise to indicate that I wish in addition to having an open rule, 
that points of order on certain very vital issues could have been 
waived. It is clear that if this Nation wants to continue living in 
peace, then we must encourage world peace and world economic order. 
With regard to foreign aid, foreign assistance, this appropriations 
bill is an investment in our peace. And until we go home to our 
districts and explain what foreign aid is all about, we will continue 
with this mismatched debate on the floor of the House providing for 
legislation that does not do its job.
  One in five South Africans are HIV positive and are dying. The reason 
they are dying is because there is no access to the prescription drugs 
at a cost that they can deal with that we have the privilege of having 
in this Nation. A population that is dying cannot build its Nation, 
cannot raise its children, and cannot provide economically for itself. 
Simple as that. When a Nation crumbles under its own weight, its own 
burden of debt, its own health problems, it impacts the very citizens 
in our respective locations where we come from. The comfort of being 
able to go to a doctor, to be educated, even though we have our own 
problems, is hurt by the fact that the world is hurting.
  To not provide the dollars that are needed for debt relief adds 
additionally to the burden of the United States of America and its 
citizens. A simple investment of the amount of monies that are 
necessary to provide this debt relief would be an investment for our 
safety and our security.
  I would hope that when we debate this bill that we will find it in 
our hearts, Mr. Speaker, to pass amendments that will remedy the 
problems in this bill and truly invest in world peace and world order.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to just say that this bill is very inadequate, and I want 
really the people that listen in and watch the Congress in action, 
because so many people are under the misunderstanding that we spend so 
much of our total budget on foreign aid, to understand that the fact is 
that is not true.
  If we put everything together, including aid to Israel and Egypt, of 
our total budget it is less than 1 percent that goes for foreign aid. 
Most people across the country think that we spend somewhere between 17 
and 25 percent of our total budget on foreign aid. We have done polls 
on it. A lot of our elected officials run against foreign aid and they 
tell people we spend too much money, but the fact is it is less than 1 
percent.
  In our own country the bottom 2\1/2\ to 3 percent of our people live 
in great poverty, whether it is in the cities or in Appalachia or in 
other parts. As a matter of fact, they rank as low as any people of the 
poorest of the poor in the Third World countries. The first thing this 
Congress ought to do is take care of that problem.

[[Page 14006]]

  Now, this bill does not have anything to do with that, but if 
Congress was going to be known for anything, and I would love to see 
this someday, I would love to be part of a Congress that someday said 
we are going to take care of our poor. They are going to be fed and 
they are going to have shelter and they are going to have clean water. 
And then we could take some of this tremendous surplus that we have and 
forget about giving these multibillion dollar giveaways on tax cuts to 
so many people and start helping some people live, to eat, to be 
immunized, to pay for debt, to have development assistance so they can 
help themselves.
  For every dollar we invest overseas, we get $2.37 back. This is not a 
bad deal for us. Economically it is a good deal, if we want to consider 
it just on economic terms.

                              {time}  1630

  But this budget is inadequate. We can do better. Hopefully some day, 
and I do not know if I will be around, I would like to be part of a 
Congress that ends hunger, that ends disease. We can end tuberculosis, 
we can end cholera and we can end polio and so many of the diseases in 
the world. We have the ability.
  So, with that, I apologize to my colleagues for going on and on and 
on. They have heard me give this speech many times, but it needs to be 
said over and over again.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), for whom I 
have great respect, and also all the Members who have spoken this 
afternoon on this issue.
  I know that there is always more money that could be spent. There are 
always more things that could be done by Government. But I am not 
ashamed of what the American people, through their Congress, do in 
foreign aid.
  We are spending $13.340 billion. That is $13,340 billion in this bill 
for assistance for peoples in other countries, for the poor and the 
needy in other countries. I think that is something that the American 
people have to be very proud of and that is something in the tradition 
of generosity of the American people. And so, I support this 
legislation. I thank all of those who have worked so hard on it, 
especially the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan).
  Mr. Speaker, I urge at this point support also for this rule, which 
will bring to the floor the legislation for consideration of debate in 
an open rule permitting any amendment that is germane and pursuant to 
the House rules.
  So I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, there is language contained in this bill 
that is identical to language included in the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill as amendment #58 by Mr. Knollenberg relating to the 
Kyoto Protocol.
  I would like to follow up my remarks on the floor, during 
deliberations on the Agricultural Appropriations bill. I was supportive 
of the amendment offered by Mr. Knollenberg, and as agreed to by myself 
and other members. I agree fully with Mr. Knollenberg's 
characterization of the language as identical to the provision adopted 
on Energy and Water, and contained in the Foreign Operations bill, and 
essentially the same as on VA/HUD and CJS.
  However, I would disagree with one of Mr. Knollenberg's 
characterizations of the provision, both in his remarks made on the 
floor, and as submitted for the Record. They do not reflect our 
agreement or the statutory language which is now contained in the 
Agricultural Appropriations bill and the other bills mentioned.
  Mr. Knollenberg's assertion that activities must be specifically 
authorized is incorrect. There are many activities that the 
administration engages in that fall within generally authorized 
activities. Mr. Knollenberg has stated that he has no intention of 
disrupting these constitutional authorities, or the ability of the 
administration to negotiate the climate change treaty or to engage 
developing countries in a manner consistent with Senate Resolution 98, 
for instance. And yet, his characterization in the Record that 
activities must be specifically authorized is not reflected in the 
statutory provision that was agreed upon and adopted.
  Additionally, he stated that the United Nations Framework Convention, 
which was ratified by the United States after consent by the Senate in 
1992, requires specific implementing legislation for programs or 
initiatives. That is also incorrect. A ratified treaty carries the 
weight of law, and the United States has many obligations and 
commitments that it agreed to under this ratified treaty, and that are 
authorized without ``specific implementing legislation'' beyond the 
treaty. No one can reinterpret the law by making statements on the 
floor.
  Finally, there are many programs and activities that are funded by 
the Congress, and carried out by the administration, that are not 
``specifically authorized'' by Congress. For example: Mr. Knollenberg's 
characterization made on the floor using the word ``specifically''--
which is not contained in this bill, the Agriculture, Energy and Water, 
or VA-HUD bills, implies that some regulatory and non-regulatory 
programs that have bipartisan support and that save money for 
businesses and consumers, help the environment, and improve public 
health would have to be rolled back.
  Mr. Knollenberg's use of the word ``specifically'' authorized in this 
floor remarks would include voluntary, non-regulatory programs or 
initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases--programs that also reduce 
energy bills, improve the nation's energy security, and reduce local 
air pollutants. Let me be clear. The language in this bill and those 
mentioned before very deliberately does not include the word 
``specifically'' and I wanted to ensure for the record that the 
gentleman's floor characterization does not represent our agreement on 
this issue and it is not the congressional intent in this bill.
  The language included in this bill does not do anything to interfere 
with valuable research, existing programs, or ongoing initiatives 
designed to carry out the United States' voluntary commitments under 
the 1992 Climate Change Convention.''
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 199, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 394]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich

[[Page 14007]]


     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     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
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     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)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Cooksey
     Forbes
     Matsui
     McNulty
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1652

  Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut and Mr. CRAMER changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________