[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14082-14148]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 546 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4811.

                              {time}  0905


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign operations, 
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative 
day of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the amendment by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had been disposed of, and the bill was open for 
amendment from page 13, line 10, through page 13, line 15.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         transition initiatives

       For necessary expenses for international disaster 
     rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $40,000,000, to remain available until expended, to support 
     transition to democracy and to long-term development of 
     countries in crisis: Provided, That such support may include 
     assistance to develop, strengthen, or preserve democratic 
     institutions and processes, revitalize basic infrastructure, 
     and foster the peaceful resolution of conflict: Provided 
     further, That the United States Agency for International 
     Development shall submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations at least 5 days prior to beginning a program 
     of assistance.


         micro and small enterprise development program account

       For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, 
     $1,500,000, as authorized by section 108 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961: Provided, That such costs shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That guarantees of loans made under 
     this heading in support of microenterprise activities may 
     guarantee up to 70 percent of the principal amount of any 
     such loans notwithstanding section 108 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961. In addition, for administrative 
     expenses to carry out programs under this heading, $500,000, 
     all of which may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for Operating Expenses of the Agency for 
     International Development: Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this heading shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2002.

[[Page 14083]]




                   development credit program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, 
     $1,500,000, as authorized by section 635 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961: Provided, That such funds shall be 
     made available only for urban and environmental programs: 
     Provided further, That for the cost of direct loans and loan 
     guarantees, up to $2,000,000 of funds appropriated by this 
     Act under the heading ``Development Assistance'', may be 
     transferred to and merged with funds appropriated under this 
     heading to be made available for the purposes of part I of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That 
     such costs shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That the 
     provisions of section 107A(d) (relating to general provisions 
     applicable to the Development Credit Authority) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as contained in section 306 
     of H.R. 1486 as reported by the House Committee on 
     International Relations on May 9, 1997, shall be applicable 
     to direct loans and loan guarantees provided under this 
     heading. In addition, for administrative expenses to carry 
     out credit programs administered by the Agency for 
     International Development, $6,495,000, all of which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operating Expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall remain available until September 30, 2002.


     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980, $44,489,000.


     operating expenses of the agency for international development

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $509,000,000: Provided, That, none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be made available to 
     finance the construction (including architect and engineering 
     services), purchase, or long term lease of offices for use by 
     the Agency for International Development, unless the 
     Administrator has identified such proposed construction 
     (including architect and engineering services), purchase, or 
     long term lease of offices in a report submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days prior to the 
     obligation of these funds for such purposes: Provided 
     further, That the previous proviso shall not apply where the 
     total cost of construction (including architect and 
     engineering services), purchase, or long term lease of 
     offices does not exceed $1,000,000.


 operating expenses of the agency for international development office 
                          of inspector general

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 667, $27,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2002, which sum shall be available for the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Agency for International 
     Development.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II, $2,208,900,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2002: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $840,000,000 
     shall be available only for Israel, which sum shall be 
     available on a grant basis as a cash transfer and shall be 
     disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of this Act or by 
     October 31, 2000, whichever is later: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $695,000,000 shall be available only for Egypt, 
     which sum shall be provided on a grant basis, and of which 
     sum cash transfer assistance shall be provided with the 
     understanding that Egypt will undertake significant economic 
     reforms which are additional to those which were undertaken 
     in previous fiscal years: Provided further, That in 
     exercising the authority to provide cash transfer assistance 
     for Israel, the President shall ensure that the level of such 
     assistance does not cause an adverse impact on the total 
     level of nonmilitary exports from the United States to such 
     country and that Israel enters into a side letter agreement 
     at least equivalent to the fiscal year 1999 agreement: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading not less than $12,000,000 should be made available 
     for assistance for Mongolia: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading shall be obligated 
     for regional or global programs, except as provided through 
     the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                 Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Filner

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

       Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title II of the bill under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL 
     ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--economic support fund'', add at the end 
     before the period the following: ``: Provided further, That 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     $3,500,000 shall be made available for programs carried out 
     by the Kurdish Human Rights Watch for the Kurdistan region of 
     Iraq''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment earmarks crucial funding in this bill for 
the Kurdish Human Rights Watch, a nonpolitical, nonprofit Kurdish-
American service organization. For a decade and a half, this group has 
been working in Northern Iraq providing critical assistance to victims 
of torture and ethnic cleansing, rebuilding villages, teaching 
grassroots democracy building, monitoring human rights, and providing 
training on civil society.
  Here is what the Kurdish Human Rights Watch does everyday. First, 
through community-based programs, it supports the urgent needs of Anfal 
victims, the internally displaced refugees and other victims of ethnic 
cleansing, torture and human rights abuses in Northern Iraq. A special 
emphasis is placed on helping women cope with grief of family loss and 
income. Outreach workers help each family conduct an assessment of 
their family's health and prevention plans. Counseling is provided 
alongside concentrated extensive case management for problems such as 
generating income, family reunification, and other survival issues.
  Secondly, they assist in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the 
destroyed infrastructure by years and years of war. The villagers most 
affected were women, children, and the elderly. With this aid, new 
wells will be drilled and pipes for drinking water supplied to the 
villages. The organization's engineers will help in the reconstruction 
of roads and houses.
  Lastly, the Kurdish Human Rights Watch provides training focusing on 
coalition building and the importance of human rights, including civil 
society skills taught in workshops and community building experiences.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide critical funding for an 
organization that enables individuals, families, and communities to 
develop healthy lives and to become economically self-sufficient.
  With these funds, Kurdish Human Rights Watch will develop the 
building blocks for a free Iraq, a free Kurdish people and a nation 
where human rights and freedom are respected and guaranteed to all.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I just want to switch microphones so I 
can be closer to the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). I ask 
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), I beg the gentleman, I 
entreat the gentleman not to insist on his point of order. This is a 
technicality by our rules.
  There are lots of precedents for this kind of earmark and amendment 
in the appropriations bills. I would hope that the suffering, the 
killing of a people in a very shaky part of the world would be aided by 
this Congress at this moment, and I ask the gentleman not to insist on 
his point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
earmark and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, again, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) is insisting on a technical rule of the 
House. The gentleman knows and we all know that these rules are waived 
in dozens

[[Page 14084]]

and dozens, if not hundreds of occasions throughout our appropriations 
bills. We are trying to help a suffering people here. I would just hope 
the gentleman would not insist on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wish 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I understand the technicality of the point of 
order. I just wondered if the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) had 
any objection substantively or if it was just on the point of order.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), do I have any objection? Do I have any opposition to the 
substance did the gentlewoman say? No, I do not think so. I think that 
we cannot respond to everyone's request to violate the rules of the 
House. There have been ample opportunity for him to appear before our 
committee and for the committee to make these decisions.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members that it is inappropriate 
to yield when addressing the Chair on a point of order.
  Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wish to be heard 
further on the point of order?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) has spoken to that point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment proposes 
to earmark and require expenditure of not less than a certain level of 
funds in the bill. Under clause 2 of rule XXI, such an earmarking and 
establishment of a spending floor must be specifically authorized by 
law. The Chair has not been apprised of an authorization in law to 
support the proposed appropriation; accordingly, the point of order is 
sustained.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     international fund for ireland

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $25,000,000, which shall be available for the United States 
     contribution to the International Fund for Ireland and shall 
     be made available in accordance with the provisions of the 
     Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
     415): Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this heading shall remain available until September 30, 
     2002.


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $535,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002, which shall be 
     available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     assistance and for related programs for Eastern Europe and 
     the Baltic States: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading not less than $5,000,000 should be made 
     available for assistance for the Baltic States: Provided 
     further, That funds made available for assistance for Kosovo 
     from funds appropriated under this heading and under the 
     headings ``Economic Support Fund'' and ``International 
     Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement'' shall not exceed 15 
     percent of the total resources pledged by all donors for 
     calendar year 2001 for assistance for Kosovo as of January 1, 
     2001, and shall not exceed $150,000,000: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this Act for 
     assistance for Kosovo shall be made available for large scale 
     physical infrastructure reconstruction.
       (b) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior 
     appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for 
     an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
     bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such 
     funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such 
     program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without 
     returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States 
     and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made 
     available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the 
     minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects 
     and activities.
       (c) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the 
     administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use 
     of economic assistance.
       (d) None of the funds appropriated under this heading may 
     be made available for new housing construction or repair or 
     reconstruction of existing housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     unless directly related to the efforts of United States 
     troops to promote peace in said country.
       (e) With regard to funds appropriated under this heading 
     for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, and local currencies generated by such funds 
     (including the conversion of funds appropriated under this 
     heading into currency used by Bosnia and Herzegovina as local 
     currency and local currency returned or repaid under such 
     program) the Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development shall provide written approval for grants and 
     loans prior to the obligation and expenditure of funds for 
     such purposes, and prior to the use of funds that have been 
     returned or repaid to any lending facility or grantee.
       (f ) The provisions of section 532 of this Act shall apply 
     to funds made available under subsection (e) and to funds 
     appropriated under this heading: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding this subsection and subsection (e), and 
     notwithstanding section 532 of this Act, local currencies 
     generated by, or converted from, funds appropriated by this 
     Act and by previous appropriations Acts and made available 
     for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia may be used 
     in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States to carry out the 
     provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the 
     Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989: 
     Provided further, That the use of such local currencies shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (g) The President is authorized to withhold funds 
     appropriated under this heading made available for economic 
     revitalization programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if he 
     determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not 
     complied with article III of annex 1-A of the General 
     Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     concerning the withdrawal of foreign forces, and that 
     intelligence cooperation on training, investigations, and 
     related activities between Iranian officials and Bosnian 
     officials has not been terminated.


    assistance for the independent states of the former soviet union

       (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 11 and 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the 
     Independent States of the former Soviet Union and for related 
     programs, $740,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2002: Provided, That the provisions of such chapters 
     shall apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph: Provided 
     further, That such sums as may be necessary may be 
     transferred to the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
     for the cost of any financing under the Export-Import Bank 
     Act of 1945 for activities for the Independent States: 
     Provided further, That of the funds made available for the 
     Southern Caucasus region, 15 percent should be used for 
     confidence-building measures and other activities in 
     furtherance of the peaceful resolution of the regional 
     conflicts, especially those in the vicinity of Abkhazia and 
     Nagorno-Karabagh.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than 12.5 percent should be made available for assistance for 
     Georgia.
       (c) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than 12.5 percent should be made available for assistance for 
     Armenia.
       (d) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply 
     to--
       (1) activities to support democracy or assistance under 
     title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public 
     Law 104-201;
       (2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development 
     Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421);
       (3) any activity carried out by a member of the United 
     States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his 
     or her official capacity;
       (4) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee, or other 
     assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);
       (5) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act 
     of 1945; or
       (6) humanitarian assistance.
       (e) Not more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be made available for assistance for 
     any country in the region. Activities authorized under title 
     V (nonproliferation and disarmament programs and activities) 
     of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not be counted against the 
     25 percent limitation.
       (f)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that 
     are allocated for assistance for the Government of the 
     Russian Federation, 50 percent shall be withheld from 
     obligation until the President determines and certifies

[[Page 14085]]

     in writing to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of the Russian Federation has terminated 
     implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical 
     expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to 
     develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research 
     facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       (A) assistance to combat infectious diseases and child 
     survival activities; and
       (B) activities authorized under title V (Nonproliferation 
     and Disarmament Programs and Activities) of the FREEDOM 
     Support Act.
       (g) None of the funds appropriated under this heading may 
     be made available for assistance for the Government of the 
     Russian Federation until the Secretary of State certifies to 
     the Committees on Appropriations that the Russian Federation 
     is in compliance with article V of the Treaty on Conventional 
     Armed Forces in Europe regarding forces deployed in the flank 
     zone in and around Chechnya.
       (h) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less 
     than $45,000,000 should be made available, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for such purposes, for assistance 
     for child survival, environmental health, and to combat 
     infectious diseases, and for related activities.

                           Independent Agency


                              peace corps

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), $258,000,000, including the 
     purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for 
     administrative purposes for use outside of the United States: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be used to pay for abortions: Provided further, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002.

                          Department of State


          international narcotics control and law enforcement

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $305,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That any funds made 
     available under this heading for anti-crime programs and 
     activities shall be made available subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That during fiscal year 2001, the 
     Department of State may also use the authority of section 608 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, without regard to its 
     restrictions, to receive excess property from an agency of 
     the United States Government for the purpose of providing it 
     to a foreign country under chapter 8 of part I of that Act 
     subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                    migration and refugee assistance

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by 
     law, contributions to the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the 
     International Organization for Migration and the United 
     Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities 
     to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of 
     personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service 
     Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by sections 5921 
     through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized 
     by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $645,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That not more 
     than $14,852,000 shall be available for administrative 
     expenses.


     united states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 
     1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 260(c)), $12,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the funds made 
     available under this heading are appropriated notwithstanding 
     the provisions contained in section 2(c)(2) of the Act which 
     would limit the amount of funds which could be appropriated 
     for this purpose.


    nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs

       For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism 
     and related programs and activities, $241,600,000, to carry 
     out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, section 
     504 of the FREEDOM Support Act for the Nonproliferation and 
     Disarmament Fund, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for demining 
     activities, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related 
     activities, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     including activities implemented through nongovernmental and 
     international organizations, section 301 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a voluntary 
     contribution to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development 
     Organization (KEDO), and for a United States contribution to 
     the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory 
     Commission: Provided, That the Secretary of State shall 
     inform the Committees on Appropriations at least 20 days 
     prior to the obligation of funds for the Comprehensive 
     Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided 
     further, That of this amount not to exceed $15,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, may be made available for 
     the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, to promote bilateral and 
     multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation and 
     disarmament: Provided further, That such funds may also be 
     used for such countries other than the Independent States of 
     the former Soviet Union and international organizations when 
     it is in the national security interest of the United States 
     to do so: Provided further, That such funds shall be subject 
     to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be made available for the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary of 
     State determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel 
     is not being denied its right to participate in the 
     activities of that Agency.

                       Department of the Treasury


               International Affairs Technical Assistance

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 129 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating 
     to international affairs technical assistance activities), 
     $2,000,000, to remain available until expended, which shall 
     be available nowithstanding any other provision of law.


                           debt restructuring

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying loans and loan 
     guarantees, as the President may determine, for which funds 
     have been appropriated or otherwise made available for 
     programs within the International Affairs Budget Function 
     150, including the cost of selling, reducing, or canceling 
     amounts owed to the United States as a result of concessional 
     loans made to eligible countries, pursuant to parts IV and V 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of modifying 
     concessional credit agreements with least developed 
     countries, as authorized under section 411 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as 
     amended, and concessional loans, guarantees and credit 
     agreements, as authorized under section 572 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1989 (Public Law 100-461), $82,400,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That of this 
     amount, not less than $13,000,000 shall be made available to 
     carry out the provisions of part V of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961: Provided further, That funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available under this heading in this Act or 
     under prior appropriations acts for foreign operations, 
     export financing, and related programs may be used by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the Heavily Indebted Poor 
     Country (HIPC) Trust Fund administered by the International 
     Bank for Reconstruction and Development amounts for the 
     benefit of countries that are eligible for debt reduction 
     pursuant to title V of H.R. 3425 as enacted into law by 
     section 1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-113: Provided further, 
     That amounts paid to the HIPC Trust Fund may be used only to 
     fund debt reduction under the enhanced HIPC initiative by--
       (1) the Inter-American Development Bank;
       (2) the African Development Bank; and
       (3) the Central American Bank for Economic Integration:

     Provided further, That funds may not be paid to the HIPC 
     Trust Fund for the benefit of any country that is credibly 
     reported to be engaged in a consistent pattern of gross 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights or in 
     military or civil conflict that undermines its ability to 
     develop and implement measures to alleviate poverty and to 
     devote adequate human and financial resources to that end: 
     Provided further, That 15 days prior to any agreement by the 
     United States to make payments to the HIPC Trust Fund for the 
     benefit of any country other than Bolivia and Mozambique, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a reprogramming 
     request under the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That prior to 
     the payment of any amount to the HIPC Trust Fund to fund debt 
     reduction by an international financial institution, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall provide to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Banking and Financial Services, and 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committees on Appropriations, Banking, Housing and Urban 
     Affairs, and Foreign Relations of the Senate--
       (1) a written commitment by the institution that it will 
     make no new market-rate loans to the HIPC member country 
     beneficiary for a period of 30 months and no new concessional 
     loans to the HIPC member country for a period of 9 months; 
     and
       (2) full documentation of any commitment by the HIPC member 
     country to redirect its domestic budgetary resources from 
     international debt repayments to private or public programs 
     to alleviate poverty and promote economic growth that are 
     additional to

[[Page 14086]]

     those previously available for such purposes prior to 
     participation in the enhanced HIPC Initiative:

     Provided further, That any limitation of subsection (e) of 
     section 411 of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954 shall not apply to funds appropriated 
     under this heading: Provided further, That the authority 
     provided by section 572 of Public Law 100-461 may be 
     exercised only with respect to countries that are eligible to 
     borrow from the International Development Association, but 
     not from the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, commonly referred to as ``IDA-only'' countries.

                     TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


             international military education and training

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $52,500,000, of which up to $1,000,000 may remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the civilian personnel for 
     whom military education and training may be provided under 
     this heading may include civilians who are not members of a 
     government whose participation would contribute to improved 
     civil-military relations, civilian control of the military, 
     or respect for human rights: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under this heading for grant financed military 
     education and training for Indonesia and Guatemala may only 
     be available for expanded international military education 
     and training and funds made available for Indonesia may only 
     be provided through the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available to support grant financed military education and 
     training at the School of the Americas unless the Secretary 
     of Defense certifies that the instruction and training 
     provided by the School of the Americas is fully consistent 
     with training and doctrine, particularly with respect to the 
     observance of human rights, provided by the Department of 
     Defense to United States military students at Department of 
     Defense institutions whose primary purpose is to train United 
     States military personnel: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, no later than January 15, 2001, a report 
     detailing the training activities of the School of the 
     Americas and a general assessment regarding the performance 
     of its graduates during 1998 and 1999: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available to support grant financed military education and 
     training at the School of the Americas unless the Secretary 
     of State, without delegation, certifies that the instruction 
     and training provided by the School of the Americas is 
     consistent with United States foreign policy objectives and 
     helps support the observance of human rights in Latin 
     America.


                   foreign military financing program

       For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President 
     to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, $3,510,000,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $1,980,000,000 
     shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not to 
     exceed $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only 
     for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days 
     of the enactment of this Act or by October 31, 2000, 
     whichever is later: Provided further, That it is the sense of 
     Congress that it is very disturbed by reports that Israel is 
     preparing to provide China with an airborne radar system that 
     could threaten both the forces of democratic Taiwan and the 
     United States in the region surrounding the Taiwan Strait. 
     The Congress urges Israel to terminate the existing contract 
     to sell an airborne radar system to the People's Republic of 
     China: Provided further, That to the extent that the 
     Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such 
     purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph 
     shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be 
     available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less 
     than $520,000,000 should be available for the procurement in 
     Israel of defense articles and defense services, including 
     research and development: Provided further, That Foreign 
     Military Financing Program funds estimated to be outlayed for 
     Egypt during fiscal year 2001 shall be disbursed within 30 
     days of enactment of this Act or by October 31, 2000, 
     whichever is later: Provided further, That funds appropriated 
     by this paragraph shall be nonrepayable notwithstanding any 
     requirement in section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act: 
     Provided further, That funds made available under this 
     paragraph shall be obligated upon apportionment in accordance 
     with paragraph (5)(C) of title 31, United States Code, 
     section 1501(a).
       None of the funds made available under this heading shall 
     be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, 
     defense services, or design and construction services that 
     are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms 
     Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to 
     make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the 
     United States Government specifying the conditions under 
     which such procurements may be financed with such funds: 
     Provided, That all country and funding level increases in 
     allocations shall be submitted through the regular 
     notification procedures of section 515 of this Act: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be available for assistance for Sudan and 
     Liberia: Provided further, That funds made available under 
     this heading may be used, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, for demining, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, 
     and related activities, and may include activities 
     implemented through nongovernmental and international 
     organizations: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     assistance for Guatemala: Provided further, That only those 
     countries for which assistance was justified for the 
     ``Foreign Military Sales Financing Program'' in the fiscal 
     year 1989 congressional presentation for security assistance 
     programs may utilize funds made available under this heading 
     for procurement of defense articles, defense services or 
     design and construction services that are not sold by the 
     United States Government under the Arms Export Control Act: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make 
     timely payment for defense articles and services: Provided 
     further, That not more than $30,495,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be obligated for 
     necessary expenses, including the purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only for use outside of the United 
     States, for the general costs of administering military 
     assistance and sales: Provided further, That not more than 
     $340,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section 
     21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated 
     for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during 
     fiscal year 2001 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only 
     through the regular notification procedures of the Committees 
     on Appropriations: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available under this heading shall be available for any 
     non-NATO country participating in the Partnership for Peace 
     Program except through the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.


                        peacekeeping operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $117,900,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.

               TITLE IV--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                  funds appropriated to the president

                  international financial institutions

                      global environment facility

       For the United States contribution for the Global 
     Environment Facility, $35,800,000, to the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development as trustee for the Global 
     Environment Facility, by the Secretary of the Treasury, to 
     remain available until expended.


       contribution to the international development association

       For payment to the International Development Association by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, $576,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided: That the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall: (1) seek to ensure to the maximum extent 
     possible that for countries eligible for debt reduction under 
     the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative 
     that have reached the completion point, the terms of new 
     assistance by the International Development Association shall 
     be on grant terms; and (2) submit a report to the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, 
     and the Committees on Appropriations no later than June 30, 
     2001, on the progress achieved in achieving the objective in 
     paragraph (1): Provided further, That $10,000,000 shall be 
     withheld from obligation until Congress is in receipt of said 
     report: Provided further, That in negotiating United States 
     participation in the next replenishment of the International 
     Development Association, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     accord high priority to providing the International 
     Development Association with the policy flexibility to 
     provide new grant assistance to countries eligible for debt 
     reduction under the enhanced HIPC Initiative.


      contribution to the multilateral investment guarantee agency

       For payment to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury, $4,900,000, for the United 
     States paid-in share of the increase in capital stock, to 
     remain available until expended.

                              {time}  0915


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Royce

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent to reach ahead in order to consider this amendment en bloc.

[[Page 14087]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Royce:

                               H.R. 4811

       Page 39, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 6 
     on page 40.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California to consider the amendment at this point?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ROYCE. Well, let me proceed, Mr. Chairman. This amendment goes to 
the issue----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Does the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) have another amendment to offer to this section 
of the bill?
  Mr. ROYCE. I have the amendment printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. An objection was heard to the consideration of this 
amendment because of the provision that reaches ahead to another 
portion of the bill.
  If the gentleman does not have another amendment to this section of 
the bill, the Clerk will continue to read.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
the amendment of the gentleman from California, which is designated to 
strike $4.9 million from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency 
is obviously critical to the next amendment because it stands 
fundamentally as the offset of the next amendment that I am offering to 
be considered.
  So I am hoping that we are able to determine the status of the Royce 
amendment because it does have implications for subsequent amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce) sought to offer required unanimous consent to be offered because 
it amended more than one paragraph of the bill. An objection was heard 
to consideration of that amendment, therefore, the amendment en bloc by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is not in order in its 
preprinted form.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my understanding under the 
unanimous consent request last night is that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) was entitled, under the agreement, to speak on 
his amendment for 10 minutes and that this was the appropriate location 
for that amendment and the discussion this morning.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would reply to the gentleman from Illinois 
that the time agreements agreed to under the order of the House apply 
only if the amendment is otherwise in order. There were no waivers of 
other provisions that may apply that prevent an amendment from being in 
order, and such is the case here with the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge the distinguished gentleman from Alabama 
(Chairman Callahan) to reconsider his point of order. I know that the 
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is in the 
unanimous consent request of last night as is the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  I think that it is not in violation of the spirit of the unanimous 
consent request as I see it, and if it is in the view of the gentleman 
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), I would hope that he would reconsider 
because we worked very late into the night, as he knows. We are trying 
to accommodate Members' schedules so that we can leave here today in a 
timely fashion. I would hope not to cast any doubt on the credibility 
of the unanimous consent request when the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) are clearly 
listed among those amendments that would be in order.
  So I, as the ranking member on the committee, would hope that the 
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) would remove his objection 
to the unanimous consent request that is being posed here.
  Perhaps the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) could repeat his 
request to give the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) another 
chance to have a clearer view of what it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding to me. I appreciate her efforts here.
  Again, my request was to reach ahead in order to present my amendment 
en bloc.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) understands, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is offset from MIGA, which is contingent upon 
the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) being heard.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from California knows, 
we have worked until 2 o'clock this morning, but we have been working 
for 6 months on this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), 
as other Members of Congress, has had ample opportunity to contact us 
and discuss his needs. We do not think we have heard from him.
  If we start giving unanimous consent requests every Johnny-come-
lately amendment that violates the rules we have adopted, we will be 
here forever. So I am trying to expedite the proceedings here in the 
House.
  I still object.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is it the understanding 
of the gentleman from Alabama that the amendment is printed in the 
Record and is in the unanimous consent, but, just for point of 
clarification, would the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) be able 
to propose his amendment regarding the African Development Bank with 
the offset from MIGA?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. No, Mr. Chairman, he would not, because his amendment 
is really an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce). The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is 
taking about $5 million out of the bill. The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson) is putting it back in. So, no, his amendment, I do not 
think, would be appropriate because there was no removal of the money 
he seeks to get.
  Ms. PELOSI. But nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, when we have had offsets, 
they have been self-contained in one amendment; that is to say, if the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) wanted to increase the funding at 
the African Development Bank as he does, and he has an offset at MIGA.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will further yield, I 
think he has already tried. But, yes, I think the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), if his amendment is in order, then we will 
debate his amendment. But, no, amendments that are not made in order 
and require unanimous consent today I do not think, out of deference to 
our colleagues who we promised we would expeditiously get through this 
thing out of deference to the gentlewoman and those of us who stayed 
here last night and worked until 2 o'clock to try to accomplish this, 
if we start having unanimous consent requests, it is going to delay the 
process until Saturday. So I am going to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this section of 
the bill, the Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     limitation on callable capital

       The United States Governor of the Multilateral Investment 
     Guarantee Agency may subscribe without fiscal year limitation 
     for the callable capital portion of the United

[[Page 14088]]

     States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed 
     $24,500,000.


       Contribution to the Inter-American Investment Corporation

       For payment to the Inter-American Investment Corporation, 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury, $8,000,000, for the United 
     States share of the increase in subscriptions to capital 
     stock, to remain available until expended.


contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment 
                                  fund

       For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral 
     Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the 
     United States contribution to the fund, $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


               CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increase in resources of the Asian 
     Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank 
     Act, as amended, $72,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


              contribution to the african development bank

       For payment to the African Development Bank by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, $3,100,000, for the United States 
     paid-in share of the increase in capital stock, to remain 
     available until expended.


          Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

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

       Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
       Under the heading ``contribution to the african development 
     bank,'' on page 41, line 3, strike ``$3,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,100,000''.
       On page 41, line 11, strike ``$49,574,000'' and insert 
     ``$95,983,000''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) reserves a 
point of order on the amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes on the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. My amendment increases 
funding for the African Development Bank by $3 million to a total of 
$6.1 million, the original request by the administration and the amount 
approved by the Senate.
  I am not completely sure about the reasons that the House continues 
to short fund the African Development Bank, but let me tell my 
colleagues why I think the House should support my amendment.
  Five years ago, the African Development Bank was in serious trouble. 
Management was in disarray, and they had exhibited poor financials. 
What a difference 5 years has made, however. Since then, the United 
States has led top-to-bottom reform with new management, a total 
rewrite of the Charter, scrubbed balance sheets and restructuring of 
capital and voting shares. Steady and determined United States 
engagement in the institution, including erasing our arrears, has 
gained us the leading voice in the leading African Development 
Institution.
  In recent years, the primary United States objective with the African 
Development Bank has been to support and promote fundamental management 
and operational reforms. Specific reforms achieved include a complete 
reorganization with significant staff cuts, including the replacement 
of 70 percent of its managers. Senior officials, including board 
members, are now subject to term limits, and the private sector 
development unit has been upgraded. Independent units for Risk 
Management, Financial Control, Procurement, and Environment were 
created and staffed while major progress has been made and achieved in 
reforming the bank's procurement system.
  The proportion of total arrears to outstanding loans has been 
significantly reduced through a stronger arrears clearance policy, and 
a disbursement of new bank resources to the African Development Bank is 
tied to reform implementation. On top of all of this, an information 
disclosure policy that was developed in partnership with the NGOs is 
now in place. What a change in just 5 years.
  To ensure local interest as well as our own national interest, new 
protective procedures are in place. There is now increased nonregional 
ownership of the bank to 40 percent, with new voting rules requiring a 
70 percent supermajority on major issues. These changes guarantee that 
key actions can be blocked and no substantive decision can be taken 
without substantial nonregional support.
  Financial rating. These changes have resonated throughout the 
financing and bond rating community. All recent evaluations of the AfDB 
by private rating agencies, Moody's, Standard & Poors, Fitch/IBCA, 
acknowledge that the institution has been through an in-depth reform 
following the management shuffle implemented by President Kabbaj in 
1995. President Kabbaj has implemented major reforms affecting nearly 
all areas of the bank: credit policy, asset-liability management, 
development of lending activities.
  As a result of these reforms, the credit rating agencies have raised 
the AfDB's rating for its highly rated nonregional shareholders.
  To quote the Fitch/IBCA rating agency, ``These reforms help restore 
the confidence of the shareholders, notably in non-African countries 
which . . . now attach increasing importance to the Bank's capacity to 
remain economically viable.''
  Another quote states, ``Moody's rates the long-term debt of African 
Development Bank AAA . . . At these levels, the AfDB is rated at the 
top of Moody's rating scale. . . .''
  The United States has a major stake in the successful development in 
Africa and is now engaged more intensively than ever. The African 
Development Bank, through hard loan operations and concessional 
financing, is uniquely positioned to help advance our interests and 
economic development in the region. United States investment in the 
Bank produces significant leverage: historically for every one United 
States dollar paid in capital, the bank has loaned about $120. What an 
amazing return.
  Steady and determined United States engagement in this institution, 
Mr. Chairman, including erasing our arrears, has gained us the leading 
voice in leading the African development institution. In light of solid 
progress on this wide-ranging reform agenda, the United States has 
agreed to participate in the 8-year, $41 million, 5th General Capital 
Increase for the Bank authorized by Congress in fiscal year 2000.
  We have seen that active United States engagement has produced 
sweeping reforms in Bank operations to strengthen its balance sheet, 
internal governance, and effectiveness. At a time when an effective 
United States role in Africa has never been more important, our support 
of the African Development Bank is a modest, but essential, investment 
in our future. We need to deliver upon our commitments.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my point of order, 
I just would remind the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) that, at 
his request, if he will recall, there was zero in the bill for the 
African Development Bank, and out of deference to the gentleman from 
Illinois, because he is a distinguished member of our subcommittee, I 
think we have been most generous. As I have expressed to the gentleman 
from Illinois, the bill now includes the $3.1 million, which made a 
significant step toward protecting the African Development Bank. But 
that is as much as we can do.

                              {time}  0930

  In any event, we have already spent all of the money that has been 
allocated. There is no more money available. So the gentleman's 
amendment would be out of order.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on

[[Page 14089]]

Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 
2001 on July 12, 2000, House Report 106-729. This amendment would 
provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee allocation 
made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(b) of 
the act.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would, Mr. Chairman.
  I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman would not object to the 
gentleman from California's unanimous consent request, because that 
unanimous consent request would have provided the necessary offset for 
my amendment that would have made my amendment in compliance with the 
gentleman's stated prior reasons for his objections.
  Because the gentleman has objected, I have no choice but to concede 
the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) 
would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the 
bill, in breach of the applicable allocation of such authority, as 
estimated by the Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 312 of the 
Budget Act and, as such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the 
Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the African Development Bank 
     may subscribe without fiscal year limitation for the callable 
     capital portion of the United States share of such capital 
     stock in an amount not to exceed $49,574,000.


              contribution to the african development fund

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to the increase in resources of the African 
     Development Fund, $72,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


  contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development

       For payment to the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, $35,778,717, 
     for the United States share of the paid-in portion of the 
     increase in capital stock, to remain available until 
     expended.


              limitation on callable capital subscriptions

       The United States Governor of the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal 
     year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United 
     States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed 
     $123,237,803.

  contribution to the international fund for agricultural development

       For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to increase the resources of the International Fund 
     for Agricultural Development, $5,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                International Organizations and Programs

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of 
     section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program 
     Participation Act of 1973, $183,000,000: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be made 
     available for the United Nations Fund for Science and 
     Technology: Provided further, That not less than $5,000,000 
     should be made available to the World Food Program: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available to the Korean Peninsula Energy 
     Development Organization (KEDO) or the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency (IAEA).

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


             obligations during last month of availability

       Sec. 501. Except for the appropriations entitled 
     ``International Disaster Assistance'', and ``United States 
     Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', not more 
     than 15 percent of any appropriation item made available by 
     this Act shall be obligated during the last month of 
     availability.


     prohibition of bilateral funding for international financial 
                              institutions

       Sec. 502. Notwithstanding section 614 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, none of the funds contained in title 
     II of this Act may be used to carry out the provisions of 
     section 209(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by title II of 
     this Act may be transferred by the Agency for International 
     Development directly to an international financial 
     institution (as defined in section 533 of this Act) for the 
     purpose of repaying a foreign country's loan obligations to 
     such institution.


                    limitation on residence expenses

       Sec. 503. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $126,500 shall be for 
     official residence expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year: Provided, That 
     appropriate steps shall be taken to assure that, to the 
     maximum extent possible, United States-owned foreign 
     currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars.


                         limitation on expenses

       Sec. 504. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $5,000 shall be for 
     entertainment expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development during the current fiscal year.


               limitation on representational allowances

       Sec. 505. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $95,000 shall be 
     available for representation allowances for the Agency for 
     International Development during the current fiscal year: 
     Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken to assure 
     that, to the maximum extent possible, United States-owned 
     foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available by this Act for 
     general costs of administering military assistance and sales 
     under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act under the heading 
     ``International Military Education and Training'', not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     allowances: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available by this Act for the Inter-American Foundation, not 
     to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment and 
     representation allowances: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available by this Act for the Peace Corps, not to 
     exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for entertainment 
     expenses: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     by this Act under the heading ``Trade and Development 
     Agency'', not to exceed $2,000 shall be available for 
     representation and entertainment allowances.


                 prohibition on financing nuclear goods

       Sec. 506. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     (other than funds for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, 
     Demining and Related Programs'') pursuant to this Act, for 
     carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used, 
     except for purposes of nuclear safety, to finance the export 
     of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology.


        prohibition against direct funding for certain countries

       Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, 
     Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, or Syria: Provided, 
     That for purposes of this section, the prohibition on 
     obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans, 
     credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank 
     or its agents.


                             military coups

       Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
     to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly 
     elected head of government is deposed by decree or military 
     coup: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such 
     country if the President determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the 
     termination of assistance a democratically elected government 
     has taken office.


                       transfers between accounts

       Sec. 509. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated under an appropriation account to which they 
     were not appropriated, except for transfers specifically 
     provided for in this Act, unless the President, prior to the 
     exercise of any authority contained in the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 to transfer funds, consults with and provides a 
     written policy justification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.


                  deobligation/reobligation authority

       Sec. 510. Obligated balances of funds appropriated to carry 
     out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as of the end 
     of the fiscal year immediately preceding the current fiscal 
     year are, if deobligated, hereby continued available during 
     the current fiscal year for the same purpose under any 
     authority applicable to such appropriations under this Act: 
     Provided, That the authority of this subsection may not be 
     used in fiscal year 2001.


                         availability of funds

       Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation after the 
     expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so 
     provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for 
     the purposes of chapters 1, 8, 11, and 12 of

[[Page 14090]]

     part I, section 667, and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and funds provided under 
     the heading ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic 
     States'', shall remain available until expended if such funds 
     are initially obligated before the expiration of their 
     respective periods of availability contained in this Act: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this Act, any funds made available for the purposes of 
     chapter 1 of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 which are allocated or obligated for 
     cash disbursements in order to address balance of payments or 
     economic policy reform objectives, shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That, effective upon 
     enactment into law of this Act, the final proviso under the 
     heading ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' contained in 
     title VI of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into 
     law by section 1000(a)(2) of Public Law 106-113) shall be 
     null and void: Provided further, That the report required by 
     section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall 
     designate for each country, to the extent known at the time 
     of submission of such report, those funds allocated for cash 
     disbursement for balance of payment and economic policy 
     reform purposes.


            limitation on assistance to countries in default

       Sec. 512. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used to furnish assistance to any country which 
     is in default during a period in excess of one calendar year 
     in payment to the United States of principal or interest on 
     any loan made to the government of such country by the United 
     States pursuant to a program for which funds are appropriated 
     under this Act: Provided, That this section and section 
     620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply 
     to funds made available for any narcotics-related assistance 
     for Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru authorized by the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act.


                           commerce and trade

       Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available pursuant to this Act for direct assistance and none 
     of the funds otherwise made available pursuant to this Act to 
     the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall be obligated or expended to finance any 
     loan, any assistance or any other financial commitments for 
     establishing or expanding production of any commodity for 
     export by any country other than the United States, if the 
     commodity is likely to be in surplus on world markets at the 
     time the resulting productive capacity is expected to become 
     operative and if the assistance will cause substantial injury 
     to United States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity: Provided, That such prohibition shall not apply to 
     the Export-Import Bank if in the judgment of its Board of 
     Directors the benefits to industry and employment in the 
     United States are likely to outweigh the injury to United 
     States producers of the same, similar, or competing 
     commodity, and the Chairman of the Board so notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act 
     to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 shall be available for any testing or breeding 
     feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, 
     consultancy, publication, conference, or training in 
     connection with the growth or production in a foreign country 
     of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete 
     with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United 
     States: Provided, That this subsection shall not prohibit--
       (1) activities designed to increase food security in 
     developing countries where such activities will not have a 
     significant impact in the export of agricultural commodities 
     of the United States; or
       (2) research activities intended primarily to benefit 
     American producers.


                          surplus commodities

       Sec. 514. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Directors of the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the 
     Inter-American Investment Corporation, the North American 
     Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the African Development Bank, and the African 
     Development Fund to use the voice and vote of the United 
     States to oppose any assistance by these institutions, using 
     funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this Act, 
     for the production or extraction of any commodity or mineral 
     for export, if it is in surplus on world markets and if the 
     assistance will cause substantial injury to United States 
     producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity.


                       notification requirements

       Sec. 515. (a) For the purposes of providing the executive 
     branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of 
     the funds made available under this Act for ``Child Survival 
     and Disease Programs Fund'', ``Development Assistance'', 
     ``International Organizations and Programs'', ``Trade and 
     Development Agency'', ``International Narcotics Control and 
     Law Enforcement'', ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the 
     Baltic States'', ``Assistance for the Independent States of 
     the Former Soviet Union'', ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     ``Peacekeeping Operations'', ``Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development'', ``Operating Expenses 
     of the Agency for International Development Office of 
     Inspector General'', ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, 
     Demining and Related Programs'', ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'', ``International Military Education and Training'', 
     ``Peace Corps'', and ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'', 
     shall be available for obligation for activities, programs, 
     projects, type of materiel assistance, countries, or other 
     operations not justified or in excess of the amount justified 
     to the Appropriations Committees for obligation under any of 
     these specific headings unless the Appropriations Committees 
     of both Houses of Congress are previously notified 15 days in 
     advance: Provided, That the President shall not enter into 
     any commitment of funds appropriated for the purposes of 
     section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act for the provision 
     of major defense equipment, other than conventional 
     ammunition, or other major defense items defined to be 
     aircraft, ships, missiles, or combat vehicles, not previously 
     justified to Congress or 20 percent in excess of the 
     quantities justified to Congress unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     commitment: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to any reprogramming for an activity, program, or 
     project under chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 of less than 10 percent of the amount previously 
     justified to the Congress for obligation for such activity, 
     program, or project for the current fiscal year: Provided 
     further, That the requirements of this section or any similar 
     provision of this Act or any other Act, including any prior 
     Act requiring notification in accordance with the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     may be waived if failure to do so would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health or welfare: Provided further, That in 
     case of any such waiver, notification to the Congress, or the 
     appropriate congressional committees, shall be provided as 
     early as practicable, but in no event later than 3 days after 
     taking the action to which such notification requirement was 
     applicable, in the context of the circumstances necessitating 
     such waiver: Provided further, That any notification provided 
     pursuant to such a waiver shall contain an explanation of the 
     emergency circumstances.
       (b) Drawdowns made pursuant to section 506(a)(2) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and 
                                programs

       Sec. 516. Subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations, funds appropriated under 
     this Act or any previously enacted Act making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, which are returned or not made available for 
     organizations and programs because of the implementation of 
     section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2002.


             independent states of the former soviet union

       Sec. 517. (a) None of the funds appropriated under the 
     heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former 
     Soviet Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a 
     government of an Independent State of the former Soviet 
     Union--
       (1) unless that government is making progress in 
     implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market 
     principles, private ownership, respect for commercial 
     contracts, and equitable treatment of foreign private 
     investment; and
       (2) if that government applies or transfers United States 
     assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or 
     seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or 
     ventures.
     Assistance may be furnished without regard to this subsection 
     if the President determines that to do so is in the national 
     interest.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet 
     Union'' shall be made available for any state to enhance its 
     military capability: Provided, That this restriction does not 
     apply to demilitarization, demining or nonproliferation 
     programs.
       (c) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for 
     the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' for the 
     Russian Federation and Ukraine shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       (d) Funds made available in this Act for assistance for the 
     Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be 
     subject to the

[[Page 14091]]

     provisions of section 117 (relating to environment and 
     natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (e) Funds appropriated in this or prior appropriations Acts 
     that are or have been made available for an Enterprise Fund 
     in the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union may be 
     deposited by such Fund in interest-bearing accounts prior to 
     the disbursement of such funds by the Fund for program 
     purposes. The Fund may retain for such program purposes any 
     interest earned on such deposits without returning such 
     interest to the Treasury of the United States and without 
     further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made available 
     for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the minimum rate 
     necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities.
       (f ) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, 
     or making grants, with funds appropriated in this Act or 
     prior appropriations Acts under the headings ``Assistance for 
     the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' and 
     ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet 
     Union'', for projects or activities that have as one of their 
     primary purposes the fostering of private sector development, 
     the Coordinator for United States Assistance to the New 
     Independent States and the implementing agency shall 
     encourage the participation of and give significant weight to 
     contractors and grantees who propose investing a significant 
     amount of their own resources (including volunteer services 
     and in-kind contributions) in such projects and activities.


   prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization

       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method 
     of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to 
     practice abortions. None of the funds made available to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary 
     sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or 
     provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo 
     sterilizations. None of the funds made available to carry out 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may 
     be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates in 
     whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, 
     abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family 
     planning. None of the funds made available to carry out part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be 
     obligated or expended for any country or organization if the 
     President certifies that the use of these funds by any such 
     country or organization would violate any of the above 
     provisions related to abortions and involuntary 
     sterilizations: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against 
     abortion.


                 export financing transfer authorities

       Sec. 519. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     other than for administrative expenses made available for 
     fiscal year 2001, for programs under title I of this Act may 
     be transferred between such appropriations for use for any of 
     the purposes, programs, and activities for which the funds in 
     such receiving account may be used, but no such 
     appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     shall be increased by more than 25 percent by any such 
     transfer: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


                   special notification requirements

       Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended for Colombia, Haiti, Liberia, 
     Serbia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, or the Democratic 
     Republic of Congo except as provided through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


              definition of program, project, and activity

       Sec. 521. For the purpose of this Act, ``program, project, 
     and activity'' shall be defined at the appropriations Act 
     account level and shall include all appropriations and 
     authorizations Acts earmarks, ceilings, and limitations with 
     the exception that for the following accounts: Economic 
     Support Fund and Foreign Military Financing Program, 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be considered 
     to include country, regional, and central program level 
     funding within each such account; for the development 
     assistance accounts of the Agency for International 
     Development ``program, project, and activity'' shall also be 
     considered to include central program level funding, either 
     as: (1) justified to the Congress; or (2) allocated by the 
     executive branch in accordance with a report, to be provided 
     to the Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the 
     enactment of this Act, as required by section 653(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


            child survival and disease prevention activities

       Sec. 522. Up to $10,500,000 of the funds made available by 
     this Act for assistance under the heading ``Child Survival 
     and Disease Programs Fund'', may be used to reimburse United 
     States Government agencies, agencies of State governments, 
     institutions of higher learning, and private and voluntary 
     organizations for the full cost of individuals (including for 
     the personal services of such individuals) detailed or 
     assigned to, or contracted by, as the case may be, the Agency 
     for International Development for the purpose of carrying out 
     child survival, basic education, and infectious disease 
     activities: Provided, That up to $1,500,000 of the funds made 
     available by this Act for assistance under the heading 
     ``Development Assistance'' may be used to reimburse such 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations for such costs of 
     such individuals carrying out other development assistance 
     activities: Provided further, That funds appropriated by this 
     Act that are made available for child survival activities or 
     disease programs including activities relating to research 
     on, and the prevention, treatment and control of, Acquired 
     Immune Deficiency Syndrome may be made available 
     notwithstanding any provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated under title II of this Act may be made available 
     pursuant to section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     if a primary purpose of the assistance is for child survival 
     and related programs.


       prohibition against indirect funding to certain countries

       Sec. 523. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated to finance 
     indirectly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Iraq, 
     Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or the People's Republic of 
     China, unless the President of the United States certifies 
     that the withholding of these funds is contrary to the 
     national interest of the United States.


                NOTIFICATION ON EXCESS DEFENSE EQUIPMENT

       Sec. 524. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense 
     articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent 
     and under the same conditions as are other committees 
     pursuant to subsection (f ) of that section: Provided, That 
     before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense 
     articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of 
     Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of such 
     Committees: Provided further, That such Committees shall also 
     be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense 
     articles.


                       AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT

       Sec. 525. Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     and expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 
     and section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act 
     of 1956.


                           democracy in china

       Sec. 526. Notwithstanding any other provision of law that 
     restricts assistance to foreign countries, funds appropriated 
     by this Act for ``Economic Support Fund'' may be made 
     available to provide general support and grants for 
     nongovernmental organizations located outside the People's 
     Republic of China that have as their primary purpose 
     fostering democracy in that country, and for activities of 
     nongovernmental organizations located outside the People's 
     Republic of China to foster democracy in that country: 
     Provided, That none of the funds made available for 
     activities to foster democracy in the People's Republic of 
     China may be made available for assistance to the government 
     of that country, except that funds appropriated by this Act 
     under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' that are made 
     available for the National Endowment for Democracy or its 
     grantees may be made available for activities to foster 
     democracy in that country notwithstanding this proviso and 
     any other provision of law: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this or any prior Acts making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, that are provided to the National Endowment for 
     Democracy shall be provided in a manner that is consistent 
     with the last sentence of section 503(a) of the National 
     Endowment for Democracy Act and Comptroller General Decisions 
     No. B-203681 of June 6, 1985, and No. B-248111 of September 
     9, 1992, and the National Endowment for Democracy shall be 
     deemed ``the awarding agency'' for purposes of implementing 
     Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122 as dated June 
     1, 1998, or any successor circular: Provided further, That 
     funds made available pursuant to the authority of this 
     section shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, not to exceed $1,000,000 may be made available 
     to nongovernmental organizations located outside the People's 
     Republic of China to support activities which preserve 
     cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and 
     environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in that 
     country: Provided further, That the final proviso in section 
     526 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by

[[Page 14092]]

     section 1000(a)(2) of Public Law 106-113) is amended by 
     striking ``Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human 
     Rights'' and inserting ``Jamestown Foundation''.


       PROHIBITION ON BILATERAL ASSISTANCE TO TERRORIST COUNTRIES

       Sec. 527. (a) Funds appropriated for bilateral assistance 
     under any heading of this Act and funds appropriated under 
     any such heading in a provision of law enacted prior to the 
     enactment of this Act, shall not be made available to any 
     country which the President determines--
       (1) grants sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or 
     group which has committed an act of international terrorism; 
     or
       (2) otherwise supports international terrorism.
       (b) The President may waive the application of subsection 
     (a) to a country if the President determines that national 
     security or humanitarian reasons justify such waiver. The 
     President shall publish each waiver in the Federal Register 
     and, at least 15 days before the waiver takes effect, shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations of the waiver 
     (including the justification for the waiver) in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


        report on implementation of supplemental appropriations

       Sec. 528. (a) Beginning not later than January 1, 2001, the 
     Secretary of State shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations providing information on the use 
     of funds appropriated in title VI of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2000 (as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(2) of Public Law 
     106-113). Each report shall include the following--
       (1) the current and projected status of obligations and 
     expenditures by appropriations account, by country, and by 
     program, project, and activity;
       (2) the contractors and subcontractors engaged in 
     activities funded from appropriations contained in title VI; 
     and
       (3) the procedures and processes under which decisions have 
     been or will be made on which programs, projects, and 
     activities are funded through appropriations contained in 
     title VI.
       (b) For each report required by this section, a classified 
     annex may be submitted if deemed necessary and appropriate.
       (c) The last quarterly report required by this section 
     shall be provided to the Committees on Appropriations by 
     January 1, 2002.


                         COMPETITIVE INSURANCE

       Sec. 529. All Agency for International Development 
     contracts and solicitations, and subcontracts entered into 
     under such contracts, shall include a clause requiring that 
     United States insurance companies have a fair opportunity to 
     bid for insurance when such insurance is necessary or 
     appropriate.


                  STINGERS IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION

       Sec. 530. (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), the United States may not sell or otherwise 
     make available any Stingers to any country bordering the 
     Persian Gulf under the Arms Export Control Act or chapter 2 
     of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (b) Additional Transfers Authorized.--In addition to the 
     defense articles otherwise authorized to be transferred by 
     section 581 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
     Related Program Appropriation Act, 1990, the United States 
     may sell or otherwise make available Stingers to any country 
     bordering the Persian Gulf under the Arms Export Control Act 
     or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, in order to replace, on a one-for-one basis, Stingers 
     previously furnished to such country, provided that the 
     Stingers to be replaced are nearing the scheduled expiration 
     of their shelf-life.


                          DEBT-FOR-DEVELOPMENT

       Sec. 531. In order to enhance the continued participation 
     of nongovernmental organizations in economic assistance 
     activities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     including endowments, debt-for-development and debt-for-
     nature exchanges, a nongovernmental organization which is a 
     grantee or contractor of the Agency for International 
     Development may place in interest bearing accounts funds made 
     available under this Act or prior Acts or local currencies 
     which accrue to that organization as a result of economic 
     assistance provided under title II of this Act and any 
     interest earned on such investment shall be used for the 
     purpose for which the assistance was provided to that 
     organization.


                           SEPARATE ACCOUNTS

       Sec. 532. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--(1) 
     If assistance is furnished to the government of a foreign 
     country under chapters 1 and 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under 
     agreements which result in the generation of local currencies 
     of that country, the Administrator of the Agency for 
     International Development shall--
       (A) require that local currencies be deposited in a 
     separate account established by that government;
       (B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets 
     forth--
       (i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated; and
       (ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so 
     deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
       (C) establish by agreement with that government the 
     responsibilities of the Agency for International Development 
     and that government to monitor and account for deposits into 
     and disbursements from the separate account.
       (2) Uses of Local Currencies.--As may be agreed upon with 
     the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a 
     separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent 
     amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
       (A) to carry out chapters 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
       (i) project and sector assistance activities; or
       (ii) debt and deficit financing; or
       (B) for the administrative requirements of the United 
     States Government.
       (3) Programming Accountability.--The Agency for 
     International Development shall take all necessary steps to 
     ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies disbursed 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate account 
     established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used for the 
     purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
       (4) Termination of Assistance Programs.--Upon termination 
     of assistance to a country under chapters 1 or 10 of part I 
     or chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any 
     unencumbered balances of funds which remain in a separate 
     account established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     disposed of for such purposes as may be agreed to by the 
     government of that country and the United States Government.
       (5) Reporting Requirement.--The Administrator of the Agency 
     for International Development shall report on an annual basis 
     as part of the justification documents submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on the use of local currencies 
     for the administrative requirements of the United States 
     Government as authorized in subsection (a)(2)(B), and such 
     report shall include the amount of local currency (and United 
     States dollar equivalent) used and/or to be used for such 
     purpose in each applicable country.
       (b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--(1) If 
     assistance is made available to the government of a foreign 
     country, under chapters 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash 
     transfer assistance or as nonproject sector assistance, that 
     country shall be required to maintain such funds in a 
     separate account and not commingle them with any other funds.
       (2) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--Such funds 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of 
     law which are inconsistent with the nature of this assistance 
     including provisions which are referenced in the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference 
     accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (House Report No. 98-
     1159).
       (3) Notification.--At least 15 days prior to obligating any 
     such cash transfer or nonproject sector assistance, the 
     President shall submit a notification through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     which shall include a detailed description of how the funds 
     proposed to be made available will be used, with a discussion 
     of the United States interests that will be served by the 
     assistance (including, as appropriate, a description of the 
     economic policy reforms that will be promoted by such 
     assistance).
       (4) Exemption.--Nonproject sector assistance funds may be 
     exempt from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) only 
     through the notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


  compensation for united states executive directors to international 
                         financial institutions

       Sec. 533. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     as payment to any international financial institution while 
     the United States Executive Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate which, together with 
     whatever compensation such Director receives from the United 
     States, is in excess of the rate provided for an individual 
     occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, or while 
     any alternate United States Director to such institution is 
     compensated by the institution at a rate in excess of the 
     rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section, ``international financial 
     institutions'' are: the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the 
     Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the 
     African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the 
     International Monetary Fund, the North American Development 
     Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.


         compliance with united nations sanctions against iraq

       Sec. 534. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this

[[Page 14093]]

     Act to carry out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (including title IV of chapter 2 of part I, relating to the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation) or the Arms Export 
     Control Act may be used to provide assistance to any country 
     that is not in compliance with the United Nations Security 
     Council sanctions against Iraq unless the President 
     determines and so certifies to the Congress that--
       (1) such assistance is in the national interest of the 
     United States;
       (2) such assistance will directly benefit the needy people 
     in that country; or
       (3) the assistance to be provided will be humanitarian 
     assistance for foreign nationals who have fled Iraq and 
     Kuwait.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Payne

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Payne:
       Page 70, line 14, after ``iraq'' insert ``and angola''.
       Page 70, line 22, after ``Iraq'' insert ``and Angola''.
       Page 71, line 5, strike ``Iraq and Kuwait'' and insert 
     ``Iraq, Kuwait, or Angola, as the case may be''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which would be included in section 534, 
would add to the list of countries, ``any country doing business with 
UNITA in Angola.''
  As my colleagues may know, UNITA is an organization that was formed 
and supported during the Cold War, and it is an organization that is 
supported and run by Jonas Savimbi, who during the end of the Cold War 
agreements were made with President dos Santos from the government and 
UNITA that an election should be held. An election was held and Mr. dos 
Santos was the victor of the election.
  There was supposed to then be a turning in of weapons from UNITA. 
They were then supposed to take political seats in the government of 
Angola, but they have refused to stop the war. They have killed 
peacekeepers from the United Nations; shot down two planes, which ended 
up in the loss of life; and also Jonas Savimbi is dealing in illegal 
diamond sales, similar to the RUF in Sierra Leone.
  We must stop the sale of illegal diamonds, whether it is the brutal 
RUF in Sierra Leone, who broke the Lome Peace Accords, and we feel that 
now those persons, Foday Sankoh and the rest who broke the accords 
should stand trial, or in Angola, where UNITA continues to wreak havoc 
on that country. They have become involved in the conflict in the Congo 
which has six other countries involved. They are continuing to refuse 
to go along with continued United Nations sanctions.
  So we believe that the same countries that are in this bill, and that 
this amendment deals with, should be prohibited from having any funds 
for the governments of any country that supports UNITA. As I have 
indicated, there has been an appeal to Jonas Savimbi to lay down the 
arms, to give his arms up and to allow the people of Angola a peace for 
the first time in many, many years, where a civil war went on until 
1974 when the Portuguese troops withdrew from Angola and the country 
then became independent. But since that time, the UNITA forces were 
supported by the United States Government, like the government of Zaire 
with Mr. Mobutu, another brutal dictator. And once again these are the 
legacies of the Cold War.
  I think that we have a responsibility, since we had so much to do 
with the creation of these despots and these dictators and these brutal 
leaders, to help undo what we have done. What was done was felt was in 
the best interest of democracy and our foreign needs, but now that that 
Cold War is over, I think we have an adequate responsibility to attempt 
to undo. So I would hope that this amendment would be accepted. As I 
have indicated, it is simply asking that UNITA, the corporation, be 
added to the list of these other pariah countries of Iraq and others 
that are included in this section, and that it would prohibit any funds 
for the government of any country that supports UNITA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume; and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from New 
Jersey talk with the chairman of the authorizing committee, who is 
here, to strike a section of the bill that is authorization on an 
appropriations bill that is inappropriate.
  If the gentleman would wish to continue, I will be happy to withhold 
my point of order to allow him to finish his statement.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and 
would just conclude by once again reiterating that we should prohibit 
funds to any country that supports UNITA. They are working against the 
best interests of the people of that country. They said that they would 
turn in their weapons, they said that they would stop the illicit 
selling of diamonds, which they have not, and they have continued to 
wreak havoc.
  Mr. Chairman, there are more land mines in Angola than any other 
country in the world. There are more amputees per person than in any 
country in the world. Farmers cannot farm, children cannot play, 
vehicles cannot ride because of the continued business of UNITA. 
Illegal diamonds are continuing to be sold.
  So I think it is a very humane point, and I would ask the gentleman 
to reconsider his opposition.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be made in order if changing existing 
law'' applies.
  I ask for the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. PAYNE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman reconsider his point of 
order. I believe that this is in keeping with what we have in this 
section of the legislation. But in addition to that, I think it is only 
the right thing to do.
  As we have indicated, people controlled by UNITA's area are selling 
diamonds, creating havoc; and I think that if the gentleman would 
reconsider, this should be inserted. It is not actually legislating; it 
is simply stating the sense of what is right should be included and was 
overlooked.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Section 534 constitutes a legislative provision permitted to remain 
in the bill by waiver in House Resolution 546.
  A germane amendment merely perfecting section 534 may be in order. 
The instant amendment, however, by proposing to cover an additional 
nation in the legislative prescription in section 534, would insert 
additional legislation. The amendment is not merely perfecting. As 
such, it constitutes further legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of 
rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained.
  If there are no further amendments to this section, the Clerk will 
continue to read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


 authorities for the peace corps, international fund for agricultural 
    development, inter-american foundation and african development 
                               foundation

       Sec. 535. (a) Unless expressly provided to the contrary, 
     provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions 
     contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities 
     authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the 
     Inter-American Foundation Act or the African Development 
     Foundation Act. The agency shall

[[Page 14094]]

     promptly report to the Committees on Appropriations whenever 
     it is conducting activities or is proposing to conduct 
     activities in a country for which assistance is prohibited.
       (b) Unless expressly provided to the contrary, limitations 
     on the availability of funds for ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'' in this or any other Act, 
     including prior appropriations Acts, shall not be construed 
     to be applicable to the International Fund for Agricultural 
     Development.


                  impact on jobs in the united states

       Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to provide--
       (a) any financial incentive to a business enterprise 
     currently located in the United States for the purpose of 
     inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United 
     States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce 
     the number of employees of such business enterprise in the 
     United States because United States production is being 
     replaced by such enterprise outside the United States;
       (b) assistance for the purpose of establishing or 
     developing in a foreign country any export processing zone or 
     designated area in which the tax, tariff, labor, environment, 
     and safety laws of that country do not apply, in part or in 
     whole, to activities carried out within that zone or area, 
     unless the President determines and certifies that such 
     assistance is not likely to cause a loss of jobs within the 
     United States; or
       (c) assistance for any project or activity that contributes 
     to the violation of internationally recognized workers 
     rights, as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 
     1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any 
     designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That in 
     recognition that the application of this subsection should be 
     commensurate with the level of development of the recipient 
     country and sector, the provisions of this subsection shall 
     not preclude assistance for the informal sector in such 
     country, micro and small-scale enterprise, and smallholder 
     agriculture.


                     funding prohibition for serbia

       Sec. 537. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     made available for assistance for the Republic of Serbia: 
     Provided, That this restriction shall not apply to assistance 
     for Kosovo or Montenegro, or to assistance to promote 
     democratization: Provided further, That section 620(t) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall not apply 
     to Kosovo or Montenegro.


                          special authorities

       Sec. 538. (a) Funds appropriated in titles I and II of this 
     Act that are made available for Afghanistan, Lebanon, 
     Montenegro, and for victims of war, displaced children, and 
     displaced Burmese, may be made available notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law: Provided, That any such funds that 
     are made available for Cambodia shall be subject to the 
     provisions of section 531(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and section 906 of the International Security and 
     Development Cooperation Act of 1985.
       (b) Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of sections 103 through 106, and chapter 4 of part 
     II, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be used, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of supporting tropical forestry and biodiversity conservation 
     activities and, subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, energy 
     programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions: 
     Provided, That such assistance shall be subject to sections 
     116, 502B, and 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (c) The Agency for International Development may employ 
     personal services contractors, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for the purpose of administering programs 
     for the West Bank and Gaza.
       (d)(1) Waiver.--The President may waive the provisions of 
     section 1003 of Public Law 100-204 if the President 
     determines and certifies in writing to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate that it is important to the national security 
     interests of the United States.
       (2) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) shall be effective for no more than a period 
     of 6 months at a time and shall not apply beyond 12 months 
     after the enactment of this Act.


policy on terminating the arab league boycott of israel and normalizing 
                         relations with israel

       Sec. 539. It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Arab League countries should immediately and 
     publicly renounce the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycott of American firms that have 
     commercial ties with Israel and should normalize their 
     relations with Israel;
       (2) the decision by the Arab League in 1997 to reinstate 
     the boycott against Israel was deeply troubling and 
     disappointing;
       (3) the fact that only three Arab countries maintain full 
     diplomatic relations with Israel is also of deep concern;
       (4) the Arab League should immediately rescind its decision 
     on the boycott and its members should develop normal 
     relations with their neighbor Israel; and
       (5) the President should--
       (A) take more concrete steps to encourage vigorously Arab 
     League countries to renounce publicly the primary boycotts of 
     Israel and the secondary and tertiary boycotts of American 
     firms that have commercial relations with Israel and to 
     normalize their relations with Israel;
       (B) take into consideration the participation of any 
     recipient country in the primary boycott of Israel and the 
     secondary and tertiary boycotts of American firms that have 
     commercial relations with Israel when determining whether to 
     sell weapons to said country;
       (C) report to Congress annually on the specific steps being 
     taken by the United States and the progress achieved to bring 
     about a public renunciation of the Arab primary boycott of 
     Israel and the secondary and tertiary boycotts of American 
     firms that have commercial relations with Israel and to 
     expand the process of normalizing ties between Arab League 
     countries and Israel; and
       (D) encourage the allies and trading partners of the United 
     States to enact laws prohibiting businesses from complying 
     with the boycott and penalizing businesses that do comply.


                  administration of justice activities

       Sec. 540. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     assistance may be provided to strengthen the administration 
     of justice in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean 
     and in other regions consistent with the provisions of 
     section 534(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except 
     that programs to enhance protection of participants in 
     judicial cases may be conducted notwithstanding section 660 
     of that Act. Funds made available pursuant to this section 
     may be made available notwithstanding section 534(c) and the 
     second and third sentences of section 534(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.


                       eligibility for assistance

       Sec. 541. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental 
     Organizations.--Restrictions contained in this or any other 
     Act with respect to assistance for a country shall not be 
     construed to restrict assistance in support of programs of 
     nongovernmental organizations from funds appropriated by this 
     Act to carry out the provisions of chapters 1, 10, 11, and 12 
     of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, and from funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'': 
     Provided, That the President shall take into consideration, 
     in any case in which a restriction on assistance would be 
     applicable but for this subsection, whether assistance in 
     support of programs of nongovernmental organizations is in 
     the national interest of the United States: Provided further, 
     That before using the authority of this subsection to furnish 
     assistance in support of programs of nongovernmental 
     organizations, the President shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations under the regular notification procedures of 
     those committees, including a description of the program to 
     be assisted, the assistance to be provided, and the reasons 
     for furnishing such assistance: Provided further, That 
     nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter any 
     existing statutory prohibitions against abortion or 
     involuntary sterilizations contained in this or any other 
     Act.
       (b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 2001, restrictions 
     contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to 
     carry out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to 
     this subsection may be obligated or expended except as 
     provided through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that support international terrorism; 
     or
       (2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that violate internationally 
     recognized human rights.


                                earmarks

       Sec. 542. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act which are 
     earmarked may be reprogrammed for other programs within the 
     same account notwithstanding the earmark if compliance with 
     the earmark is made impossible by operation of any provision 
     of this or any other Act or, with respect to a country with 
     which the United States has an agreement providing the United 
     States with base rights or base access in that country, if 
     the President determines that the recipient for which funds 
     are earmarked has significantly reduced its military or 
     economic cooperation with the United States since the 
     enactment of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1991; however, before 
     exercising the authority of this subsection with regard to a 
     base rights or base access country which

[[Page 14095]]

     has significantly reduced its military or economic 
     cooperation with the United States, the President shall 
     consult with, and shall provide a written policy 
     justification to the Committees on Appropriations: Provided, 
     That any such reprogramming shall be subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That assistance that is reprogrammed 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be made available under the 
     same terms and conditions as originally provided.
       (b) In addition to the authority contained in subsection 
     (a), the original period of availability of funds 
     appropriated by this Act and administered by the Agency for 
     International Development that are earmarked for particular 
     programs or activities by this or any other Act shall be 
     extended for an additional fiscal year if the Administrator 
     of such agency determines and reports promptly to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the termination of 
     assistance to a country or a significant change in 
     circumstances makes it unlikely that such earmarked funds can 
     be obligated during the original period of availability: 
     Provided, That such earmarked funds that are continued 
     available for an additional fiscal year shall be obligated 
     only for the purpose of such earmark.


                         ceilings and earmarks

       Sec. 543. Ceilings and earmarks contained in this Act shall 
     not be applicable to funds or authorities appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by any subsequent Act unless such 
     Act specifically so directs. Earmarks or minimum funding 
     requirements contained in any other Act shall not be 
     applicable to funds appropriated by this Act.

                              {time}  0945


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
language appearing in the bill beginning with ``earmarks'' on page 80, 
line 22, through the end of page 80, line 24 on the ground that it 
violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The rule I have referenced prohibits provisions changing existing law 
on general appropriations bills.
  This language clearly is legislative and would override existing and 
future legislation of our Committee on International Relations and 
other committees that have legislative authority over funds 
appropriated in this Act.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in the essence of time, I am willing to 
concede the point of order.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the provision removes earmarks and limitations 
contained in existing law. Similarly, the provision addresses earmarks 
and limitations in subsequent acts. As such, the provision constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained and the provision is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I proceed for an additional minute?
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) is permitted to extend his remarks after the ruling on the 
point of order.
  Mr. GILMAN. Although I am on my feet to object to a particular 
provision----
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend, the Chair has ruled on 
the point of order.
  Mr. GILMAN. I am not discussing the point of order, Mr. Chairman, 
just a comment to make about our distinguished chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The order of the House does not provide for any Member 
other than the chairman and the ranking member or their designees to 
strike the requisite number of words for purposes of debate.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, those authorities include the authority to 
set minimum funding levels and earmarks in ways that do not constitute 
appropriations.
  Moreover, the House may have decided, or may decide in the future, to 
permit a variety of legislative actions in other Acts in particular, 
appropriate, cases and such actions should not be overridden by this 
sort of proviso. I would hasten to add that in most if not all cases 
our inclinations on earmarks and minimum funding levels have been 
worked out amicably with the Committee on Appropriations.
  The fact that this provision, which is a law intended to apply during 
the year of its enactment only, is repeated from a previous year does 
not relieve it from being characterized as legislation, and I would 
refer to the authority cited in Section 1052 of the House Rules Manual, 
that is, Hinds' Precedents, Volume IV, Section 3822.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully insist on my point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the 
bill? If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 prohibition on publicity or propaganda

       Sec. 544. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
     the United States not authorized before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act by the Congress: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $750,000 may be made available to carry out the 
     provisions of section 316 of Public Law 96-533.


            purchase of american-made equipment and products

       Sec. 545. (a) To the maximum extent possible, assistance 
     provided under this Act should make full use of American 
     resources, including commodities, products, and services.
       (b) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, all agriculture commodities, equipment 
     and products purchased with funds made available in this Act 
     should be American-made.
       (c) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (b) by the 
     Congress.
       (d) The Secretary of the Treasury shall report to Congress 
     annually on the efforts of the heads of each Federal agency 
     and the United States directors of international financial 
     institutions (as referenced in section 514) in complying with 
     this sense of the Congress.


           prohibition of payments to united nations members

       Sec. 546. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
     assessments, arrearages, or dues of any member of the United 
     Nations or, from funds appropriated by this Act to carry out 
     chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     the costs for participation of another country's delegation 
     at international conferences held under the auspices of 
     multilateral or international organizations.


                          consulting services

       Sec. 547. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order pursuant to existing 
     law.


             private voluntary organizations--documentation

       Sec. 548. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act shall be available to a private 
     voluntary organization which fails to provide upon timely 
     request any document, file, or record necessary to the 
     auditing requirements of the Agency for International 
     Development.


  Prohibition on Assistance to Foreign Governments that Export Lethal 
   Military Equipment to Countries Supporting International Terrorism

       Sec. 549. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be available to any foreign 
     government which provides lethal military equipment to a 
     country the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 
     40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act. The prohibition under 
     this section with respect to a foreign government shall 
     terminate 12 months after that government ceases to provide 
     such military equipment. This section applies with respect to 
     lethal military equipment provided under a contract entered 
     into after October 1, 1997.
       (b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other 
     similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President 
     determines that furnishing such assistance is important to 
     the national interests of the United States.
       (c) Whenever the waiver of subsection (b) is exercised, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report with respect to the furnishing of such 
     assistance. Any such report shall include a detailed 
     explanation of the assistance to be provided, including the 
     estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and an 
     explanation of how the assistance furthers United States 
     national interests.


 withholding of assistance for parking fines owed by foreign countries

       Sec. 550. (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for 
     a foreign country under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961, an amount equivalent to 110 percent of the total 
     unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines

[[Page 14096]]

     and penalties owed to the District of Columbia by such 
     country as of the date of the enactment of this Act shall be 
     withheld from obligation for such country until the Secretary 
     of State certifies and reports in writing to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that such fines and penalties are 
     fully paid to the government of the District of Columbia.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.


    limitation on assistance for the plo for the west bank and gaza

       Sec. 551. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza unless the President 
     has exercised the authority under section 604(a) of the 
     Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 (title VI of 
     Public Law 104-107) or any other legislation to suspend or 
     make inapplicable section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 and that suspension is still in effect: Provided, 
     That if the President fails to make the certification under 
     section 604(b)(2) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act 
     of 1995 or to suspend the prohibition under other 
     legislation, funds appropriated by this Act may not be 
     obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization for the West Bank and Gaza.


                     war crimes tribunals drawdown

       Sec. 552. If the President determines that doing so will 
     contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide 
     or other violations of international humanitarian law, the 
     President may direct a drawdown pursuant to section 552(c) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, of up to 
     $30,000,000 of commodities and services for the United 
     Nations War Crimes Tribunal established with regard to the 
     former Yugoslavia by the United Nations Security Council or 
     such other tribunals or commissions as the Council may 
     establish to deal with such violations, without regard to the 
     ceiling limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof: 
     Provided, That the determination required under this section 
     shall be in lieu of any determinations otherwise required 
     under section 552(c): Provided further, That 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to 
     the Committees on Appropriations describing the steps the 
     United States Government is taking to collect information 
     regarding allegations of genocide or other violations of 
     international law in the former Yugoslavia and to furnish 
     that information to the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal 
     for the former Yugoslavia: Provided further, That the 
     drawdown made under this section for any tribunal shall not 
     be construed as an endorsement or precedent for the 
     establishment of any standing or permanent international 
     criminal tribunal or court: Provided further, That funds made 
     available for tribunals other than Yugoslavia or Rwanda shall 
     be made available subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                               landmines

       Sec. 553. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     demining equipment available to the Agency for International 
     Development and the Department of State and used in support 
     of the clearance of landmines and unexploded ordnance for 
     humanitarian purposes may be disposed of on a grant basis in 
     foreign countries, subject to such terms and conditions as 
     the President may prescribe.


           restrictions concerning the palestinian authority

       Sec. 554. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to create in any part of Jerusalem a 
     new office of any department or agency of the United States 
     Government for the purpose of conducting official United 
     States Government business with the Palestinian Authority 
     over Gaza and Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing 
     entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of 
     Principles: Provided, That this restriction shall not apply 
     to the acquisition of additional space for the existing 
     Consulate General in Jerusalem: Provided further, That 
     meetings between officers and employees of the United States 
     and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor 
     Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO 
     Declaration of Principles, for the purpose of conducting 
     official United States Government business with such 
     authority should continue to take place in locations other 
     than Jerusalem. As has been true in the past, officers and 
     employees of the United States Government may continue to 
     meet in Jerusalem on other subjects with Palestinians 
     (including those who now occupy positions in the Palestinian 
     Authority), have social contacts, and have incidental 
     discussions.


               prohibition of payment of certain expenses

       Sec. 555. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act under the headings ``International 
     Military Education and Training'' or ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'' for Informational Program activities or 
     under the headings ``Child Survival and Disease Programs 
     Fund'', ``Development Assistance'', and ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' may be obligated or expended to pay for--
       (1) alcoholic beverages; or
       (2) entertainment expenses for activities that are 
     substantially of a recreational character, including entrance 
     fees at sporting events and amusement parks.


                  special debt relief for the poorest

       Sec. 556. (a) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President may 
     reduce amounts owed to the United States (or any agency of 
     the United States) by an eligible country as a result of--
       (1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
       (2) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms 
     Export Control Act; or
       (3) any obligation or portion of such obligation, to pay 
     for purchases of United States agricultural commodities 
     guaranteed by the Commodity Credit Corporation under export 
     credit guarantee programs authorized pursuant to section 5(f 
     ) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of June 29, 
     1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the Food for Peace Act of 
     1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), or section 202 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-
     501).
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief 
     and referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris 
     Club Agreed Minutes''.
       (2) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is 
     provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
       (3) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt 
     burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International 
     Development Association, but not from the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as 
     ``IDA-only'' countries.
       (c) Conditions.--The authority provided by subsection (a) 
     may be exercised only with respect to a country whose 
     government--
       (1) does not have an excessive level of military 
     expenditures;
       (2) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism;
       (3) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics 
     control matters;
       (4) (including its military or other security forces) does 
     not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights; and
       (5) is not ineligible for assistance because of the 
     application of section 527 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
       (d) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt 
     Restructuring''.
       (e) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered assistance 
     for purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance to a 
     country. The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or section 321 of the International 
     Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975.


             authority to engage in debt buybacks or sales

       Sec. 557. (a) Loans Eligible for Sale, Reduction, or 
     Cancellation.--
       (1) Authority to sell, reduce, or cancel certain loans.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     may, in accordance with this section, sell to any eligible 
     purchaser any concessional loan or portion thereof made 
     before January 1, 1995, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, to the government of any eligible country as 
     defined in section 702(6) of that Act or on receipt of 
     payment from an eligible purchaser, reduce or cancel such 
     loan or portion thereof, only for the purpose of 
     facilitating--
       (A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or 
     debt-for-nature swaps; or
       (B) a debt buyback by an eligible country of its own 
     qualified debt, only if the eligible country uses an 
     additional amount of the local currency of the eligible 
     country, equal to not less than 40 percent of the price paid 
     for such debt by such eligible country, or the difference 
     between the price paid for such debt and the face value of 
     such debt, to support activities that link conservation and 
     sustainable use of natural resources with local community 
     development, and child survival and other child development, 
     in a manner consistent with sections 707 through 710 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale, reduction, or 
     cancellation would not contravene any term or condition of 
     any prior agreement relating to such loan.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President shall, in accordance with 
     this section, establish the terms and conditions under which 
     loans may be sold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this 
     section.
       (3) Administration.--The Facility, as defined in section 
     702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall notify 
     the administrator of the agency primarily responsible

[[Page 14097]]

     for administering part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 of purchasers that the President has determined to be 
     eligible, and shall direct such agency to carry out the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of a loan pursuant to this 
     section. Such agency shall make an adjustment in its accounts 
     to reflect the sale, reduction, or cancellation.
       (4) Limitation.--The authorities of this subsection shall 
     be available only to the extent that appropriations for the 
     cost of the modification, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made in advance.
       (b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The proceeds from the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of any loan sold, reduced, or 
     canceled pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the 
     United States Government account or accounts established for 
     the repayment of such loan.
       (c) Eligible Purchasers.--A loan may be sold pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans 
     satisfactory to the President for using the loan for the 
     purpose of engaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-
     development swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (d) Debtor Consultations.--Before the sale to any eligible 
     purchaser, or any reduction or cancellation pursuant to this 
     section, of any loan made to an eligible country, the 
     President should consult with the country concerning the 
     amount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceled and their 
     uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, 
     or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (e) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt 
     Restructuring''.


                          assistance for haiti

       Sec. 558. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     previous appropriations Act for foreign operations, export 
     financing and related programs shall be made available for 
     assistance for the Government of Haiti until--
       (1) the Secretary of State reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that Haiti has held free and fair elections to 
     seat a new parliament; and
       (2) the Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of Haiti is fully cooperating with United States 
     efforts to interdict illicit drug traffic through Haiti to 
     the United States.
       (b) Not more than 11 percent of the funds appropriated by 
     this Act to carry out the provisions of sections 103 through 
     106 and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, that are made available for Latin America and the 
     Caribbean region may be made available, through bilateral and 
     Latin America and the Caribbean regional programs, to provide 
     assistance for any country in such region.


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Conyers

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

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Strike section 558 of the bill (page 94, strike line 10 and 
     all that follows through line 3 on page 95).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here to see so many Haiti experts 
on the floor including, my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), both of 
whom I have traveled there with many times.
  I propose that we strike the language because it creates a double 
standard against Haiti and it, further, is premature.
  What the language does that I am objecting to is ask that the 
Committee on Appropriations get a report from the Secretary of State to 
say that Haiti has held free and fair elections to seat a new 
parliament and, secondly, that the Office of National Drug Policy 
should determine that the Government of Haiti is fully cooperating with 
the United States to interdict drug traffic through Haiti.
  Now, let us take the second one first. Nobody in the Caribbean 
cooperates with the U.S. drug interdiction policy interfering with 
transshipments of drugs that go on throughout the Caribbean more than 
Haiti. It gives our Government total full operating license. And, in 
addition, I have heard our Coast Guard say that they have total 
cooperation.
  Further, the Haitian Government has no navy, so they are anxious to 
have the continued support of the U.S.
  Now, with the idea of holding up appropriations until the Secretary 
of State declares free elections, just a couple of things we need to 
understand. This is a double standard that does not apply to anybody 
else. And we have had far more seriously defective elections than 
Haiti.
  Haiti had a great election. We admitted it. I was an international 
observer. It was reported in the paper. Record turn out. Record 
registration. Nonviolence at the election. There was only one problem. 
There was a disagreement about the counting methodology after the 
election.
  Now, how does that qualify for considering fraud? There was an honest 
disagreement of the counting process which our own State Department, 
the White House says can be resolved and is in the process of being 
resolved.
  So lighten up. Let us give Haiti a chance. There is absolutely no 
reason for us to do that.
  Now, the other reason is that we are sending in Federal observers for 
U.S. elections 200 years after this country. They have to come into 
Flint, Michigan, and many places throughout the country to protect the 
voters and their right to vote and to make sure that there is no fraud. 
So we do not want to apply the standards of the U.S. to our country.
  Furthermore, Peru had elections that closed out international 
observers. Those of us who went as international observers were able to 
see with our own eyes the fairness and the appropriateness of the 
election.
  So let us let the Haitian Government, the election commission of 
Haiti, do its job before we start issuing these extremely punitive 
activities.
  Now, remember what we did for Peru was prospective. After they had a 
not-so-good election, we said in the future they have got to do this 
and that. So please, to the chairman of this committee and the 
subcommittee chairman, let us give them a break.
  Our Government is in the process of negotiating as we speak. A U.S. 
delegation is on the way to Haiti, I think they left last night, to 
work it out with the Government; and here we are calling the shots as 
if we know what is going to go down.
  Let us give Haiti, the newest developing democratic nation in the 
western hemisphere, a small chance by striking this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman) chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, while I fully concur with the concerns voiced by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and we want to do all we can to 
assist those in need in Haiti and promote democracy in that country, 
regrettably there are serious concerns about democratic institutions in 
Haiti today and our Nation needs to uphold those principles.
  For these reasons, I will oppose the amendment. But our committee 
will continue to monitor events, as we have with the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in the past, of what is going on in Haiti to see 
what we can do to strengthen democratic institutions in that country.
  Democracy is an important and paramount interest to all of us, and we 
would like to see Haiti move in the right direction. But I urge our 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, all I am suggesting, we are in agreement we want to 
move Haiti forward, but we should not be acting punitively before the 
election results are resolved. That is all I am saying is let us wait.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).

[[Page 14098]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, I support what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) is setting out to do. I want to follow up on what the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations 
said, these are principles we want to uphold. And surely we do. But it 
seems unfair for us to single out Haiti.
  If they want to write this to apply to every country, that is one 
thing, but it really seems kind of unfair to single out Haiti in this 
report. So holding the principles, we should apply them consistently.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I obviously heard this debate and ran over here. I very 
much am opposed to the amendment. There is no pretense democracy 
anymore in Haiti. It is not a democratic country.
  I have recently had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Manus, who was the 
head of the election committee there. He was chased out of the country 
under threat of death under assassination by mob violence, a most 
brutal and terrifying prospect. And certainly he has come to our 
country seeking asylum as a result.
  There is no judicial department that is working there. There is no 
real legislative branch. We are stuck with a situation in Haiti where 
we have committed billions of dollars and made the situation worse 
because we have backed the wrong people.
  It is a tragic situation. To make it worse by adding more American 
taxpayers' dollars to the situation to promote a non-democratic form of 
government in a friendly neighboring country to me is an unconscionable 
act, and I surely hope we are not going to do that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and 
I have been to Haiti together. We know there is no military in Haiti. 
At our insistence, they have only a national police force and no navy. 
We have met with the President of Haiti. The government is working as 
well as they can. The election will bring the parliament back to 
action.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the election has been, by 
all observation, a total sham. The OAS has come back and said this is 
not even a pretense of democracy. There is no transparency.
  The final blow for me, and I have been giving them the benefit of the 
doubt for a long time, as the gentleman knows, hoping against hope that 
things will get better, but when I spoke with Mr. Manus, that was the 
end of it. It is over.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We only have two conditions on aid to the government of Haiti. Those 
two conditions happen to be free elections which the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) just spoke about and cooperation with our fight 
against illegal drug trafficking. I am certain that the gentleman also 
supports these goals. The bill has no restrictions against aid to NGOs 
working in Haiti. It has zero restrictions on humanitarian aid. And 
with these two contingencies, I am certain if the gentleman from 
Michigan had time to analyze the language of the bill that he too would 
be supporting the bill as written.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to set forth my reasons for my 
opposition to the amendment offered by my friend the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 
  First, I recognize and applaud the tireless efforts of the gentleman 
from Michigan in trying to help Haiti. I share his commitment to 
helping the people of Haiti overcome that impoverished nation's legacy 
of violence and dictatorship.
  Haitians need to be able to compete in the global economy. We should 
assist Haiti by fostering private sector jobs, helping Haitians educate 
their children and gain access to clean water and decent healthcare, 
among other issues. I will be pleased to work with the gentleman from 
Michigan and other Members to support continued assistance that 
directly reaches the people of Haiti.
  The Conyers Amendment would strike language that is straighforward 
and appropriate. This language permits U.S. assistance to flow to the 
government of Haiti only if the Secretary of State reports to the 
Committees on Appropriations that Haiti has held free and fair 
elections to seat a new parliament. The language in this bill will not 
prevent U.S. assistance from being directed to the people of Haiti 
directly or through non-governmental intermediaries.
  On May 21, 2000, a broad majority of Haitians courageously and 
deliberately voted on a peaceful election day that contrasted sharply 
with a campaign that witnessed some 15 people--many of them opposition 
candidates and officals--murdered. Regrettably, that extraordinary 
popular expression of support for democracy was soon sullied by acts of 
manipulation and official intimidation by the Haitian National Police.
  Sadly, it is now patently clear that the government of Haiti 
deliberately undermined the holding of free and fair elections. In 
fact, the president of Haiti's provisional electoral council, Mr. Leon 
Manus, was forced to flee Haiti in fear of his life.
  After enduring efforts by the government of Haiti to undermine the 
Provisional Electoral Council's work, Mr. Manus refused to certify 
false results giving a super-majority of Senate seats to President Rene 
Preval's Fanmi Lavalas party. Mr. Manus stated: ``At the top 
governmental level unequivocal messages were transmitted to me on the 
consequences that would follow if I refused to publish the false final 
results.''
  The international community, led by Organization of American States 
election observers in Haiti, patiently and diplomatically pointed out 
to the government of Haiti that it had made a ``mistake'' in 
calculating votes in declaring winners for senate races. The government 
of Haiti ignored these diplomatic entreaties and scheduled run-off 
elections for July 9th.
  A delegation from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) visited Haiti 
just last week and made a reasonable proposal to President Preval that 
would have permitted him to save face and postpone the run-off 
election. Again, President Preval and his government rejected the good 
offices of the international community and pressed on with the run off 
election this past Sunday.
  The Organization of American States election observers refused to 
monitor the run-off. Orlando Marville, the leader of the OAS electoral 
mission, explained: ``We do not think they should allow the process to 
go forward as if nothing had happened. Fundamentally, if they say they 
are not going to change it, we cannot accept it as valid. This changes 
the whole nature of the elections. We are at the position where to 
observe the elections would send the wrong signal, which we do not want 
to do.''
  The Caribbean Community's envoy sent to investigate the elections, 
Sir John Compton, said Monday that the trade bloc ``should not be 
tainted by recognizing Sunday's vote.''
  The White House has said: ``We are deeply troubled that Haiti 
proceeded with run-off elections on Sunday despite the well-founded 
concerns of the Caribbean Community, the Organization of the American 
States and the United Nations,''
  U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his ``regret'' Monday 
that Haitian authorities held the run-off vote ``without having 
resolved the outstanding issues related to the first round.''
  The language regarding Haiti in this bill is appropriate. We should 
not reward this government that has actively worked to derail and 
manipulate these elections.
  Moreover, the language in this bill also conditions aid to the 
government of Haiti on the Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy reporting that the government of Haiti is fully 
cooperating with United States efforts to interdict illicit drug 
traffic through Haiti.
  We have a serious law enforcement problem in Haiti involving a 
massive flow of illegal drugs from Colombia to the United States. The 
government of Haiti is not only moving to seize absolute power, it is 
also becoming a consolidated narco-state. Current U.S. law prohibits 
counter-narcotics assistance being provided through individuals, 
including government officials, who conspire to violate U.S. drug laws.
  Striking this language in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill 
would be the wrong thing to do. We must, instead, support this

[[Page 14099]]

language and conduct a serious re-evaluation of our Haiti policy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


  requirement for disclosure of foreign aid in report of secretary of 
                                 state

       Sec. 559. (a) Foreign Aid Reporting Requirement.--In 
     addition to the voting practices of a foreign country, the 
     report required to be submitted to Congress under section 
     406(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal 
     years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2414a), shall include a side-
     by-side comparison of individual countries' overall support 
     for the United States at the United Nations and the amount of 
     United States assistance provided to such country in fiscal 
     year 2000.
       (b) United States Assistance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``United States assistance'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 481(e)(4) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291(e)(4)).


   restrictions on voluntary contributions to united nations agencies

       Sec. 560. (a) Prohibition on Voluntary Contributions for 
     the United Nations.--None of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act may be made available to pay any voluntary contribution 
     of the United States to the United Nations (including the 
     United Nations Development Program) if the United Nations 
     implements or imposes any taxation on any United States 
     persons.
       (b) Certification Required for Disbursement of Funds.--None 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available 
     to pay any voluntary contribution of the United States to the 
     United Nations (including the United Nations Development 
     Program) unless the President certifies to the Congress 15 
     days in advance of such payment that the United Nations is 
     not engaged in any effort to implement or impose any taxation 
     on United States persons in order to raise revenue for the 
     United Nations or any of its specialized agencies.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section the term ``United 
     States person'' refers to--
       (1) a natural person who is a citizen or national of the 
     United States; or
       (2) a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity 
     organized under the United States or any State, territory, 
     possession, or district of the United States.


                                 haiti

       Sec. 561. The Government of Haiti shall be eligible to 
     purchase defense articles and services under the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), for the Coast Guard: 
     Provided, That the authority provided by this section shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


         limitation on assistance to the palestinian authority

       Sec. 562. (a) Prohibition of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds 
     to the Palestinian Authority.
       (b) Waiver.--The prohibition included in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply if the President certifies in writing to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate that waiving such prohibition is 
     important to the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       (c) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant 
     to subsection (b) shall be effective for no more than a 
     period of 6 months at a time and shall not apply beyond 12 
     months after the enactment of this Act.


              limitation on assistance to security forces

       Sec. 563. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign 
     country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that 
     such unit has committed gross violations of human rights, 
     unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees 
     on Appropriations that the government of such country is 
     taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of 
     the security forces unit to justice: Provided, That nothing 
     in this section shall be construed to withhold funds made 
     available by this Act from any unit of the security forces of 
     a foreign country not credibly alleged to be involved in 
     gross violations of human rights: Provided further, That in 
     the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to 
     this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform 
     the foreign government of the basis for such action and 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign 
     government in taking effective measures to bring the 
     responsible members of the security forces to justice.


restrictions on assistance to countries providing sanctuary to indicted 
                             war criminals

       Sec. 564. (a) Bilateral Assistance.--None of the funds made 
     available by this or any prior Act making appropriations for 
     foreign operations, export financing and related programs, 
     may be provided for any country, entity or municipality 
     described in subsection (e).
       (b) Multilateral Assistance.--
       (1) Prohibition.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States executive directors of the 
     international financial institutions to work in opposition 
     to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of 
     any financial or technical assistance or grants of any kind 
     to any country or entity described in subsection (e).
       (2) Notification.--Not less than 15 days before any vote in 
     an international financial institution regarding the 
     extension of financial or technical assistance or grants to 
     any country or entity described in subsection (e), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of State, shall provide to the Committee on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives a written 
     justification for the proposed assistance, including an 
     explanation of the United States position regarding any such 
     vote, as well as a description of the location of the 
     proposed assistance by municipality, its purpose, and its 
     intended beneficiaries.
       (3) Definition.--The term ``international financial 
     institution'' includes the International Monetary Fund, the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the 
     International Development Association, the International 
     Finance Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guaranty 
     Agency, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development.
       (c) Exceptions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall not apply to the provision of--
       (A) humanitarian assistance;
       (B) democratization assistance;
       (C) assistance for cross border physical infrastructure 
     projects involving activities in both a sanctioned country, 
     entity, or municipality and a nonsanctioned contiguous 
     country, entity, or municipality, if the project is primarily 
     located in and primarily benefits the nonsanctioned country, 
     entity, or municipality and if the portion of the project 
     located in the sanctioned country, entity, or municipality is 
     necessary only to complete the project;
       (D) small-scale assistance projects or activities requested 
     by United States Armed Forces that promote good relations 
     between such forces and the officials and citizens of the 
     areas in the United States SFOR sector of Bosnia;
       (E) implementation of the Brcko Arbitral Decision;
       (F) lending by the international financial institutions to 
     a country or entity to support common monetary and fiscal 
     policies at the national level as contemplated by the Dayton 
     Agreement;
       (G) direct lending to a non-sanctioned entity, or lending 
     passed on by the national government to a non-sanctioned 
     entity; or
       (H) assistance to the International Police Task Force for 
     the training of a civilian police force.
        (2) Notification.--Every 60 days the Secretary of State, 
     in consultation with the Administrator of the Agency for 
     International Development, shall publish in the Federal 
     Register and/or in a comparable publicly accessible document 
     or Internet site, a listing and justification of any 
     assistance that is obligated within that period of time for 
     any country, entity, or municipality described in subsection 
     (e), including a description of the purpose of the 
     assistance, project and its location, by municipality.
       (d) Further Limitations.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)--
       (1) no assistance may be made available by this Act, or any 
     prior Act making appropriations for foreign operations, 
     export financing and related programs, in any country, 
     entity, or municipality described in subsection (e), for a 
     program, project, or activity in which a publicly indicted 
     war criminal is known to have any financial or material 
     interest; and
       (2) no assistance (other than emergency foods or medical 
     assistance or demining assistance) may be made available by 
     this Act, or any prior Act making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing and related programs for any 
     program, project, or activity in a community within any 
     country, entity or municipality described in subsection (e) 
     if competent authorities within that community are not 
     complying with the provisions of article IX and annex 4, 
     article II, paragraph 8 of the Dayton Agreement relating to 
     war crimes and the Tribunal.
       (e) Sanctioned Country, Entity, or Municipality.--A 
     sanctioned country, entity, or municipality described in this 
     section is one whose competent authorities have failed, as 
     determined by the Secretary of State, to take necessary and 
     significant steps to apprehend and transfer to the Tribunal 
     all persons who have been publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
       (f ) Special Rule.--Subject to subsection (d), subsections 
     (a) and (b) shall not apply to the provision of assistance to 
     an entity that is not a sanctioned entity, notwithstanding

[[Page 14100]]

     that such entity may be within a sanctioned country, if the 
     Secretary of State determines and so reports to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that providing 
     assistance to that entity would promote peace and 
     internationally recognized human rights by encouraging that 
     entity to cooperate fully with the Tribunal.
       (g) Current Record of War Criminals and Sanctioned 
     Countries, Entities, and Municipalities.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall establish and 
     maintain a current record of the location, including the 
     municipality, if known, of publicly indicted war criminals 
     and a current record of sanctioned countries, entities, and 
     municipalities.
       (2) Information of the dci and the secretary of defense.--
     The Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of 
     Defense should collect and provide to the Secretary of State 
     information concerning the location, including the 
     municipality, of publicly indicted war criminals.
       (3) Information of the tribunal.--The Secretary of State 
     shall request that the Tribunal and other international 
     organizations and governments provide the Secretary of State 
     information concerning the location, including the 
     municipality, of publicly indicted war criminals and 
     concerning country, entity and municipality authorities known 
     to have obstructed the work of the Tribunal.
       (4) Report.--Beginning 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and not later than September 1 each 
     year thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report 
     in classified and unclassified form to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on the location, including the 
     municipality, if known, of publicly indicted war criminals, 
     on country, entity and municipality authorities known to have 
     obstructed the work of the Tribunal, and on sanctioned 
     countries, entities, and municipalities.
       (5) Information to congress.--Upon the request of the 
     chairman or ranking minority member of any of the appropriate 
     congressional committees, the Secretary of State shall make 
     available to that committee the information recorded under 
     paragraph (1) in a report submitted to the committee in 
     classified and unclassified form.
       (h) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
     application of subsection (a) or subsection (b) with respect 
     to specified bilateral programs or international financial 
     institution projects or programs in a sanctioned country, 
     entity, or municipality upon providing a written 
     determination to the Committee on Appropriations and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives that 
     such assistance directly supports the implementation of the 
     Dayton Agreement and its Annexes, which include the 
     obligation to apprehend and transfer indicted war criminals 
     to the Tribunal.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date of any 
     written determination under paragraph (1) the Secretary of 
     State shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     regarding the status of efforts to secure the voluntary 
     surrender or apprehension and transfer of persons indicted by 
     the Tribunal, in accordance with the Dayton Agreement, and 
     outlining obstacles to achieving this goal.
       (3) Assistance programs and projects affected.--Any waiver 
     made pursuant to this subsection shall be effective only with 
     respect to a specified bilateral program or multilateral 
     assistance project or program identified in the determination 
     of the Secretary of State to Congress.
       (i) Termination of Sanctions.--The sanctions imposed 
     pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) with respect to a country 
     or entity shall cease to apply only if the Secretary of State 
     determines and certifies to Congress that the authorities of 
     that country, entity, or municipality have apprehended and 
     transferred to the Tribunal all persons who have been 
     publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
       ( j) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) Country.--The term ``country'' means Bosnia-
     Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia.
       (2) Entity.--The term ``entity'' refers to the Federation 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, and the 
     Republika Srpska.
       (3) Dayton agreement.--The term ``Dayton Agreement'' means 
     the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, together with annexes relating thereto, done at 
     Dayton, November 10 through 16, 1995.
       (4) Tribunal.--The term ``Tribunal'' means the 
     International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
       (k) Role of Human Rights Organizations and Government 
     Agencies.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary of 
     State, the Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development, and the executive directors of the international 
     financial institutions shall consult with representatives of 
     human rights organizations and all government agencies with 
     relevant information to help prevent publicly indicted war 
     criminals from benefiting from any financial or technical 
     assistance or grants provided to any country or entity 
     described in subsection (e).


    To Prohibit Foreign Assistance to the Government of the Russian 
   Federation should it enact laws which would discriminate against 
          minority religious faiths in the Russian Federation

       Sec. 565. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be made available for the Government of the Russian 
     Federation, after 180 days from the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, unless the President determines and certifies in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate that the Government of the 
     Russian Federation has implemented no statute, executive 
     order, regulation or similar government action that would 
     discriminate, or would have as its principal effect 
     discrimination, against religious groups or religious 
     communities in the Russian Federation in violation of 
     accepted international agreements on human rights and 
     religious freedoms to which the Russian Federation is a 
     party.


                        Greenhouse Gas Emissions

       Sec. 566. (a) Funds made available in this Act to support 
     programs or activities the primary purpose of which is 
     promoting or assisting country participation in the Kyoto 
     Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 
     shall only be made available subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) The President shall provide a detailed account of all 
     Federal agency obligations and expenditures for climate 
     change programs and activities, domestic and international 
     obligations for such activities in fiscal year 2001, and any 
     plan for programs thereafter related to the implementation or 
     the furtherance of protocols pursuant to, or related to 
     negotiations to amend the FCCC in conjunction with the 
     President's submission of the Budget of the United States 
     Government for Fiscal Year 2002: Provided, That such report 
     shall include an accounting of expenditures by agency with 
     each agency identifying climate change activities and 
     associated costs by line item as presented in the President's 
     Budget Appendix: Provided further, That such report shall 
     identify with regard to the Agency for International 
     Development, obligations and expenditures by country or 
     central program and activity.


       AID TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

       Sec. 567. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be provided to the Central 
     Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo.


                     assistance for the middle east

       Sec. 568. Of the funds appropriated in titles II and III of 
     this Act under the headings ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', ``International 
     Military Education and Training'', ``Peacekeeping 
     Operations'', for refugees resettling in Israel under the 
     heading ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'', and for 
     assistance for Israel to carry out provisions of chapter 8 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under the 
     heading ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and 
     Related Programs'', not more than a total of $5,221,150,000 
     may be made available for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, the 
     West Bank and Gaza, the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, the 
     Multinational Force and Observers, the Middle East Regional 
     Democracy Fund, Middle East Regional Cooperation, and Middle 
     East Multilateral Working Groups: Provided, That any funds 
     that were appropriated under such headings in prior fiscal 
     years and that were at the time of the enactment of this Act 
     obligated or allocated for other recipients may not during 
     fiscal year 2001 be made available for activities that, if 
     funded under this Act, would be required to count against 
     this ceiling: Provided further, That funds may be made 
     available notwithstanding the requirements of this section if 
     the President determines and certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that it is important to the national security 
     interest of the United States to do so and any such 
     additional funds shall only be provided through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                      enterprise fund restrictions

       Sec. 569. Prior to the distribution of any assets resulting 
     from any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of an 
     Enterprise Fund, in whole or in part, the President shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations, in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, a plan for the distribution of the assets of 
     the Enterprise Fund.


                                cambodia

       Sec. 570. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct 
     the United States executive directors of the international 
     financial institutions to use the voice and vote of the 
     United States to oppose loans to the Central Government of 
     Cambodia, except loans to support basic human needs.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for assistance for the Central Government of 
     Cambodia.

[[Page 14101]]




                    FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING REPORT

       Sec. 571. (a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     State shall jointly provide to the Congress by March 1, 2001, 
     a report on all military training provided to foreign 
     military personnel (excluding sales, and excluding training 
     provided to the military personnel of countries belonging to 
     the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) under programs 
     administered by the Department of Defense and the Department 
     of State during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, including those 
     proposed for fiscal year 2001. This report shall include, for 
     each such military training activity, the foreign policy 
     justification and purpose for the training activity, the cost 
     of the training activity, the number of foreign students 
     trained and their units of operation, and the location of the 
     training. In addition, this report shall also include, with 
     respect to United States personnel, the operational benefits 
     to United States forces derived from each such training 
     activity and the United States military units involved in 
     each such training activity. This report may include a 
     classified annex if deemed necessary and appropriate.
       (b) For purposes of this section a report to Congress shall 
     be deemed to mean a report to the Appropriations and Foreign 
     Relations Committees of the Senate and the Appropriations and 
     International Relations Committees of the House of 
     Representatives.


            korean peninsula energy development organization

       Sec. 572. (a) Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related 
     Programs'', not to exceed $35,000,000 may be made available 
     for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization 
     (hereafter referred to in this section as ``KEDO''), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, only for the 
     administrative expenses and heavy fuel oil costs associated 
     with the Agreed Framework.
       (b) Such funds may be made available for KEDO only if, 30 
     days prior to such obligation of funds, the President 
     certifies and so reports to Congress that--
       (1) the parties to the Agreed Framework have taken and 
     continue to take demonstrable steps to implement the Joint 
     Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in 
     which the Government of North Korea has committed not to 
     test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, 
     or use nuclear weapons, and not to possess nuclear 
     reprocessing or uranium enrichment facilities;
       (2) the parties to the Agreed Framework have taken and 
     continue to take demonstrable steps to pursue the North-South 
     dialogue;
       (3) North Korea is complying with all provisions of the 
     Agreed Framework;
       (4) North Korea has not significantly diverted assistance 
     provided by the United States for purposes for which it was 
     not intended;
       (5) there is no credible evidence that North Korea is 
     seeking to develop or acquire the capability to enrich 
     uranium, or any additional capability to reprocess spent 
     nuclear fuel;
       (6) North Korea is complying with its commitments regarding 
     access to suspect underground construction at Kumchang-ni;
       (7) there is no credible evidence that North Korea is 
     engaged in a nuclear weapons program, including efforts to 
     acquire, develop, test, produce, or deploy such weapons; and
       (8) the United States is continuing to make significant 
     progress on eliminating the North Korean ballistic missile 
     threat, including further missile tests and its ballistic 
     missile exports.
       (c) The President may waive the certification requirements 
     of subsection (b) if the President determines that it is 
     vital to the national security interests of the United States 
     and provides written policy justifications to the appropriate 
     congressional committees. No funds may be obligated for KEDO 
     until 30 days after submission to Congress of such waiver.
       (d) The Secretary of State shall, at the time of the annual 
     presentation for appropriations, submit a report providing a 
     full and detailed accounting of the fiscal year 2002 request 
     for the United States contribution to KEDO, the expected 
     operating budget of KEDO, proposed annual costs associated 
     with heavy fuel oil purchases, including unpaid debt, and the 
     amount of funds pledged by other donor nations and 
     organizations to support KEDO activities on a per country 
     basis, and other related activities.


                     African Development Foundation

       Sec. 573. Funds made available to grantees of the African 
     Development Foundation may be invested pending expenditure 
     for project purposes when authorized by the President of the 
     Foundation: Provided, That interest earned shall be used only 
     for the purposes for which the grant was made: Provided 
     further, That this authority applies to interest earned both 
     prior to and following the enactment of this provision: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of 
     the African Development Foundation Act, in exceptional 
     circumstances the board of directors of the Foundation may 
     waive the $250,000 limitation contained in that section with 
     respect to a project: Provided further, That the Foundation 
     shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations in 
     advance of exercising such waiver authority.


 PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

       Sec. 574. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide equipment, 
     technical support, consulting services, or any other form of 
     assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.


                            iraq opposition

       Sec. 575. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds appropriated under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'', not to exceed $10,000,000 may be made available to 
     support efforts to bring about political transition in Iraq, 
     of which not to exceed $8,000,000 may be made available only 
     to Iraqi opposition groups designated under the Iraq 
     Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) for political, economic, 
     humanitarian, and other activities of such groups, and not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 may be made available for groups and 
     activities seeking the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and 
     other Iraqi government officials for war crimes: Provided, 
     That none of these funds may be made available for 
     administrative expenses of the Department of State.


       agency for international development budget justification

       Sec. 576. The Agency for International Development shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations a detailed budget 
     justification that is consistent with the requirements of 
     section 515, for each fiscal year. The Agency shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations a proposed budget 
     justification format no later than October 31, 2001, or 30 
     days after the enactment of this Act, whichever occurs later. 
     The proposed format shall include how the Agency's budget 
     justification will address: (1) estimated levels of 
     obligations for the current fiscal year and actual levels for 
     the two previous fiscal years; (2) the President's request 
     for new budget authority and estimated carryover obligational 
     authority for the budget year; (3) the disaggregation of 
     budget data and staff levels by program and activity for each 
     bureau, field mission, and central office; and (4) the need 
     for a user-friendly, transparent budget narrative.


                             kyoto protocol

       Sec. 577. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or 
     orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation 
     for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted 
     on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third 
     Conference of the Parties to the United States Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to 
     the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to 
     article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States 
     Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant 
     to article 25 of the Protocol. The limitation established in 
     this section shall not apply to any activity otherwise 
     authorized by law.


                       west bank and gaza program

       Sec. 578. For fiscal year 2001, 30 days prior to the 
     initial obligation of funds for the bilateral West Bank and 
     Gaza Program, the Secretary of State shall certify to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress that procedures have been 
     established to assure the Comptroller General of the United 
     States will have access to appropriate United States 
     financial information in order to review the uses of United 
     States assistance for the Program funded under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' for the West Bank and Gaza.


                               INDONESIA

       Sec. 579. Funds appropriated by this Act under the heading 
     ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' may be made available 
     for Indonesia if the President determines and submits a 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees that the 
     Indonesian government and the Indonesian armed forces are--
       (1) taking effective measures to bring to justice members 
     of the armed forces and militia groups against whom there is 
     credible evidence of human rights violations;
       (2) taking effective measures to bring to justice members 
     of the armed forces against whom there is credible evidence 
     of aiding or abetting militia groups;
       (3) allowing displaced persons and refugees to return home 
     to East Timor, including providing safe passage for refugees 
     returning from West Timor;
       (4) not impeding the activities of the United Nations 
     Transitional Authority in East Timor (UNTAET);
       (5) demonstrating a commitment to preventing incursions 
     into East Timor by members of militia groups in West Timor; 
     and
       (6) demonstrating a commitment to accountability by 
     cooperating with investigations and prosecutions of members 
     of the Indonesian armed forces and militia groups responsible 
     for human rights violations in Indonesia and East Timor.


                         man and the biosphere

       Sec. 580. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be provided for the United Nations 
     Man and the Biosphere Program or the United Nations World 
     Heritage Fund.

[[Page 14102]]




                 consultations on arms sales to taiwan

       Sec. 581. Consistent with the intent of Congress expressed 
     in the enactment of section 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act, 
     the Secretary of State shall consult with the appropriate 
     committees and leadership of Congress to devise a mechanism 
     to provide for congressional input prior to making any 
     determination on the nature or quantity of defense articles 
     and services to be made available to Taiwan.


  Restriction on United States Assistance for Certain Reconstruction 
                       Efforts in Central Europe

       Sec. 582. Funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act for United States assistance for Eastern Europe and 
     the Baltic States should to the maximum extent practicable be 
     used for the procurement of articles and services of United 
     States origin.


  restrictions on assistance to governments destabilizing sierra leone

       Sec. 583. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be made available for assistance for the government of 
     any country that the Secretary of State determines there is 
     credible evidence that such government has provided lethal or 
     non-lethal military support or equipment, directly or through 
     intermediaries, within the previous six months to the Sierra 
     Leone Revolutionary United Front (RUF), or any other group 
     intent on destabilizing the democratically elected government 
     of the Republic of Sierra Leone.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for assistance for the government of any country 
     that the Secretary of State determines there is credible 
     evidence that such government has aided or abetted, within 
     the previous six months, in the illicit distribution, 
     transportation, or sale of diamonds mined in Sierra Leone.
       (c) Whenever the prohibition on assistance required under 
     subsection (a) or (b) is exercised, the Secretary of State 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in a timely 
     manner.


                 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Payne

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

       Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Payne:
       Page 119, line 24, after ``sierra leone'' insert ``or 
     angola''.
       Page 120, line 6, after ``(RUF)'' insert ``, or to National 
     Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA)''.
       Page 120, line 8, before the period insert ``or the 
     democratically elected government of Angola, as the case may 
     be''.
       Page 120, line 15, before the period insert ``or in 
     Angola''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
have an amendment on what I think is probably one of the most 
horrendous situations that has occurred for the past 40 years in a 
country that was the first African country to receive its independence 
back in 1956 from Britain. It is the country of Sudan. The country of 
Sudan has seen an estimated 2 million people die from famine and war-
related issues. In 1998 alone, 100,000 people died because the National 
Islamic Front government denied United Nations humanitarian food to be 
delivered to the needy people in the south of Sudan.
  More people have died in Sudan than in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and 
Congo combined. We have seen food being deprived from people. We have 
seen the fact that the Antonovs, which are old Soviet planes, fly over 
communities. I was there several times where we actually would watch 
the chickens because the chickens would hear the planes from long 
distances and the children would then run when the chickens started to 
move around and then the older people would know that the planes are 
coming, the bombs are coming, you try to get out of it. It is one of 
the most horrendous situations. Two million people.
  All we are asking is that there be nonlethal equipment, that the 
people be allowed to have food, that they could protect themselves from 
the aerial bombings, that they could have some semblance of order. The 
fact is that this would go to the National Democratic Alliance which is 
made up of the people in the south who are in the process of trying to 
move along.
  At this time we have a technical difference. I understand that we are 
on the other section. So we would ask that the Clerk would once again 
read the title.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama will state his point.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. One amendment was read. The gentleman was talking about 
the contents of another amendment. I think what he is doing now is 
trying to swap amendments, or I think he first has to through unanimous 
consent take this amendment that has been read from the table. But I 
will leave that decision to the Chair, naturally.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey ask unanimous 
consent for the Clerk to report the amendment that was designated 
earlier?
  Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the amendment 
which has been designated and which is pending.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will 
assume that the debate that took place on the previous amendment would 
suffice for the gentleman's argument on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment 
which is currently pending.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Payne:
       Page 119, line 24, after ``sierra leone'' insert ``or 
     angola''.
       Page 120, line 6, after ``(RUF)'' insert ``, or to National 
     Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA)''.
       Page 120, line 8, before the period insert ``or the 
     democratically elected government of Angola, as the case may 
     be''.
       Page 120, line 15, before the period insert ``or in 
     Angola''.

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the reason for the confusion was that last 
night we requested that this particular amendment be withdrawn and that 
the previous resolution asking for UNITA to have any country doing 
business with them withdrawn. So this amendment we would ask to be 
withdrawn. That is why the confusion came about. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, I would ask that that amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to withdrawing the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne)?
  Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments made in order to this 
section of the bill?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the 
chairman for all he has done to support basic education programs for 
children and for his work to improve the lives of families in 
developing countries, a topic of concern we both share.
  My interest in international basic education stems from my conviction 
which I know the gentleman shares that education is the key to 
development. Providing basic education in developing nations advances 
hope for children, advances hope for families, advances hope for 
communities, and advances hope for the countries we are trying to help.
  It also produces clear results. A baby who is born to a mother with 
just 4 years of education is twice as likely to survive as a baby with 
an utterly uneducated mother. Every additional year of schooling beyond 
grade four that a child receives leads to a 10 to 20 percent increase 
in wages. At a national level, increases in literacy of 20 to 30 
percent have led to increases in a country's gross domestic product of 
8 to 16 percent.

[[Page 14103]]

  While we have made progress, there is a long way to go. There are 113 
million children who will never go to school. Two-thirds of these are 
little girls. Another 150 million on top of 113 million who do not go 
at all will drop out before they get to the fifth grade. The vast 
majority of these dropouts are little girls. To address this problem, I 
believe we need to continue and expand our financial commitment to 
international basic education. Over the last several years, funding for 
basic education for children has been set at a cap of $98 million. Now, 
this year, thanks to the gentleman's leadership, the committee lifted 
the cap on the funding and increased funding by $5 million to $103 
million from the child survival account. The gentleman recommended an 
additional $15 million be provided from the economic support fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like this debate to reflect the gentleman from 
Alabama's thoughts on the record about the commitment to children's 
education.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
remarks. I look forward to working with him to support basic education 
for children. Naturally, I am supportive of that and I know the 
gentleman as well is supportive.
  Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, I hope that as we 
continue the appropriations process the conferees would consider even 
increasing additional funds for basic education. Increasing the amount 
would bring us closer to our historic levels of funding for basic 
education. In the 1980s, now more than 10 years ago, U.S. support for 
education reached as much as $180 million. Five years ago, funding for 
basic education for children was $142 million. We are still well short 
of that, even with this important increase the gentleman has advanced.
  I believe that funding will have to be increased further to meet the 
commitment that our country has made at the World Education Forum in 
Dakar, Senegal, to get every child in school by the year 2015. Today 
with more than 113 million out of school, another 150 million dropping 
out before grade five, it shows that we have to step up this commitment 
to meet this important goal. Following the Dakar meeting of world 
leaders, it is particularly important that this Congress show that it 
is part of the program, part of this international commitment. I look 
forward to working with the gentleman to make sure this happens.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    voluntary separation incentives

       Sec. 584. Section 579(c)(2)(D) of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2000, as enacted by section 1000(a)(2) of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-113), is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 2000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``December 31, 2001''.


                          working capital fund

       Sec. 585. Section 635 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2395) is amended by adding a new subsection (l) as 
     follows:
       ``(l)(1) There is hereby established a working capital fund 
     for the United States Agency for International Development 
     which shall be available without fiscal year limitation for 
     the expenses of personal and nonpersonal services, equipment 
     and supplies for: (A) International Cooperative 
     Administrative Support Services; and (B) rebates from the use 
     of United States Government credit cards.
       ``(2) The capital of the fund shall consist of the fair and 
     reasonable value of such supplies, equipment, and other 
     assets pertaining to the functions of the fund as the 
     Administrator determines, rebates from the use of United 
     States Government credit cards, and any appropriations made 
     available for the purpose of providing capital, less related 
     liabilities.
       ``(3) The fund shall be reimbursed or credited with advance 
     payments for services, equipment or supplies provided from 
     the fund from applicable appropriations and funds of the 
     agency, other Federal agencies and other sources authorized 
     by section 607 of this Act at rates that will recover total 
     expenses of operation, including accrual of annual leave and 
     depreciation. Receipts from the disposal of, or payments for 
     the loss or damage to, property held in the fund, rebates, 
     reimbursements, refunds, and other credits applicable to the 
     operation of the fund may be deposited in the fund.
       ``(4) The agency shall transfer to the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts as of the close of the fiscal year 
     such amounts which the Administrator determines to be in 
     excess of the needs of the fund.
       ``(5) The fund may be charged with the current value of 
     supplies and equipment returned to the working capital of the 
     fund by a post, activity or agency and the proceeds shall be 
     credited to current applicable appropriations.''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
language appearing in the bill beginning with page 121, line 1, through 
page 122, line 12, on the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule I have referenced prohibits changes to law on general 
appropriations bills. This language amends the Foreign Assistance Act 
to authorize the establishment of a working capital fund for the Agency 
for International Development.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we will be happy to concede the point of 
order.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his concession. If I might 
continue with my statement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will briefly hear the gentleman on his point 
of order, although the point of order has been conceded and the Chair 
is prepared to rule.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I revise and extend my remarks?
  The CHAIRMAN. After the point of order, the gentleman may revise and 
extend his remarks.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, and recognizing the 
request of the distinguished chairman of the committee, I have some 
concerns about this motion.
  As the gentleman knows, no funds would be appropriated to establish 
the Working Capital Fund, but the creation of the fund would result in 
overall savings to the Federal Government. In several overseas 
locations other agencies have requested USAID to provide various types 
of administrative support to other agencies, because USAID can provide 
the support at the lowest cost to the Federal Government. So I hope 
that the gentleman is aware that this language in the bill is a savings 
for the Federal Government.
  Without a Working Capital Fund, USAID has difficulty becoming a 
service provider, because we cannot separately account for funds 
received from other agencies and cannot carry the funds from one year 
to the next. The fund would also enable an agency to use rebates from 
prompt payment. This would be an incentive for greater use of credit 
cards and again save money.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not yield when discussing a point 
of order.
  The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds the provision directly 
amends existing law. Such provision constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and 
the provision of the bill is stricken.
  Without objection, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) may 
extend his remarks at this point in the record.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Rule I have referenced prohibits 
changes to law on general appropriations bills. This language amends 
the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize the establishment of a working 
capital fund for the Agency for International Development.
  The Administration, which evidently wants this provision, should have 
approached the Committee with legislative jurisdiction, the Committee 
on International Relations. Instead, the Administration engaged another 
Committee that lacks jurisdiction to amend the Foreign Assistance Act.
  This is an unfortunate attitude and practice that we have seen from 
time to time in this and other Administrations and I regret that we

[[Page 14104]]

have to consume the time of the Appropriations Committee on this sort 
of matter in this way.
  The Administration has not submitted a draft bill to our Committee, 
nor have they engaged our International Relations Committee in any 
meaningful way.
  I do understand that the Committee on Foreign Relations in the other 
body has reviewed similar legislation on a working capital fund for the 
Agency for International Development and our Committee on International 
Relations would be happy to work with the other body and the 
Administration from here on out and see if this provision is 
meritorious.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully insist on my point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


            contributions to united nations population fund

       Sec. 586. (1) Limitations on Amount of Contribution.--Of 
     the amounts made available under ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'', not more than $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001 shall be available for the United Nations 
     Population Fund (hereafter in this subsection referred to as 
     the ``UNFPA'').
       (2) Prohibition on Use of Funds in China.--None of the 
     funds made available under ``International Organizations and 
     Programs'' may be made available for the UNFPA for a country 
     program in the People's Republic of China.
       (3) Conditions on Availability of Funds.--Amounts made 
     available under ``International Organizations and Programs'' 
     for fiscal year 2001 for the UNFPA may not be made available 
     to UNFPA unless--
       (A) the UNFPA maintains amounts made available to the UNFPA 
     under this section in an account separate from other accounts 
     of the UNFPA;
       (B) the UNFPA does not commingle amounts made available to 
     the UNFPA under this section with other sums; and
       (C) the UNFPA does not fund abortions.
       (4) Report to the Congress and Withholding of Funds.--
       (A) Not later than February 15, 2001, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees indicating the amount of funds that the United 
     Nations Population Fund is budgeting for the year in which 
     the report is submitted for a country program in the People's 
     Republic of China.
       (B) If a report under subparagraph (A) indicates that the 
     United Nations Population Fund plans to spend funds for a 
     country program in the People's Republic of China in the year 
     covered by the report, then the amount of such funds that the 
     UNFPA plans to spend in the People's Republic of China shall 
     be deducted from the funds made available to the UNFPA after 
     March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year 
     in which the report is submitted.


                 authorization for population planning

       Sec. 587. (a) Authorization.--Not to exceed $385,000,000 of 
     the funds appropriated in title II of this Act may be 
     available for population planning activities or other 
     population assistance.
       (b) Restriction on Assistance to Foreign Organizations That 
     Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
       (1) Performance of abortions.--(A) Notwithstanding section 
     614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any other 
     provision of law, no funds appropriated by title II of this 
     Act for population planning activities or other population 
     assistance may be made available for any foreign private, 
     nongovernmental, or multilateral organization until the 
     organization certifies that it will not, during the period 
     for which the funds are made available, perform abortions in 
     any foreign country, except where the life of the mother 
     would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term or 
     in cases of forcible rape or incest.
       (B) Subparagraph (A) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal 
     abortions or to assistance provided directly to the 
     government of a country.
       (2) Lobbying activities.--(A) Notwithstanding section 614 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any other provision 
     of law, no funds appropriated by title II of this Act for 
     population planning activities or other population assistance 
     may be made available for any foreign private, 
     nongovernmental, or multilateral organization until the 
     organization certifies that it will not, during the period 
     for which the funds are made available, violate the laws of 
     any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which 
     abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited, or engage in 
     activities or efforts to alter the laws or governmental 
     policies of any foreign country concerning the circumstances 
     under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.
       (B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to activities in 
     opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
       (3) Application to foreign organizations.--The prohibitions 
     and certifications of this subsection apply to funds made 
     available to a foreign organization either directly or as a 
     subcontractor or subgrantee.
       (c) Waiver Authority.--
       (1) Authority.--The President may waive the restrictions 
     contained in subsection (b) that require certifications from 
     foreign private, nongovernmental, or multilateral 
     organizations.
       (2) Reduction of assistance.--In the event the President 
     exercises the authority contained in paragraph (1) to waive 
     either or both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2), then--
       (A) assistance authorized by subsection (a) and allocated 
     for population planning activities or other population 
     assistance shall be reduced by a total of $12,500,000, and 
     that amount shall be transferred from funds appropriated by 
     this Act under the heading ``Development Assistance'' and 
     consolidated and merged with funds appropriated by this Act 
     under the heading ``Child Survival and Disease Programs 
     Fund''; and
       (B) notwithstanding any other provision of law, such 
     transferred funds that would have been made available for 
     population planning activities or other population assistance 
     shall be made available for infant and child health programs 
     that have a direct, measurable, and high impact on reducing 
     the incidence of illness and death among children.
       (3) Limitation.--The authority provided in paragraph (1) 
     may be exercised to allow the provision of not more than 
     $15,000,000, in the aggregate, to all foreign private, 
     nongovernmental, or multilateral organizations with respect 
     to which such authority is exercised.
       (4) Additional requirements.--Upon exercising the authority 
     provided in paragraph (1), the President shall report in 
     writing to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations 
     of the House of Representatives.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Greenwood

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Greenwood:
       Strike section 587 of the bill (page 124, strike line 4 and 
     all that follows through line 15 on page 127).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of Wednesday, July 12, 
2000, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a Member 
opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to share one-
half the time allotted to my amendment with the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York will control 15 minutes, 
and may yield time to other Members.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 30 
minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey will control 30 minutes 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Greenwood-Lowey amendment, for the following reasons. Family planning 
reduces abortion, it is just that simple. People who go to receive 
advice on family planning oftentimes go first because they believe that 
they may be pregnant, and if you say that you may not offer abortion 
services, you are cutting a substantial amount out of the value of 
family planning because of the opportunity that people seek to get that 
advice.
  Secondly, this particular provision in the bill prohibits even 
advocating for a change in the law. Indeed, the way it is written it 
even prohibits advocating a change in the law to outlaw abortion. 
Anybody who lobbies their own government in order to affect abortion no 
longer qualifies for assistance under the bill.
  Third and last, this provision is an absolute prohibition on family 
planning, and it has a waiver, and this year the waiver was acceptable 
to me because the President would exercise that waiver. But 
particularly for pro-choice Republicans, of whom I am one and my 
colleague from Pennsylvania is another, we do not know who will be

[[Page 14105]]

President next year, and if our candidate for President is the 
President next year, which is my desire, I have no assurance that he 
will exercise the waiver.
  So let me repeat that to pro-choice Republicans: We have no guarantee 
that this waiver, which we were willing to accept last year as a 
compromise, will in fact be exercised should it be the Republican 
candidate for President elected. Accordingly, the law would stand, and 
the law is no money for family planning, because the groups in question 
cannot make the certification. We are voting today on Greenwood to 
restore family planning. It is that important, that simple, and that 
clear.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which would 
strike the global gag rule from this bill. This anti-democratic policy 
forces NGOs in the developing world to sacrifice their right to free 
speech in order to participate in our family planning programs. While 
restricting foreign NGOs in this way may only offend our democratic 
sensibilities, if we tried to do this at home, it would be absolutely 
unconstitutional.
  Section 587 of this bill severely damages our international family 
planning programs. The demand for these programs is much larger than 
our limited funds can meet, and section 587 imposes an arbitrary cap on 
family planning which is $156 million below the President's request.
  Very simply, our family planning programs save lives. 600,000 women 
die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often preventible. 
More than 150 million married women in the developing world want 
contraceptives, but have no access it them. Increasing access to family 
planning will save the lives of women and children and it will reduce 
the incidence of abortion worldwide. Striking this section will reduce 
the number of abortions performed each day. If you support this 
objective, you should support this amendment.
  We need to consider the global gag rule within the overall context of 
U.S. foreign policy. What values do we want to export along with our 
foreign assistance? The gag rule says to our NGO partners abroad that 
we do not need to care about their rights, that freedom of speech, the 
very foundation of the American democracy, matters here, but it does 
not matter abroad, that our commitment to free speech and freedom of 
association, fixtures of our Constitution, end at our own borders. Is 
this the kind of message that we want to send?
  Make no mistake, the United States is being watched. Each day Members 
on both sides of the aisle condemn violations of human rights abroad. 
Each day we debate whether the United States should associate at all 
with foreign regimes who refuse to embrace Democratic ideals. Our 
neighbors around the world look to us as the definitive authority on 
democracy.
  The words of the director of a family planning organization that 
receives our funding sums up the severe damage that we do to our own 
credibility by incorporating an anti-democratic policy such as the gag 
rule into our foreign assistance program:

       We believe this requirement is profoundly anti-democratic 
     and does a disservice to the legacy of the United States of 
     America's fight for democracy. Democracy is nourished and 
     strengthened by open debate and freedom of expression. 
     Shackling the discussion of ideas impoverishes such public 
     debate, and, in doing so, weakens democracy. We are now in 
     the difficult position of having to choose between needed 
     funding for an historic project on the one hand and essential 
     democratic participation on the other. Either way, there is a 
     cost to women's reproductive health and to democracy.

  Mr. Chairman, if the oppression of ideas with which some do not agree 
and the use of economic power to crush dissent are ideals one thinks 
the United States should export, then vote against this amendment. But 
if believes, as I do, that the strength of our country lies in our 
unwavering commitment to democracy at home and abroad, then join us in 
voting yes to strike the global gag rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this is clearly going to be an abortion 
debate. Others can try to turn it into recycling the old phrase about 
the gag rule, but this fundamentally an abortion debate, and whether 
those of us who strongly believe that abortion is taking the life of 
innocent children should have to pay, and in this question it is not 
for abortions in our country, but abortions overseas, whether we are 
going to export this doctrine of death.
  I have worked hard in this Congress to fight against child abuse, to 
fight against domestic violence, to work for creative ways to stop 
violence in our schools. But it is hard to take a message to our young 
people that it is wrong to kill other young people, it is wrong to beat 
children, but if the child is in the womb, you can burn their skin off, 
you can cut them off, you can take the baby as they are coming out and 
hit them with a blunt object. Now, that is another form of violence.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that since 1973 
it has been against the law to use one dime of these funds for 
abortions overseas, that the Helms amendment of 1973 prohibits the 
expenditure of any of these funds for abortion?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am aware that we have 
directly banned abortion funding, but the question and what we have 
tried to address and what this language tries to address is fungible 
funding.
  The argument of many of us is that in an organization that on the one 
hand does abortions, and on the other hand does family planning, which 
I as an individual do not oppose and believe many of these countries do 
in fact need family planning, that does not take life once life has 
begun, that these funds, even though they are claimed to be privately 
raised, are in fact fungible.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is fine. Let us keep the debate honest and talk about fungibility. 
Let us not use language that implies that these funds can be directly 
used for abortion.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I do believe and what my point is is that 
these funds can be used directly for abortion, because the money is 
commingled, and while there is a bookkeeping process, the fact is that 
the actual dollars that are used on abortion are fungible and can be 
used to commit these heinous acts, and that while we may have 
differences about the bookkeeping, the fact is that this argument is 
often used when we get into voucher debates by the other side, that to 
give aid to a private school is promoting religion because those 
dollars then are fungible and can be used back and forth.
  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that the Republicans 
use fungible money when we advocate vouchers, but it is not fungible 
when we deal with the abortion argument.
  The second question on the gag rule, this is not a question of 
freedom of speech. This is a question of whether taxpayers' dollars can 
be used to fund certain types of speech, particularly in countries 
where they may oppose even family planning in addition to abortion.
  For example, in one of the more celebrated cases in the Philippines, 
where they had laws on what type of population methods could be 
allowed, we used American taxpayer dollars to try to change laws that 
at least half of the Americans in a deeply split general public do not 
favor. Why in the world would it be exporting our beliefs of freedom 
and democracy to use American taxpayer dollars to undermine democracy 
in other countries where they have concluded, like in Ireland or the 
Philippines or whatever the case may be, that certain laws on abortion 
and population control are wrong?

[[Page 14106]]


  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
our colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) 
concerning the gag rule and other restrictions on family planning in 
this bill. Not only do family planning programs help millions by 
allowing poor women to space the birth of their children, it also saves 
lives and it is key to sound and sustainable development.
  The most distressing aspect of the family planning language in this 
bill concerns the limits on free speech on organizations that provide 
much needed technical assistance to the poorest of the poor throughout 
the developing world. It is my conviction that freedom of speech is a 
fundamental American value that should be respected, not only in our 
own Nation, but overseas as well. Freedom of speech is an essential 
ingredient for democracy to thrive and it is critical to the success of 
sustainable development efforts promoted by our own Nation.

                              {time}  1030

  It is a principle that we wish to advocate throughout the developing 
world as an embodiment of the genius of the American Democratic 
experience.
  Accordingly, limiting eligibility for U.S. development and 
humanitarian assistance by requiring foreign nongovernmental 
organizations to forgo their right to use their own funds to address, 
within legal and democratic processes, any issue affecting the citizens 
of their own country is abhorrent to the principles of American 
democracy and of those rights and privileges bestowed upon our people 
by our Constitution.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the 
Greenwood amendment that incorporates the principles of American 
democracy and ensures that foreign nongovernmental organizations and 
multilateral organizations shall not be subject to requirements 
relating to the use of non-U.S. Government funds for advocacy and 
lobbying activities, other than those that apply to U.S. 
nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance under the Act.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday this House voted 416 to 1 to defend the 
Vatican from a vicious campaign of anti-Catholic bigotry by major pro-
abortion organizations.
  The list of groups who seek the Vatican's ouster from the U.N., which 
includes the International Planned Parenthood Federation based in 
London, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Pathfinder, to 
name a few, reads like a Who's Who list of groups lavishly subsidized 
by U.S. taxpayers.
  Many of these groups, Mr. Chairman, aggressively promote abortion on 
demand in foreign countries. Members will recall that about 100 
countries around the world protect the lives of their unborn children 
from the violence of abortion. If only the family planners would stick 
with family planning alone, we would not be here arguing this issue 
today.
  I think we should make no mistake about it, this debate is about fat 
subsidies to the abortion industry. This debate is about how Congress 
dispenses grant money. This is grant money, I say to my colleagues. 
There is no entitlement spending involved here. This is grant money. 
This is discretionary funds.
  We have an obligation and a duty, I would respectfully submit, to put 
conditions on it if we feel that it is warranted, and many of us, 
hopefully the majority of us, will feel that it is indeed warranted.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children. Earlier one of 
my colleagues talked about human rights. The most fundamental of all 
human rights is the right to life, to be free from violence. Chemically 
poisoning a child with a lethal injection or dismembering an unborn 
child by ripping his or her arms off the body, which is commonplace in 
abortion, is anything but benign and compassionate. It is violence 
against children. It is a gross violation of human rights. That is what 
this is about today.
  Members will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Mexico City policy is 
named after a U.N. Population Conference held in Mexico City in 1984. 
It was there that President Reagan announced that he would no longer 
contribute to organizations that perform or promote abortions. In its 
most effective and purest form, in place during the Reagan and Bush 
years, we generously supported family planning but withheld funds from 
organizations that promote or perform abortions.
  The language in this bill is not the full Mexico City policy. I wish 
it were. The language in this bill is a compromise, and it is current 
law. From the pro-life perspective, this legislation is far from 
perfect. Although it begins by incorporating the pro-life Mexico City 
policy that was in force for 9 years under Presidents Reagan and Bush, 
it then gives the President the right to waive these conditions for 
some recipients. If the President chooses to exercise the waiver, up to 
$15 million in U.S. population assistance can go to foreign 
organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.
  The good news is that the remaining $370 million of our population 
assistance must either go to sovereign countries or NGOs that practice 
genuine family planning and not abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers do not want their money going to 
groups that advertise themselves as family planners but in fact are 
performers and promoters of abortion around the world. Let us not 
forget, just a month ago there was a Los Angeles Times poll. It found 
that among all the women in the United States, when asked the question 
about abortion, 61 percent, of all women said that abortion was murder.
  We hope through this legislation to put a very modest but necessary 
wall of separation between abortion and family planning, and restrict 
most U.S. funding of the abortion industry overseas.
  Another part of the compromise, Mr. Chairman, transfers $12.5 million 
to high-impact child survival programs if the President authorizes 
money for the abortion groups. This provision will have a direct impact 
on saving children's lives. It will be spent on immunizations for polio 
and diphtheria, oral rehydration therapy for children at risk of death 
from diarrhea, and other easily preventable and treatable diseases that 
currently kill hundreds of thousands of children annually in developing 
countries.
  In other words, this is a moderate, reasonable compromise in which 
each side gets something but each side also has to give something up.
  Frankly, some of us on the pro-life side had seriously considered 
offering the original Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy. I certainly 
wanted to do it. I've done so each year since the mid-eighties. But the 
fact that this is current law--a sustainable compromise--we felt on 
balance was the best way to proceed. Again, this is a compromise.
  This moderate amendment, Mr. Chairman, is already in the bill offered 
by the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). So everyone 
understands the process, the effect of the Greenwood amendment would be 
to allow unlimited funding of international abortionists and the 
abortion lobbyists.
  Indeed, the amendment would not only strike the pro-life 
restrictions, it would eliminate the $385 million cap on U.S. spending 
for population assistance. This means that the administration could use 
any amount it wanted from the $1.3 billion development assistance 
account for taxpayer subsidies to the international abortion industry.
  Mr. Chairman, advocates of international abortion rights have once 
again dredged up the tired old argument that the Mexico City policy is 
a gag rule that violates free speech. But even if U.S. constitutional 
provisions applied to foreign organizations doing

[[Page 14107]]

business on foreign soil, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that they 
do not, the fact of the matter is free speech would not give these 
organizations a right to Federal dollars.
  Organizations that represent the United States in foreign countries 
are analogous to our ambassadors. They are our people on the ground. 
They are surrogates for U.S. foreign policy. Their advocacy in these 
countries on issues closely related to the U.S. programs they 
administer, as well as to their other activities, such as the actual 
performance of abortions, is highly relevant to whether they can 
effectively administer these programs.
  The United States, I would submit, has no obligation to administer 
these programs through agents who fundamentally disagree with this 
goal. For the same reason that we would not hire casino lobbyists to 
run international anti-gambling campaigns, or a distillery to run an 
anti-alcohol campaign, it makes no sense to hire abortionists or 
abortion lobbyists to run programs that they claim are aimed at 
reducing abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying supporters of the 
Greenwood amendment argue that our family planning grantees should be 
allowed to perform and promote abortion so long as their abortion-
related activities are carried out with ``their own money'' rather than 
U.S. grant money.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bookkeeping trick. It ignores the fact that 
money is indeed fungible, and that when we subsidize an organization we 
inevitably enrich and empower all of its activities, as well as 
enhancing the domestic and international prestige of the organization 
by giving an official U.S. seal of approval.
  Let me be clear on the important point: The Mexico City policy does 
not weaken international family planning programs. On the contrary, it 
strengthens them by ensuring that U.S. funds are directed to those 
groups that provide family planning but do not perform or promote 
abortion.
  I urge a strong ``no'' on the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished ranking 
member of this committee and a fighter for human rights and freedom 
around the world.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me, and for her great leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood-Lowey 
amendment. I call upon our colleagues to vote for the motion to strike 
the restrictions in the bill because they erect barriers to the 
promotion of civil society abroad, the enhancement of women's 
participation in the political process, and the credibility of the U.S. 
in the international arena.
  International family planning enables women and families throughout 
the world to make key choices affecting the quality of their lives and 
their future. Each year 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes, 
more than one woman every minute every day. So I support the move to 
strike those restrictions.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to use the rest of my time to say what is not 
stricken in the bill, because I think it is very important for Members 
to know that what is still in the bill, which is law, states ``Provided 
further that none of the funds made available under this heading may be 
used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family 
planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion, and 
that in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, 
funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects 
which offer, either directly or through referral to or information 
about, access to a broad range of family planning methods and services, 
and that any such voluntary family planning shall meet the following 
requirements:''
  It goes on to reiterate that no Federal dollars may ever be used for 
the performance of abortion abroad. These prohibitions are still 
contained in the bill. The motion to strike is strictly about the gag 
rule which, as I mentioned, erects barriers to women's full 
participation in the political process and the promotion of civil 
society abroad.
  I offer that language because we have had questions about how far 
this strike was. It certainly does not strike the basic law. I urge our 
colleagues to support this very important amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make simply three points. First of all, under 
no circumstances can American dollars be used to fund abortions abroad, 
period. No matter what anyone implies on this floor, that is the law of 
the United States of America and it cannot happen.
  However, I am stunned that representatives in this democracy would 
stand up on the floor and advocate that our policy be to force citizens 
of another country to break their own laws. That is simply unheard of 
and unconscionable.
  If in another country abortion is legal and referral to people who 
can do abortions is legal, then we should not force native citizens of 
that country not to be allowed to say to a woman who comes in where 
they can go to get an abortion if it is a legal medical procedure in 
their country and they have a right to it.
  Why would we in a free society want to force, as a consequence of 
American aid, citizens in other countries to abrogate their own laws? 
Have we no respect?
  When I think of the worry on the floor of this House over the 
sovereignty issue when we get into trade matters, will the World Trade 
Organization impose its views on our laws, and the answer to that is 
no, we do not allow that, we do not allow international agreements to 
impose themselves in a way that contradicts our domestic law, yet that 
is exactly what this provision in this bill would do in terms of 
following U.S. money with a requirement for citizens in other countries 
to literally abrogate their law.
  Let me tell Members why we really have to strike this provision. If a 
woman comes in and she is already pregnant and she wants a termination, 
and I am the health person, do Members really want me to say, ``I 
cannot say that word, so you will have to leave and go someplace else 
to talk to other people?'' No. We want to be able to say to that woman, 
look, maybe she does not have to have an abortion. Maybe she could 
carry this pregnancy because we can help her after that not to get 
pregnant again.
  Because that is what we are trying to do: We are trying to teach 
family planning services. We are trying to give women the power to 
control their reproductive capabilities responsibly.
  If she then says, ``No, I absolutely have to for a lot of reasons: I 
have 10 children, we cannot afford it,'' whatever it is, ``and if I 
cannot get it here, I will go to the back alley,'' do Members not think 
it is better for us to say, well, she can legally get a safe, clean 
abortion, and then come back and we will help her? Through the power of 
knowledge in a free society, we will help her prevent this and she will 
never again get in this position where she faces an unwanted pregnancy.
  Contraceptives are the right answer to abortion. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the motion to strike.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds to 
respond briefly.
  The plain text and the implementation by the Clinton administration 
and by the Reagan-Bush administrations proves that the Mexico City 
Policy has nothing whatsoever to do with counseling for abortions. That 
is not on the table, it is not being considered. As much as I would 
rather it be the case, it is not part of this amendment.
  Secondly, the Mexico City Policy does provide for abortions for rape, 
incest, or life of the mother with their own funds.
  Finally, the Policy reflects our intent that every effort to treat a 
woman

[[Page 14108]]

suffering from an incomplete abortion be done and is fully authorized 
by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote no on 
the proposed amendment, the Greenwood motion to strike.
  The compromise language already in the bill is the result of long 
negotiations between this Congress and the President last year. At that 
time those of us in the House who believe in the sanctity of life felt 
strongly that no taxpayer money should be used to fund groups that 
perform or promote abortion or lobby for abortion laws overseas.
  The President, needless to say, does not agree with our position; and 
so we did what we are supposed to do in the legislative process, we 
compromised. We did not get everything we wanted, and neither did the 
President.
  Mr. Chairman, these negotiations took a long time and a lot of effort 
to produce the best possible result for all concerned. More to the 
point, the President signed it. To remove the compromise language would 
undo all of that hard work. Why reopen a controversy that has already 
been settled?
  I would like to remind my colleagues that under the Reagan-Bush 
administration, international family planning funds were abortion free, 
and they got their yearly grants as long as they were abortion free. 
Most family planning organizations agreed to those conditions. Only two 
disagreed, one which is responsible for 200,000 abortions a year in the 
United States refused funds in order to continue their proabortion 
activities.
  The second day after President Clinton was first inaugurated, he 
issued executive orders. One of the first executive orders he issued 
was the Mexico City reversal of the pro-life policies, and so the 
organizations through most of the Clinton administration have received 
their yearly subsidy with the ability to promote and perform.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that removing this language 
is really a radical departure of the well being of the American people. 
The effect of this amendment would be to allow virtually unlimited 
funding to the international abortion industry and the abortion 
lobbyists. It would remove the cap of $385 million, which is the grant 
money they receive every year, and even the President says that 
abortions should be rare. A vote for this amendment is a vote to spend.
  They could potentially spend up to $1.3 billion to promote abortion 
worldwide to lobby other governments against the abortion laws. This is 
not something the House should be voting for. More than half the 
nations of the world have laws restricting abortions.
  Why should we use taxpayer money from the United States to fund 
international family planning and lobbyists? Who are we to be sending 
lobbyists into foreign lands to change policies of other governments 
that even the American people would not want? Being a superpower does 
not give us that sort of authority.
  The Mexico City policy also recognizes that money is fungible: in one 
pocket, out the other. The U.S. taxpayers do not want their money going 
to organizations which do this.
  Let us vote against this amendment and urge my colleagues to support 
the present language.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader on international 
family planning.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and many others for their 
leadership on this issue.
  First and foremost, family planning helps prevent abortion. No U.S. 
dollars are used for abortions around the world. This amendment is 
about saving women's lives. It is about women dying to the tune of over 
600,000 a year.
  Mr. Chairman, while we are debating this motion to strike, over 65 
women will die around the world from pregnancy-related causes. This 
safe delivery kit costs $1.25; yet it can mean the difference between 
life and death. Its contents are simple, a plastic sheet, a bar of 
soap, some gauze, a razor; yet in rural areas and emergency situations, 
this saves women's lives.
  The language we are striking restricts the use of a foreign NGOs own 
funds. In America, this language is unconstitutional. Around the world, 
it is unconscionable.
  The gag rule is enough to make us gag. It cripples foreign NGOs 
ability to practice democracy in their own countries. The United States 
has always been very proud of exporting what is best about our country, 
our ideals, democracy; but this bill exports one of the worst, if not 
the worst of our country, our own internal politics.
  We cannot afford to stifle the international debate on family 
planning by tying the hands of NGOs with this antiwoman gag rule. It 
forces NGOs to choose between their own democratic rights, to organize 
and to determine what is best in their own countries and desperately 
needed resources of U.S. family-planning dollars.
  This is not a choice we should be forcing on the women of the world, 
and many of the poorest countries that are often struggling 
democracies. I urge a yes vote on this important motion to strike.
  First and foremost, this is not about abortion.
  It's about women dying, to the tune of 600,000 a year.
  And its about saving women lives. No U.S. federal funds have been are 
used or around the world for abortions.
  During the time we are debating this amendment, 65 women will die 
from pregnancy related complications.
  This kit, a safe delivery kit, is used around the world where women 
lack access to adequate health care facilities. It's contents are 
simple--a sterile sheet of plastic, on which the baby is delivered, a 
bar of soap, a sterile surgical blade, two rolls of umbilical tape, and 
cotton gauze bandages.
  There few items are enough, to enable women in rural or emergency 
situations to deliver their babies in safe and sterile conditions.
  These kits cost just $1.25, but their value is priceless. In some 
cases, these simple tools mean the difference between life and death.
  The language in this bill says that a non-governmental organization 
that receives US AID family planning funds cannot use it own funds to 
provide legal abortion services or to lobby for or against abortions. 
This language restricts the use of a foreign NGO's own funds.
  In America, this language is unconstitutional.
  Around the world, it's unconscionable.
  The Gag Rule is enough to make you gag.
  It cripples foreign NGO's ability to practice democracy in their own 
countries.
  It cripples NGO's in countries like El Salvador, where abortion is 
illegal even if a woman will die as a result of the pregnancy.
  The Gag Rule bars NGO's from even writing a letter to legislators 
supporting changes in laws to save women's lives.
  Many opponents of international family planning like to refer to 
China's one child policy as a reason not to support programs in China.
  But with the Gag Rule, not only will women and families not get the 
contraception and resources they need to plan their families, but NGO's 
will be silenced from lobbying their own government to change abortion 
laws.
  International family planning is about the rights of women and men to 
decide freely the size of their families whether it be in India, 
Ecuador or China.
  The United States has always been dedicated to exporting the very 
best of our country, from our ideas of freedom and democracy to 
products that help make life better.
  Unfortunately, this bill exports one of the worst, if not the worst, 
of our country--our internal politics.
  There is a terrible irony in all this. In the name of preventing 
abortion, this policy actually works to increases abortions.
  Last year alone, with the Gag Rule in place, thousands of young women 
lacking information to prevent or postpone pregnancy underwent 
dangerous and often fatal abortions.
  However, with US family planning funds at the President request, 2.2 
million abortions can be prevented.
  We can't afford to stifle the international debate on family planning 
by tying the hands of NGO's with an anti-women Gag Rule.

[[Page 14109]]

  It forces NGO's to choose between their democratic rights to organize 
and determine what is best in their own countries and desperately 
needed resources of US family planning dollars.
  This is not a choice we should be forcing on the poorest of nations 
who are often the ones with struggling democracies. Let's support this 
women of the world and provide the resources for them to make informed 
decisions, instead of exporting unconstitutional policies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and strike the onerous, anti-
democratic Gag Rule.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, rigid ideological dogmatic rhetoric always turns logic 
on its head and always brutalizes the truth.
  Let me describe reality outside of the realm of such dogmatic 
rhetoric. In March of this year, I traveled to India and to Bangladesh, 
and in those countries, I visited family planning clinics; and let me 
tell my colleagues what I saw.
  We went to India, New Delhi, to one of the most terrifyingly brutal 
areas of poverty I have ever witnessed, down dirty roads filled with 
dung, poor children with their hands out, starvation, disease, flies 
everywhere, into a little brick clinic. In that clinic I saw 
impoverished Indian women on their knees getting a lecture about how to 
use family planning services.
  Sometimes women in this neighborhood come to this clinic in search of 
an abortion. Why do they do that? They are not pregnant because of 
irresponsible sexual conduct. They are pregnant by their husbands, and 
they are there sometimes desperate for an abortion because they have 
already more children than they can feed, and they tire of watching 
their children starve to death.
  Abortion is not their first choice; it is their last choice. In my 
vision, when those women, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
Johnson) said, come in such desperate straits to that clinic, I want 
American dollars, small amounts of American dollars to be used there to 
say to that woman, you have had several abortions, there is a better 
way. We have family planning services available to you, so you need not 
again become pregnant when you cannot feed the children at your breast 
as it is, and your body suffers from hemorrhaging because you have had 
too many pregnancies too closely spaced together.
  The impact of the language that we are trying to strike is to make 
this situation worse, because the President will exercise the waive, 
and $12.5 million that could have been spent for family planning to 
prevent the 1,600 women from dying every hour, to prevent the millions 
of children from starving around the world, to prevent the millions of 
abortions that happen for lack of these services. Some of that money 
will be cut, and women in places like India and Bangladesh and around 
the world will not get these services, and some of them will die. Many 
of them will have abortions, and many of them will give birth to 
children who will starve to death. That is the result of what is 
happening on the floor today.
  It is unconscionable, and it happens every time Members of Congress 
try to impose their own personal religious beliefs on the women of the 
world. It is wrong, and it is un-American; and it should not stand.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
that would allow up to $1.3 billion to subsidize international abortion 
clinics, and it would also undermine foreign countries' laws on 
abortion.
  Congress has repeatedly banned the use of funds, taxpayer dollars to 
pay for abortions within our own borders, except when the life of the 
mother is endangered or in cases of rape and incest.
  Money is fungible. Any organization that is involved in international 
family planning efforts and performs abortions and lobbies to increase 
legal access to abortion on demand should not receive taxpayer dollars.
  To these organizations, abortion is a form of birth control. Mr. 
Chairman, abortion is not a method of birth control. Once a baby is 
conceived, instead of asking taxpayers to fund an abortion, we should 
focus our efforts on making sure that the child survives.
  At the Beijing +5 conference held last month, the international 
community made a clear statement that abortion on demand is not a 
universal goal. The United States should not be funding efforts to 
change the abortion laws in other countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), a distinguished leader on women's health.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I have been appalled time and time again 
by the audacity of antichoice legislators to restrict women's 
reproductive options in the United States and worldwide. This annual 
right of, quote, ``we will show the women who is boss,'' end quote, 
legislation has allowed millions of women to die in the Third World.
  Mr. Chairman, we stand here every year; and we say 600,000 women die 
every year, and nobody bats an eyelash. Do not tell me that a poll of 
people in the United States would approve of that. If the question 
asked on that poll is would you like the international family planning 
law of the United States to allow 600,000 women to die, we would get a 
far different answer.
  The problem is that the harshest lesson that people learn about us is 
that we will allow them to die. Nothing else that we do in foreign aid, 
nothing else purposefully allows women to die.
  The truth of the matter is we will never hear a word here about the 
woman herself, because mothers do not matter. The children that she 
leaves motherless at home, they do not matter. The fact that there are 
unsanitary conditions in which they live do not matter. What matters is 
the policy and beliefs of some Members of this House, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on the motion to strike.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Greenwood motion to strike section 587, relating to the global gag rule 
and limiting vital U.S. assistance for voluntary international family 
planning.
  I am a firm believer in voluntary international family planning. Let 
me make this clear. International family planning prevents abortions. I 
do not think anyone can dispute that.
  The global gag rule is dangerous because it prevents U.S. funds from 
reaching critical health care providers in developing nations and 
dictates how these NGOs can spend funds from other donors besides the 
U.S. government. We have every right to decide policy for U.S. funds, 
but not for other nations and private donors. In fact, no U.S. dollars 
can be used to perform abortions overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this prohibition. It is up to the governments 
and citizens in these nations to decide their own policies. In Malawi, 
in sub-Saharan Africa, which I recently visited, I witnessed how 
villagers from miles around used one central health care facility for 
all of their needs. These people have no options.
  If the U.S. fails to fund them, they cannot use the hospital down the 
road. This is literally one-stop health care shopping with no 
alternatives. If it is not funded, women will have no access to 
contraception or any other health care and neither will their families.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also opposed to the global gag rule because it is 
patently undemocratic. If such restrictions were placed on NGOs here, 
they would be a clear violation of the first amendment.
  How can we claim to export democracy when we export limitations on 
free speech? Mr. Chairman, this is no compromise. This is legislation 
placed into an appropriations measure, despite the Republican 
leadership's claim

[[Page 14110]]

that they would accept no controversial riders.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the number of Members on the floor today 
clearly demonstrates the controversy surrounding this issue. And to 
call it a compromise when it took holding vital U.N. funding hostage, 
placing U.S. national security at risk to get the administration to let 
it in is disingenuous, misleading and downright preposterous.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Greenwood 
amendment.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and any 
amendment that would strike the agreed-upon language in section 587 of 
the Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
  Last fall, for the first time during his term, the President signed 
legislation to restrict the use of United States taxpayer dollars to 
groups that perform or promote abortions overseas. This version of the 
so-called ``Mexico City policy'' allowed no more than $15 million of 
United States population assistance funds to go to foreign 
organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.
  This amendment proposed today would strip that language that the 
President signed into law last year and allow almost unlimited United 
States taxpayer subsidies of the international abortion industry.
  Now, I know my colleagues on the other side are fond of saying that 
no United States dollar goes to that purpose, but as we all know, that 
is an accounting maneuver. This is just another attempt by the pro-
abortion side, I believe, to promote their agenda and to create, 
furthermore, gridlock over this contentious issue of funding for 
international abortion-related organizations.
  The language that this amendment seeks to strike was agreed upon by 
both sides last year to resolve a stalemate. Unfortunately, the pro-
abortiion side is unwilling to accept anything other than a total 
victory for the international abortion industry.
  What my colleagues will not acknowledge is that section 587 does not 
weaken international family planning programs. Rather, it strengthens 
them by ensuring that United States funds are directed to those groups 
that provide family planning but not to those who perform abortions or 
promote abortion as a form of birth control.
  Furthermore, it would restrict funding to those organizations that 
seek to overturn the pro-life laws of more than 100 countries overseas, 
clearly something that the vast majority of United States taxpayers do 
not want to see their taxpayer funds being used for.
  Abortion is not birth control, and the taxpayers should not be forced 
to pay for it.
  This is a bad amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote 
against it and any other amendment that threatens the language now 
included in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
  It has been said that some of the people on this side of this 
argument are motivated primarily by religious arguments. As a physician 
who has personally witnessed an abortion, I do not know how anybody 
could support abortion after actually seeing one with their eyes. I do 
not think this is a religious debate. It is certainly a moral debate. 
It is certainly a debate about what is the appropriate use of United 
States taxpayer dollars when one considers that millions of Americans 
feel very strongly that abortion is murder, that this is a very, very 
reasonable policy for us to have in the bill, and that it is very 
inappropriate for it to be overturned.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, striking this language would be a victory 
for women and children and democracy around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), a fighter for democracy.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, let me just thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for yielding me this time and for her strong leadership on 
behalf of the families throughout the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment today to 
strike the global gag rule which denies United States family planning 
assistance to any overseas organization that uses its own non-United 
States funds to provide abortion services or reproductive choice 
advocacy.
  Approximately 600,000 women die each year from preventable 
complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. Complications are 
the leading cause of death and disability among women between the ages 
of 15 to 49 in developing countries.
  Now, most of these women are poor, and many have infectious diseases 
such as HIV or AIDS and are struggling just to survive day by day.
  Now, this amendment does not require United States foreign aid funds 
to be used for abortions. Women throughout the world should have 
fundamental access to health care and family planning services and 
health education.
  Support for this amendment means saving lives, promoting women's and 
children's health. To do less is fundamentally undemocratic and morally 
wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 5 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has the right to close 
debate.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
which would undermine the values in human rights in other countries.
  Our current law is designed to prevent taxpayer funds from being used 
to undermine the values of foreign families by subsidizing 
organizations which work to undermine pro-life laws that are already in 
place. This proposed amendment would change this good law.
  As legislators, we have the tremendous responsibility of being in 
charge of other people's money. The dollars we spend do not belong to 
us. They are the result of hard work of people throughout this land. 
How we spend these dollars is a decision which is entrusted to us with 
the effects reaching all around the globe.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans value human life, and how we spend our 
dollars reflects these values. We work to end violence and bring peace 
throughout the world and promote women's health. Yet, without the 
foreign family value protections that are in our current law, we would 
be asking the United States taxpayer to subsidize organizations from 
the international abortion industry.
  Organizations who actively lobby to overturn laws that protect the 
unborn in other countries do not deserve the subsidies of the United 
States taxpayers. We support life and health, not death and 
destruction.
  Laws which recognize the sanctity of human life and restrict 
abortions are currently in place in approximately 100 countries 
throughout the world.
  If this amendment passes, laws that protect unborn children in 
countries like the Philippines, Nepal, Ghana could be in jeopardy 
because organizations which promote abortion abroad and lobby to change 
pro-life laws will be receiving funding from United States taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion is already a hotly debated topic at home. 
There is certainly no agreement here. But with no agreement here at 
home, how can we use taxpayer dollars to try to change laws about 
abortion in other lands. This makes no sense.
  This is not about poor people doing family planning. This is about 
giving taxpayer dollars to men and women in suits and skirts who are 
lobbying to

[[Page 14111]]

change laws that reflect the values of other countries.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support our current 
law, which honors the values of foreign families and their governments.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been a fighter for 
women's rights around the world.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise, Mr. Chairman, in strong support of the motion to 
strike this gag rule from this bill, because congressional support for 
reproductive health services in developing countries becomes more 
important every day.
  Voluntary family planning services increase child survival, promote 
safe motherhood, and give women around the globe the help they need to 
control their lives. Without international family planning, women in 
developing nations face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and 
more despair.
  Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the same people who deny women the 
choice of an abortion also seek to eliminate support for family 
planning programs. These are the programs that reduce the need for 
abortion. These same people would not allow organizations that 
participate in family planning programs to use their very own funds to 
provide information and services to women around the globe.
  Give women around the world the help they need and vote for the 
Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the anti-
Mexico City policy amendment and in support of the rights of United 
States citizens to refuse to subsidize the taking of lives of millions 
of unborn children throughout the world.
  This amendment has nothing to do with the intended purposes of the 
international family planning. It has everything to do with promoting 
United States taxpayer-funded abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, last November, President Clinton accepted a compromised 
version of the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy, which followed the 
precedent that taxpayers' funds should not be used to pay for abortion 
services.
  The compromise capped population assistance at $385 million and 
allowed $15 million to be used for abortion services or given to 
agencies that conducted abortion services. This year's Foreign 
Operations appropriations bill contains the same language that was 
agreed to last year. More importantly, it reinforces our overseas 
population assistance efforts to the original intent, to teach 
individuals the concept of responsible family planning so we could 
reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unplanned 
pregnancies.
  This compromise is not perfect. It does not honor our long-standing 
tradition of not forcing United States taxpayers to subsidize abortion 
services for others when they have a moral or religious objection to 
it. It did, however, move us back in that direction. Now some Members 
want to undo the compromise that took 7 years of an administration to 
achieve.
  Some of us would like to see all funding for foreign abortion 
services zeroed out. I am strongly pro-life and believe that every life 
deserves protection. I do not believe the taxpayers should ever be 
forced to pay for abortion services. But I am now here today to offer 
such an amendment because we believe we should honor the spirit of the 
compromise we reached last year.
  Mr. Chairman, not only would this amendment strike the compromise of 
population assistance, but it would strike the transfer of $12.5 
million to further child survivor programs should the administration 
choose to fund abortion services.
  I urge a no vote on this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who understands that respecting our 
constitution here and abroad is an important obligation of Americans.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me urge an enthusiastic 
vote for the Greenwood-Lowey amendment. Let me agree with the 
distinguished gentleman from California who has indicated that we do 
not know what will happen after this Presidential election if the 
present candidate for the Republican nomination is elected as it 
relates to pro-choice at all, the opportunity to choose.
  But the most important issue we have here today is that the language 
that this amendment seeks to strike would prohibit family planning, I 
remind my colleagues what I have said, family planning for poor women 
around the world, simply the opportunity to be educated about their own 
body.
  I, too, joined the President in going to Bangladesh and India and 
Pakistan. What an enormous experience to see a family planning clinic 
that was not destructive or devastating, but was uplifting and 
educating women and men and families, and it was uniting families, and 
it was getting men to respect women and women to respect men and to 
work as mothers and fathers to provide the best for children that they 
have.
  How can we here in the United States Congress deny that very real 
opportunity that each and every one of us have? We have a right to 
choose here. Allow those who are neighbors who are fighting for 
democracy to do the very same thing.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I intend to put a question to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) if I might have his attention. 
There is not a dime in this bill that will go for an abortion. But we 
have heard from the other side that money is fungible and so that the 
money that otherwise might be freed up could be seen for abortion.
  The United States allocates more or close to $1 billion every year in 
economic aid to Israel. Abortion is legal in Israel, and, in some 
cases, the government of Israel will fund poor women abortions.
  How can the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) support money for 
economic aid to Israel if he really believes the fungibility argument?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me just say there is at 
least, hopefully, only one government per country, whereas there is a 
myriad of NGOs--a large number of NGOs, NGOs that are trying to lobby 
governments to topple pro-life laws. That is what we are talking about.
  Way back in 1984 we accepted a compromise to fund countries, again, 
because there is only one government per country.
  But when we talk about a nongovernmental organization, if this 
nongovernmental organization does not take the money, another will step 
up to the plate and procure the grant.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
gentleman if it is fungible in the case of Israel?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
do not think so.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, today, of course, we are considering H.R. 
4811, the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations appropriations bill, and 
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment at hand.
  This bill includes language carried over from last year's bill, as 
has already been discussed. This language was a carefully crafted 
compromise which limits the amount of funding that can be distributed 
to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas. 
This amount was capped at $15 million. Of course, that is $15 million 
more than we would like to have seen; however, the agreement prevented 
hundreds of millions of dollars more from going into the abortion 
industry.

[[Page 14112]]

  The compromise also transfers $12.5 million to child survival 
programs if the President approves any U.S. subsidies for foreign 
abortion providers or promoters. This transfer would have the direct 
tangible effect of saving the lives of children around the world 
through immunization and oral rehydration therapy. These measures would 
prevent or treat diseases that currently take the lives of hundreds of 
thousands of innocent children every year.
  The proposed amendment would strike this language and allow up to 
$1.3 billion in U.S. funds to flow freely to the international abortion 
industry. This is of great concern to me personally, and I believe that 
it should not be allowed. Economic development and health care are how 
to help families in other countries, not the funding of groups that 
have performed abortions in the name of birth control.
  I sincerely request my colleagues to join with me today in opposing 
this amendment and reaffirming the Mexico City policy compromise that 
we agreed to and passed into law last year. The language currently in 
the bill will save the lives of countless children around the world, 
both born and unborn.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), one of my colleagues who was also on that 
trip to India and saw the abject conditions that these men, women, and 
families are living in.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member, I have to admit that I 
really did not understand until I got here how dramatically what we do 
here affects, for better or for worse, in the most intimate ways, the 
lives of men and women and children every single day in all parts of 
the globe.
  We are the only superpower in this world, and our capacity right now 
to do good in the face of starvation and disease and poverty is so 
great that it makes me weep with frustration that we are doing so 
little. But I am truly overwhelmed by the audacity that we would use 
our great power to require the clinics like we saw, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), to certify 
that they will not, with their own non-U.S. dollars, conduct any 
activity related to abortions so that they can control their own 
families and take care of the children that they have.
  It is on behalf of those men and women and children that I urge 
support for the motion to strike.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a woman who has been fighting 
for equal opportunity, democracy in the United States and around the 
world, and who understands the importance of striking this 
antidemocratic amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I ask Members to stand back for a moment from the gag rule. Seldom 
have so many violations of cardinal American principles, which enjoy 
overwhelming support and respect in our own country, been embodied in 
one law.
  Look at what is at stake here: free speech, female and family sexual 
autonomy, baseline protection of pregnant women and the most vulnerable 
children, reduction of abortions around the world. It is impossible to 
believe that any American would force on foreigners what no Member 
could or would do in our own country.
  The direct effect between suppression of speech and its effects is 
not always apparent. We must not allow this cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-
your-face gag rule to reap what it will sow in maternal and infant 
deaths, high-risk and unintentional pregnancies, escalated and 
unnecessary rates of abortion.
  Support American principles, vote for the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished Member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary who truly understands that we cannot do unto others what we 
would not do unto our own NGOs at home.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill would place an international gag 
rule on organizations that use their own non-U.S. supplied funds to 
provide abortion services, or even to refer people or to mention 
abortion services.
  The American people support family planning and realize that it is 
necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. Nearly 600,000 
women a year die of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and 
more than 150 million married women in the developing world want 
contraceptives but have no access to them. International family 
planning efforts have been remarkably successful and have saved women's 
lives, improved women's health, and reduced poverty.
  It is shocking that proponents of the so-called Mexico industry 
restrictions claim that these family planning programs increase the 
number of abortions when, in fact, it is clear that these efforts have 
prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies. The Mexico City 
restrictions are pernicious, unnecessary, and harmful. They would 
severely limit family planning efforts and result in more unwanted 
pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions. They are 
a clear restriction on free speech which we would never tolerate in 
this country. Why should America export restrictions on free speech?
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would place an international gag rule on 
organizations that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion 
services. This policy is clearly unacceptable, and is not supported by 
the President or by the American people. Last year, in a repugnant 
effort that held UN dues payments hostage to family planning 
restrictions, we were forced into an unworkable compromise. We cannot 
allow this to happen again. We must remain strong and oppose the global 
gag rule that threatens women's lives.
  The American people support family planning and realize that it is 
necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. According to the 
World Health Organization, nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes 
related to pregnancy and childbirth, and more than 150 million married 
women in the developing world want contraceptives, but have no access 
to them.
  International family planning efforts have been remarkably successful 
and have saved women's lives improved women's health, and helped reduce 
poverty. I am shocked that proponents of these so-called ``Mexico 
City'' restrictions claim that our family planning programs, increase 
the number of abortions, when, in fact, studies show that these efforts 
have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies.
  There is no need to impose this type of gag rule on organizations 
that use their own money to further their objectives and to make 
women's lives safer. The ``Mexico City'' restrictions are pernicious, 
unnecessary, and harmful. They severely limit family planning efforts 
and result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, 
and more abortions. They are a clear restriction on free speech. What 
an American export. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 
Thank you.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if the only 
remaining speaker will be the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) after myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. All the time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
our time.
  Mr. Chairman, a moment ago we heard the golden rule espoused, ``do 
unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' Well, let me just 
suggest that what we are trying to do with our foreign policy is to 
have a consistent ethic of life, of protecting mothers and babies and 
not sacrificing the children. To treat ``others'' with respect, dignity 
and compassion. And that includes unborn babies. You can't cherry pick 
the gold rule.
  Earlier the word brutalizing was used by my friend from Pennsylvania. 
It is the baby, I would respectfully submit, who is brutalized in an 
abortion. Again, we are trying to promote a consistent ethic that 
affirms both mother and child.
  I take a back seat to no one, as a Member of this body for the last 
20 years, in promoting maternal health

[[Page 14113]]

care both domestically and abroad. As a member of the Committee on 
International Relations, I have offered amendments to boost spending to 
help women be healthier in the developing world.
  Earlier, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) talked about 
the Mexico City Policy as being antiwoman. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. This policy is pro-life, pro-mother, and pro-child, and 
absolutely not antiwoman. Such a charge is absolutely ludicrous. If 
Mrs. Maloney's charge was accurate, then the majority of the women in 
America are antiwoman. The LA Times poll that I mentioned earlier, 
found that 61 percent of all the women in America believe abortion to 
be murder, 61 percent of the women in America are not antiwoman. It 
just does not follow logic, and I think hurling such statements at us, 
it degrades the level and caliber of our debate.
  Mr. Chairman, advocates of this pro-abortion amendment keep telling 
us over and over again that we should subsidize foreign abortionists 
and abortion lobbyists so long as they do not use U.S. dollars for the 
actual abortions and the actual lobbying. But this ignores the real 
effect of subsidizing the international abortion industry. These groups 
are the partners and the representatives of the U.S. Government in the 
countries where they operate.
  Do my colleagues think the average poor person in Peru or Nigeria has 
any idea what the financial records look like from these organizations? 
All they know is that these groups are representing the United States 
and they are performing and promoting abortions. They have no way of 
knowing which dollars are paying for which activities. They do not ask 
for an accounting exercise. So they get the strong message that the 
U.S. family planning program is about exporting abortion on demand, 
pushing abortion on poor people around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not just a hypothetical possibility. These are 
the facts on the ground in country after country throughout the 
developing world. The largest U.S. population grantees are also the 
most prominent and vigorous advocates of abortion on demand. What a 
profound tragedy. The Greenwood amendment would make this situation 
even worse by removing any limits at all on U.S. subsidies for the 
international abortion industry. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, just to echo the arguments eloquently 
made by the gentleman from New Jersey.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and 
remind them that this is the very same legislation currently in the 
bill that passed last year and was signed into law by the President, 
and, of course, ratified by the Senate.
  So all Members have to do is look at their voting record last year to 
see how they voted. The House overwhelmingly voted for this last year, 
and I would encourage all of our colleagues to vote against the 
Greenwood amendment which strikes last year's language.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I once heard an old African American woman, much wiser 
I think on this issue than anyone who has spoken in this Chamber today. 
She lived through the time when abortion was illegal in the United 
States. And she said that when a woman knows in her heart that it is 
right to have a child, she will risk her life to have that child; and 
when she knows in her heart that it is wrong for her to have that 
child, she will risk her life not to have that child.
  Women have sought abortions legally and illegally all over this world 
for as long as we can remember. They do so under the most desperate 
circumstances. In Bolivia, not too long ago, it was not only illegal to 
have an abortion, it was illegal to seek family planning services. And 
when they did a survey of their hospitals in Bolivia, they found that 
50 percent of the beds were occupied by women suffering from botched 
illegal abortions.
  That is what this language does. The language that we move to strike 
promotes abortion in the name of limiting abortion. That is the twisted 
logic. It sacrifices the lives of young women, and it sacrifices the 
lives of little children on the altar of blind rigid dogma. It is the 
logic that says we must burn to purify. That logic has been wrong 
throughout history every time it has been applied. Millions have 
suffered from that blind brutal logic.
  That is the moral low ground. We stand on the moral high ground. I 
urge the Members of the Congress to use their hearts and their minds 
and put aside the politics of this issue for the moment; put aside the 
pragmatism of moving this bill, and adopt the Greenwood amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired. The 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is not permitted under the order of the 
House to strike the last word while an amendment is pending. The 
gentlewoman may ask unanimous consent that both sides have additional 
time.
  Ms. PELOSI. I ask unanimous consent, then, Mr. Chairman, to extend 
the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what period?
  Ms. PELOSI. For 5 minutes on my side, but pleased to yield 5 minutes 
to the other side as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. There is objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to request 
reconsideration by the distinguished chairman of the motion to request 
5 more minutes.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, as she 
knows, we have established these boundaries on these amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) would 
renew her request, the gentleman may reserve the right to object for a 
brief colloquy.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not strike the last word.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
House for 5 minutes. What can I do, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman renews her unanimous consent request to 
add 5 additional minutes to both sides, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) reserves the right to object and is recognized under his 
reservation.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to request the extension of the time 
so that I can yield time to the distinguished Democratic leader for the 
5 minutes so he can speak to the issues that we have been speaking to 
this morning, and I respectfully request the cooperation of the 
chairman in that regard.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi)?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Five additional minutes will be added to each side of 
the debate. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) will control 5 
additional minutes, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will 
control 5 additional minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the distinguished leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I thank 
the chairman for allowing this additional debate to go on.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-Greenwood 
amendment. The inadequate funding and restrictions on our international 
family

[[Page 14114]]

planning assistance in this bill should be rejected. And that is only 
one of the many glaring flaws in this bill that I hope we can correct 
this afternoon.
  As we heard so eloquently last night, the funding in this bill for 
debt relief is clearly inexcusable. With the funding provided in this 
bill, governments in developing nations will continue to stagger under 
huge loads of debt. Millions of people in Africa, South America, 
Central America will be deprived of much needed education, health care 
and development. These governments will have to repay loans before 
addressing the fundamental need of their people.
  Another outrageous shortcoming in this bill is the cut in funding 
requested to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  People in America, our constituents, are just in many cases beginning 
to learn of the tragedy of AIDS in Africa and around the world. This is 
a crisis that has affected us and people around the world for many 
years now. But in African nations it reaches alarming proportions.
  I led a delegation that some of my colleagues accompanied me on in 
December to Nigeria and Zimbabwe and South Africa. It is one thing to 
intellectualize and theorize about this problem. It is quite another 
thing to confront dying humanity by the thousands and thousands.
  Twenty-two million people in Africa are infected with HIV/AIDS. Many, 
many more thousands are infected each week, each month.
  This issue, in my opinion, is the moral imperative of our time. How 
much longer will we go on and say it does not matter, it does not 
concern me that 22 million people are probably going to die?
  I can theorize about it. But when I confront it head on, as we did in 
a village in Zimbabwe where everyone we met was infected with HIV/AIDS, 
it is a different matter.
  There has never in the history of the world been a threat to life 
like this. If an Army were raging through Africa killing millions of 
people, we would be mounting armies to go to Africa to save lives. We 
say we are concerned with life.
  This is the issue of life in our world today. I beg the Members to 
vote for these amendments, to move our world in the right direction to 
provide the assistance and the aid that people are crying out for.
  Finally, I will say we met the head doctor of the largest hospital in 
Johannesburg. He is a pediatrician. He said that half the children that 
are born in the hospital right now are infected with HIV/AIDS and will 
die within the next year; and we cannot even provide, he said, the 
medication that we know we can provide that costs about $8 to make sure 
that the children of HIV-infected AIDS patients will be free of AIDS. 
And it is 70 percent effective. Eight dollars. Eight dollars to make 
sure that a child who will be born will not die.
  This is the moral issue of our time. I pray that this House and all 
of our great Representatives will stand and deliver on the moral issue, 
the most important moral issue we will ever face. Vote for these 
amendments.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief and just say that the eloquence 
of the minority leader and his comments are something that many of us 
agree with. But he was speaking to the issue of AIDS not the pending 
pro-abortion amendment.
  HIV/AIDS certainly is a devastating scourge on the planet. To date it 
has claimed the lives of millions of victims and we must find a cure. 
When Mr. Gephardt talked about the $8 for medicine it's worth pointing 
out that I raised the issue myself at the Committee on International 
Relations over a year ago. Thankfully, some of the drug companies have 
offered to provide certain AIDS drugs at cost to foreign governments 
and NGOs in an effort to mitigate the transference of AIDS to newborns. 
Since then I have requested our Agency for International Development to 
make money available to purchase those kinds of drugs to ensure HIV-
free babies.
  Mr. Gephardt really spoke to amendments that will follow this, 
although he did make a passive reference to the pending legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just also say that this vote is not about family 
planning, it is about abortion promotion and the performance of 
abortion. Our hope is to continue the wall of separation between the 
taking of human life by abortion and the prevention of human life. And 
that policy, which was in effect for 9 years during the Reagan-Bush 
years worked extremely well. During those years--and now--the United 
States was and continues to be the largest donor to family planning 
programs in the world. As a matter of fact, no one even comes close.
  The current policy is both pro-family planning and pro-life.
  Because many of us believe that the most elemental of all human 
rights is the right to life, that babies should not be subjected to the 
violence of abortion, to dismemberment, to chemical poisoning and other 
methods of battering. The ugly face of abortion, the cruelty of the 
methods is often masked and sanitized by the advocates of abortion. 
They do not want to talk about what is done to the baby to procure 
``fetal demise.'' It is too ugly. I believe, however, that we need to 
face the brutal truth of what abortion does to a baby. And the wounds 
it inflicts on the mother. It is violence against children.
  I urge a no vote, a no vote on the pending amendment by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, with respect to the minority leader and the gentlewoman 
from California's (Ms. Pelosi) request for additional time, I will tell 
my colleague that I removed my objections because I know the minority 
leader is busy, especially in his new role running for vice president, 
and I want to accommodate him every way we can. But I would encourage 
the gentlewoman to restrain if she possibly can from asking for 
unanimous consent requests, because Members have schedules and I would 
appreciate very much her not asking for unanimous consent requests for 
extended time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding from a previous 
ruling of the parliamentarian that that was in order, or else I would 
have informed my colleague in advance of the request. But I did not 
think it was an extraordinary request. But I hear what he is saying, 
and I appreciate that. I will do my best.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman for her comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to vote no on all three amendments 
coming up and remind them that last year I think it was a near 
unanimous vote for the bill which included this exact same language and 
which the President signed into law. So I would urge a no vote on all 
three amendments.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
I oppose Section 587 of this bill for two reasons. The first is that 
this language belongs in an authorizing bill and not an appropriations 
bill. This is a very complex and controversial issue. The attention 
that this issue requires can only be properly addressed by the 
International Relations Committee. The second reason I oppose this 
language is because I believe that it is bad policy.
  Our foreign assistance dollars are used to help people in developing 
countries. One of the greatest challenges facing these countries is 
quality of health care. Family planning services are the fundamental 
services that are directly needed by women and children. Further, these 
services provide the basis from which to address infectious diseases, 
especially HIV/AIDS. Without family planning services, you cannot 
effectively address the overall health needs of people in the 
developing world. It is as simple as that.

[[Page 14115]]

  The restrictions in Section 587 further inhibit an already over-
challenged program. USAID has not even begun to meet the increasing 
demand for family planning services. Bureaucracy coupled with 
historically low funding effectively cripple this program. Safeguards 
have been in place and enforced for over two decades to be sure that 
U.S. law is followed by international organizations. If we want to 
improve the health care provided with U.S. funds to people in 
developing countries, we must begin to facilitate the delivery of these 
services instead of making it more difficult.
  I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this amendment 
and encourage our colleagues support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Lowey 
amendment to strike Section 587 from H.R. 4811.
  Section 587, known as the ``global gag rule'' or the Mexico City 
language, is not just anti-family planning, it is anti-democracy and 
anti-free speech. Section 587 denies U.S. family planning assistance to 
any organization operating overseas that uses its own non-U.S. funds to 
provide abortion services or engage in advocacy related to abortion.
  Voluntary family planning prevents maternal and child deaths, 
unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and HIV-AIDS and other 
sexually transmitted diseases. Time and again, studies have shown that 
access to international family planning programs is one of the most 
effective means of reducing abortions. Additionally, in many 
communities, the local family planning provider is the only source of 
primary health care for the entire family.
  These important programs should not be burdened by restrictions that 
would be illegal if imposed in the United States. More than illegal, 
they would be unconstitutional. Why would we want to undermine the 
right of foreign NGOs to freedom of speech and the right to participate 
in their countries' democratic processes? That's what Section 587 
demands.
  Why would we want to erect barriers to the development of democracy 
in these countries, the promotion of civil society, and the enhancement 
of women's participation in the political and economic mainstream? 
That's what Section 587 demands.
  And why would we want to undermine the international credibility of 
the United States' commitment to promote women's health and women's 
participation in democracy abroad? That's what Section 587 demands.
  Section 587 is an extremist position. I urge my colleagues to strike 
it from this bill. Support the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood 
Amendment, which will strike Section 587 of this foreign aid spending 
bill.
  Today, we have a chance to help developing nations around the world 
by correcting an egregious error in U.S. foreign policy: the global gag 
rule.
  The gag rule is a shameful policy that punishes developing nations 
for doing precisely what we consistently encourage them to do: 
strengthen their democratic institutions by promoting and protecting 
freedom of speech.
  The gag rule forbids U.S. foreign assistance from going to 
organizations that use their own, non-U.S. funds to lobby their 
government on reproductive issues.
  The promotion of free speech is a principal goal of U.S. foreign 
policy and essential to the development of democratic forms of 
government. The United States--which prides itself on its protection of 
basic human rights, like freedom of speech--should not restrict these 
rights in other nations.
  I hear all the time--and wholeheartedly agree--that opening up trade 
with China will lead to greater freedoms to speak in that country, 
which in turn will promote democracy.
  But when it comes to family planning, we suddenly want to stifle 
voices within developing nations. We want to limit their right to speak 
out. We force them to relinquish their right to free speech in order to 
participate in U.S.-supported family planning programs. We force on 
these NGOs restrictions that would be unconstitutional were they 
imposed on U.S. organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, intentional family planning programs worldwide save the 
lives of mothers and children, profoundly benefit women's social and 
economic situations, and dramatically reduce the incidence of abortion.
  The global gag rule on international family planning stifles the 
ability of these programs to operate, placing the lives of mothers and 
their children at stake.
  These misguided restrictions were included as part of the FY 2000 
Consolidated Appropriations bill and they are again included in Section 
587 of the bill we are considering today.
  If we do not remove this provision, we will defund organizations that 
help reduce the number of abortions worldwide. These organizations 
provide voluntary, preventative family planning services. They help 
prevent a number of serious global problems, including: mother and 
infant mortality, unemployment, illiteracy and Third World debt.
  According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, every day 
approximately 1,600 women die of complications stemming from pregnancy 
and childbirth. That is about 600,000 women dying each year from 
pregnancy-related causes. And complications from pregnancy and 
childbirth are the leading cause of death and disability for women in 
developing countries aged 15 to 49.
  Studies show family planning and reproductive health services can 
help prevent one in four of those needless deaths. And, in addition to 
preventing maternal deaths, family planning can reduce the millions of 
long-term illnesses and disabilities that result each year from 
pregnancy-related complications.
  Family planning also helps women space births, which is critical to 
improving the health of their children. Just by increasing the time 
between births or the age of first motherhood, family planning can 
reduce infant and child mortality by up to 25 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to repeal the global gag rule. Let's pass this 
amendment, and let's put an end to this annual debate.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
would strike the global gag rule from this bill.
  This anti-democratic policy forces NGOs in the developing world to 
sacrifice their right to free speech in order to participate in our 
family planning programs. And while restricting foreign NGOs in this 
way may only offend our democratic sensibilities, if we tried to do 
this at home it would be absolutely unconstitutional.
  Section 587 of the bill, severally damages our international family 
planning programs. The demand for these programs is much larger than 
our limited funds can meet, and Section 587 imposes an arbitrary cap on 
family planning, which is $156 million below the President's request. 
Very simply, our family planning programs save lives. Six hundred 
thousand women die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often 
preventable. More than 150 million married women in the developing 
world want contraceptives, but have no access to them. Increasing 
access to family planning will save the lives of women and children, 
and it will reduce the incidence of abortion worldwide. Striking this 
section will reduce the number of abortions performed each day--if you 
support this objective, you should support this amendment.
  We need to consider the global gag rule within the overall context of 
U.S. foreign policy. What values do we want to export along with our 
foreign assistance?
  The gag rule says to our NGO partners abroad that we don't care about 
their rights. That freedom of speech, the very foundation of American 
democracy, matters here, but it doesn't matter abroad. That our 
commitment to free speech and freedom of association, fixtures of our 
Constitution, end at our own borders. Is this the kind of message we 
want to send?
  Make no mistake: the United States is being watched. Each day, 
members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle condemn violations 
of human rights abroad. Each day we debate whether the United States 
should associate at all with foreign regimes who refuse to embrace 
democratic ideals. Our neighbors around the world look to us as the 
definitive authority on democracy.
  I think the words of the director of a family planning organization 
that receives our funding sums up the severe damage we do to our own 
credibility by incorporating an anti-democratic policy such as the gag 
rule into our foreign assistance program.
  ``We believe this requirement is profoundly anti-democratic and does 
a disservice to the legacy of the United States' fight for democracy,'' 
the director wrote. ``Democracy is nourished and strengthened by open 
debate and freedom of expression; shackling the discussion of ideas 
impoverishes such public debate and, in doing so, weakens democracy . . 
. We are now in the difficult position of having to choose between 
needed funding for a historic project on the one hand, and essential 
democratic participation on the other. Either way, there is a cost to 
women's reproductive health and to democracy.''
  If the suppression of ideas with which some don't agree, and the use 
of economic power to crush dissent--are ideals you think the United 
States should export, then vote against this amendment. But if you 
believe, as I do, that the strength of our country lies in our 
unwavering commitment to democracy at home and abroad, then join me in 
voting ``yes'' to strike the global gag rule.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleagues in this 
motion to strike the

[[Page 14116]]

Global Gag Rule language that is contrary to the principles of 
democracy that we claim to advocate and that simply sweeps the women 
around the world under the political table.
  The family planning programs our country funds are doing critical 
work to provide reproductive health care for millions of women around 
the globe to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, and yes, help prevent 
abortions. These family planning programs are many times the only 
health care these women and their families have. They are also 
spreading the first seeds of democracy in countries that are struggling 
to care for their own people.
  But what this bill says to these international family planning groups 
is that in order to be a part of our system you must forfeit your right 
to determine what you will do with your own private funds. You must not 
talk about certain things. You must not perform certain health care 
services. You must report to us what you do with your own money.
  Mr. Chairman, this sounds to me shockingly similar to the 
undemocratic behavior we criticize in other countries. If we were to 
impose these mandates on U.S. groups they would be struck down as 
unconstitutional. Yet when it comes to abortion, some members of this 
House seem to think anything goes. Tell them they can't even talk about 
it. It is unconscionable. It is not our money we are now controlling. 
We do not fund abortions--we haven't for decades. We have now begun to 
restrict what groups do with their own money.
  Who will suffer with we penalize the funding for these groups that 
provide certain health care services? Women and children. Some of the 
most impoverished women and children in the world.
  This goes to our basis values. As a country that is prosperous, that 
has the means to provide health care so that fewer women will die, 
funding family planning is a statement that these women matter. That 
every child in this world matters.
  I urge my colleagues not to go along with the undemocratic 
restriction on international family planning organizations. This vote 
comes down declaring your support for women's health, preventing 
abortion, and truly standing up for democratic values. Support this 
motion to strike.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, proceedings will 
resume immediately after this vote on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 27 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for any 
electronic vote on these two amendments.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 221, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 396]

                               AYES--206

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

                               NOES--221

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Cummings
     Forbes
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1203

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 14117]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $82,500,000)''.
       Page 3, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $155,600,000)''.
       Page 33, line 6, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $5,250,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $200,000,000)''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 211, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 397]

                               AYES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--211

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Cummings
     Forbes
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1217

  Messrs. LARGENT, COBURN and FLETCHER changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. BOSWELL, WU, OBEY, LATHAM and LEVIN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee)

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Lee:
       Page 6, line 25, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $42,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 21, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $42,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $42,000,000)''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267, 
noes 156, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 398]

                               AYES--267

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara

[[Page 14118]]


     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--156

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Cummings
     Forbes
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Serrano
     Smith (WA)
     Velazquez
     Vento

                              {time}  1225

  Messrs. ROHRABACHER, FOSSELLA, HULSHOF and GALLEGLY changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained by official 
business and was not present to vote on three amendments:
  Rollcall vote No. 396, on the Greenwood-Lowey amendment to H.R. 4811, 
had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
  Rollcall vote No. 397, on the Waters amendment to H.R. 4811, had I 
been present I would have voted ``yea.''
  Rollcall vote No. 398, on the Lee amendment to H.R. 4811, had I been 
present I would have voted ``yea.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to this title of the bill?
  If there are no further amendments to this title, the Clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                  american churchwomen in el salvador

       Sec. 588. (a) Information relevant to the December 2, 1980, 
     murders of four American churchwomen in El Salvador shall be 
     made public to the fullest extent possible.
       (b) The Secretary of State and the Department of State are 
     to be commended for fully releasing information regarding the 
     murders.
       (c) The President shall order all Federal agencies and 
     departments that possess relevant information to make every 
     effort to declassify and release to the victims' families 
     relevant information as expeditiously as possible.
       (d) In making determinations concerning the 
     declassification and release of relevant information, the 
     Federal agencies and departments shall presume in favor of 
     releasing, rather than of withholding, such information.


                       hipc trust fund conditions

       Sec. 589. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, funds shall be 
     appropriated to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries 
     Initiative only when the President of the World Bank and the 
     Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund submit a 
     certification to the Secretary of the Treasury that the 
     Institutions they head will not include user fees or service 
     charges through ``community financing'', ``cost sharing'', 
     ``cost recovery'', or any other mechanism for primary 
     education or primary healthcare, including prevention and 
     treatment efforts for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and 
     infant, child, and maternal well-being in their Poverty 
     Reduction Strategy Papers or any other HIPC-related debt 
     relief or economic reform program or plan or any other 
     International Monetary Fund or World Bank loan or reform 
     program.
       Sec. 590. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay for the performance of abortion or to lobby 
     for or against abortion.


              procurement and financial management reform

       Sec. 591. (a) Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``International Financial Institutions'' in this or any prior 
     Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, or related programs, 10 percent of the United 
     States portion or payment to any international financial 
     institution shall be withheld by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, until the Secretary certifies that--
       (1) the institution is implementing procedures for 
     conducting semiannual audits by qualified independent 
     auditors for all new lending;
       (2) the institution has taken steps to establish an 
     independent fraud and corruption investigative organization 
     or office;
       (3) the institution has implemented a program to assess a 
     recipient country's procurement and financial management 
     capabilities, including an analysis of the risks of 
     corruption prior to initiating new lending; and
       (4) the institution is taking steps to fund and implement 
     independent third-party procurement monitoring and other 
     similar measures designed to improve transparency, 
     anticorruption programs, procurement, and financial 
     management controls in recipient countries.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall report on 
     March 1, 2001, to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the Senate on progress made to fulfill the objectives 
     identified in subsection (a).
       (c) Definition.--The term ``international financial 
     institution'' means the International Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development, the International Development Association, 
     the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American 
     Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation, 
     the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment Fund, 
     the Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the 
     African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the 
     European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the 
     International Monetary Fund.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) the 
designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) as the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  I want to commend the members of the Committee on Appropriations and, 
in particular, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for recognizing the important 
role that women play in Southeast Europe in the former Soviet Union. I 
would also like to note several innovative steps that the Europe and 
Eurasia Bureau of AID has taken to ensure that gender issues are 
considered in our programming. By gender issues, we mean identifying 
and

[[Page 14119]]

analyzing the problems and possibilities that may affect men and women 
differently and using that information to carry out programs which 
address the needs and opportunities of both women and men.
  For example, at a policy level, gender issues are integrated 
throughout the new E&E strategic framework, the policy document which 
will shape AIDS work in the region for the next several years. This is 
a first step for a USAID regional bureau.
  The language includes the following: gender is being integrated into 
the Europe and Eurasia programs to ensure that the United States is 
promoting equal access and opportunities, equal rights and equal 
protection in its assistance programs.
  At a program level, preliminary work on this new approach of 
considering the problems of both men and women has already produced 
promising results. In central Asia, a recent AID study examined health 
costs by gender and found that men and women used health facilities 
differently for general care and that the costs are significantly 
different. Men go to hospitals and women go to local clinics, since 
hospitals are much more expensive than clinics.

                              {time}  1230

  The study recommended that clinics create outreach programs specific 
to men. This will result in considerable savings in health funding.
  In the Ukraine, creating more women entrepreneurs was an important 
way to combat the problem of high unemployment rates for women. But 
absent specific attention to women, business programs often tended to 
focus principally on men.
  Consequently, in 1999, AID asked business development implementers to 
analyze the best methods for reaching women as well as men. The best 
methods for reaching women based on this analysis resulted in many more 
women entering the market economy. In one business training center, 
woman clients increased 23 percent between 1999 and 2000.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
comments. I have become very familiar with programs like Star Network, 
which is organized and run by a group called World Learning that is 
training women throughout the Balkans to become leaders in their 
communities, in their societies, and they enter the political arena as 
a result of this training.
  All the points the gentleman has mentioned really illustrate how very 
critical these programs are. I want to thank the gentleman for his 
comments.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I 
thank her for her comments, and again I want to acknowledge her 
leadership and that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in 
making this a reality.


                 Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 130, after line 16, insert the following new section:


       sense of the congress regarding so-called ``honor crimes''

       Sec. 592. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Thousands of women around the world are killed and 
     maimed each year in the name of family ``honor''.
       (2) The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 56th 
     Session, January 2000, working with the Special Rapporteurs 
     on violence against women and extrajudicial, summary, or 
     arbitrary executions, received reports of so-called ``honor 
     killings'' from numerous countries, including Bangladesh, 
     Jordan, India, and Pakistan, and noted that such killings 
     take many forms, such as flogging, forced suicide, stoning, 
     beheading, acid throwing, and burning.
       (3) According to the Department of State's Country Reports 
     on Human Rights Practices for 1999, ``crimes of honor'' in 
     Bangladesh include acid-throwing and whipping of women 
     accused of moral indiscretion.
       (4) Authorities in Bangladesh estimate there will be up to 
     200 ``honor killings'' in that country this year.
       (5) Thousands of Pakistani women and girls are stabbed, 
     burned, or maimed every year by husbands, fathers, and 
     brothers who accuse them of dishonoring their family by being 
     unfaithful, seeking a divorce, or refusing an arranged 
     marriage.
       (6) Jordan, which had 20 reported ``honor killings'' in 
     1998, still has laws reducing the penalty for, or exempting 
     perpetrators of ``honor crimes'', and the Jordanian 
     Parliament has twice failed to repeal these laws.
       (7) His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan should be commended 
     for the recent formation of Jordan's Royal Commission on 
     Human Rights, chaired by Her Majesty Queen Rania, which will 
     primarily address obstacles that prevent women and children 
     from exercising their basic human rights, including the 
     persistence of ``honor crimes''.
       (8) Although India has made efforts to address the issue of 
     ``honor crimes'', more than 5,000 ``dowry deaths'' occur 
     every year in India, according to the United Nations 
     Children's Fund (UNICEF), which reported in 1997 that a dozen 
     women die each day in ``kitchen fires'' designed to be passed 
     off as accidents because the woman's husband's family is 
     dissatisfied over the size of the woman's dowry.
       (9) Women accused of adultery in countries such as 
     Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and a host 
     of other countries are subject to a maximum penalty of death 
     by stoning.
       (10) Even though ``honor killings'' may be outlawed, law 
     enforcement and judicial systems often fail to properly 
     investigate, arrest, and prosecute offenders and laws 
     frequently permit reduction in sentences or exemptions from 
     prosecution for those who ``kill in the name of honor'' 
     typically resulting in a token punishment, impunity, and 
     continued violence against women.
       (11) The right to exist is the most fundamental of all 
     rights and must be guaranteed to every individual without 
     discrimination, and the perpetuation of ``honor killings'' 
     and dowry deaths is a deliberate violation of women's human 
     rights that should be universally condemned.
       (b) Sense of the Congress Regarding So-Called ``Honor 
     Crimes''.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the United States, through the United States Agency for 
     International Development, should--
       (A) work with foreign law enforcement and judicial agencies 
     to enact legal system reforms to more effectively address the 
     investigation and prosecution of so-called ``honor crimes''. 
     and
       (B) make resources available to local organizations to 
     provide refuge and rehabilitation for women who are victims 
     of ``honor crimes'' and the children of such women;
       (2) the Department of State, when preparing yearly Country 
     Reports on Human Rights Practices, should include--
       (A) information relating to the incidence of ``honor 
     violence'' in foreign countries;
       (B) the steps taken by foreign governments to address the 
     problem of ``honor violence''; and
       (C) all relevant actions taken by the United States, 
     whether through diplomacy or foreign assistance programs, to 
     reduce the incidence of ``honor violence'' and to increase 
     investigations and prosecutions of such crimes;
       (3) the United States should communicate to the United 
     Nations its concern over the high rate of honor-related 
     violence toward women worldwide and request that the 
     appropriate United Nations bodies, in consultation with 
     relevant nongovernmental organizations, propose actions to be 
     taken to encourage these countries to demonstrate strong 
     efforts to end such violence; and
       (4) the President and the Secretary of State should 
     communicate directly with leaders of countries where ``honor 
     killings'', dowry deaths, and related practices are endemic, 
     in order to convey the Nation's most serious concerns over 
     these gross violations of human rights and urge these leaders 
     to investigate and prosecute all such acts as murder, with 
     the appropriate penalties.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) reserves a 
point of order on the amendment of the gentleman from New York.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising to offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell). I thank them for cosponsoring this amendment with me.
  This amendment addresses a unique and gruesome form of violence 
against

[[Page 14120]]

woman known as honor crimes, in which a woman is maimed or murdered by 
a relative, usual male, under the perception that the family's honor 
has been offended.
  What is most shocking is that these women are attacked by their own 
family Members: brothers, fathers, even sons. Most of us are taught to 
protect and care for members of our family, not to brutalize them.
  While preserving one's family honor is obviously no excuse for 
attacking any person, it is even more shocking that many of these honor 
crimes are not the result of a so-called dishonorable act, but of a 
mere belief or perception that such an act may have occurred.
  In countries like Bangladesh, for example, women are attacked with 
acid and whipped if they are merely suspected of a moral indiscretion. 
In an 11-month period in Pakistan, there were over 675 reported honor 
killings. Women in Afghanistan suspected of adultery are threatened 
with death by stoning, as are women in Pakistan and the United Arab 
Emirates.
  While I could continue with gruesome details and statistics on the 
subject, I think the point is made. There is nothing honorable about 
whipping one's wife because one suspects her of adultery. There is 
nothing honorable about throwing acid on a daughter because she marries 
without permission. This is simply a horrid remnant of ancient cultures 
which places no value on the lives of women, and that must be 
addressed.
  Unfortunately, as much as I wish it would, this amendment will not 
end this ghastly form of violence against women. However, it is an 
opportunity for the Congress of the United States to go on record and 
state clearly and resoundingly that these crimes should stop, and it is 
an opportunity to call for the U.S. Government to use its considerable 
resources to reduce the incidence of these crimes.
  It is my hope as well that this amendment will call national 
attention to this horrible form of violence against women, and begin to 
get the ball rolling on a multinational effort to end this practice. An 
individual honor crime is not just an attack on one woman, it is an 
attack on the entire gender, and a violation of the most basic of human 
rights, the right to exist as a person and the right to personal 
autonomy.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order 
on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the honorable 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Thousands of women 
are maimed or killed each year in nations across the developing world 
because they have committed what their relatives or neighbors perceive 
as a crime of honor.
  I have met with some of these women who have had acid thrown in their 
faces, who clearly are maimed, because in someone's eyes they did 
wrong. Whether their supposed offense is adultery, the desire for a 
divorce, refusing an arranged marriage, or having the nerve to fetch a 
lower-than-expected dowry, the punishment is always swift, severe, and 
outrageous.
  Throughout the world women face flogging, forced suicides, stoning, 
beheading, burning, and other violent punishments for their actions. 
Rarely does anyone from the community offer to help. Even local 
government officials turn a blind eye to this terrible practice.
  This amendment highlights how very important it is to do more to stop 
honor killings around the world. Shining a flashlight on this practice, 
putting the full moral weight of the United States behind a campaign to 
end it, is critical if we are going to ensure the fundamental human 
rights of women. We simply must do more to stop these cowardly attacks.
  I urge Members to vote yes. For those in doubt, I just wish they 
could see the faces of these women who have been tortured, who have 
been maimed, who have had acid thrown in their faces, just because they 
committed a crime that the community thought was not right, but we 
understand that they have the right to live their lives in peace and in 
dignity.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment that condemns honor crimes against women.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment that 
condemns so-called ``honor crimes.'' In countries around the world, 
women are beaten and killed by male members of their families after 
being accused of being unfaithful or acting in ways that embarrass the 
family.
  According to Amnesty International the brutal practice of ``honor 
killings'' in Pakistan results in several hundred women being killed 
each year for suspected affairs, for seeking divorce, and for being 
raped.
  In Jordan in the 1990s, an average of 20 women were killed every 
year.
  In India in 1998, 286 women were victims of ``honor killings'' in 
Punjab alone. In the first quarter of 1999, 132 ``honor killings'' were 
documented in Sindh.
  Domestic laws do not protect women who fall victim to this crime. For 
example, under Article 340 of Jordan's Penal Code, men are exempt from 
punishment who kill female relatives found or suspected of committing 
adultery and reduces sentences against those who kill unmarried female 
relatives who have affairs.
  I support the amendment's call to increase investment of U.S. foreign 
assistance programs designed to investigate and document ``honor 
killings.'' I would also like to see our assistance support initiatives 
that conduct public education campaigns about women's equality, with an 
emphasis on educating law enforcement officers and judges and that 
provide rehabilitative services to threatened and abused women.
  Mr. Chairman, as we continue to expand and deepen our influence 
around the globe, protection of women and girls from this kind of 
barbaric behavior must be at the top of our agenda.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not belabor the point, but I think it is a 
simple enough thing to ask that this House go on record urging the 
United States government, the Executive Branch, to use its resources to 
stop these killings, to stop this remnant of a former barbarous age.
  I hope that despite whatever technicalities there may be, that this 
in effect precatory amendment can be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. . . 
.''
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) wish to 
address the point of order?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the reasoning behind the 
gentleman's point of order. I agree with him that we must be very wary 
about legislating on appropriations bills, which we do too often in 
this House.
  However, I believe two things: one, that this is a situation that 
begs our immediate attention. This amendment is in the form of a 
nonbinding resolution calling on the United States government to begin 
to address this issue with world leaders and the United Nations. I 
would hope we could make this statement here today.
  Two, I would also point out that I do not really believe this changes 
existing law. This simply urges the Executive Branch to do certain 
things. It is not binding. It does not change the law. The law is a 
binding rule, that is what the dictionary defines the law as.

[[Page 14121]]

Therefore, it does not meet that definition. It does not change the 
law.
  I would submit it is not, therefore, legislating on an appropriation 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
proposes to express a legislative sentiment of the Congress. As such, 
the amendment constitutes legislation on a general appropriation bill, 
in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Are there further amendments to this section of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

 TITLE VI--MOZAMBIQUE, MADAGASCAR, AND SOUTHERN AFRICA REHABILITATION 
                           AND RECONSTRUCTION

       The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  agency for international development

                   international disaster assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster 
     Assistance'', $160,000,000, for rehabilitation and 
     reconstruction assistance for Mozambique, Madagascar, and 
     southern Africa, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be made available for nonproject assistance: 
     Provided further, That prior to any obligation of funds 
     appropriated under this heading, the Administrator of the 
     Agency for International Development shall provide the 
     Committees on Appropriations with a detailed report 
     containing the amount of the proposed obligation and a 
     description of the programs and projects, on a country-by-
     country basis, to be funded with such amount: Provided 
     further, That up to $12,000,000 of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be charged to finance obligations for 
     which appropriations available under chapter 1 and 10 of part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 were initially 
     charged for assistance for rehabilitation and reconstruction 
     for Mozambique, Madagascar, and southern Africa: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     up to $5,000,000 may be used for administrative expenses, 
     including auditing costs, of the Agency for International 
     Development associated with the assistance furnished under 
     this heading: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount provided shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


          Amendment No. 46 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows: 
       Amendment No. 46 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 132, after line 12, insert the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


    limitation on funds for countries that use children as soldiers

       Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available to the government 
     of a country that--
       (1) conscripts children under the age of 18 into the 
     military forces of the country; or
       (2) provides for the direct participation of children under 
     the age of 18 in armed conflict.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member 
opposed to the amendment each will control 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) rise in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
and I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think anyone of good 
conscience would have rather not come to the floor of the House to 
debate an issue such as this, the conscripting of our children, the 
world's children, to fight bloody and disastrous and devastating 
battles around the world.
  This is an issue of worldwide need. It is an issue for Vietnam. It is 
an issue for South and Central America. It is an issue for the 
continent of Africa.
  I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the distinguished gentleman, the 
chairman of this committee, has reserved a point of order. I had asked 
that on this particular instance we waive the point of order because of 
the enormous devastation.
  I also realize that the funding or the drafting of the language of 
this particular amendment is particularly direct and strong and harsh, 
for it reads that it would eliminate all funding for those who 
conscript children.
  Let me give the basis of this, as well as to say that my commitment 
to this is so strong that I am hoping that my colleagues on the 
Committee on Appropriations and the conference committee and those 
representing this particular subcommittee will work with me as we move 
this bill toward conference, ultimately at some point to be able to 
design disincentives that might also do similarly the same job: to 
discourage, to stop, to cease, to end the taking of our babies and 
putting them into war.
  Just last week I joined the President of the United States, a number 
of ambassadors, and Members of the United States Congress at the United 
Nations in signing an international protocol against the use of 
children in war, in prostitution, and pornography.
  Why is that necessary? Might I lend to the Record one story or a 
number of stories. One boy tried to escape from the rebels but he was 
caught. ``His hands were tied and then they made us,'' the other new 
captives, ``kill him with a stick. I felt sick. I knew this boy from 
before. We were from the same village. I refused to kill him, and they 
told me they would shoot me. They pointed a gun at me, so I had to do 
it. The boy was asking me, `Why are you doing this?' I said, `I have no 
choice.' After we killed him, they made us smear his blood on our 
arms.''

                              {time}  1245

  They said we had to do this so we would not fear death, and so we 
would not try to escape. I still dream about the boy from my village 
who I killed. I see him in my dreams, and he is talking to me and 
saying I killed him for nothing. And I am crying. Susan was age 16. She 
was abducted into the army, by the Lord's Resistance Army. This is what 
our children are going through in their respective horror and the 
evilness of taking children whose lives should be full of joy and 
happiness.
  All we are doing is condemning them to a life of misery, if they are 
not killed themselves in battle. Their minds are so warped with the 
viciousness of what has happened. They are destroyed forever.
  It is estimated this year that some 300,000 children under the age of 
18 are engaged in armed military conflicts in more than 30 countries. 
Sadly, far too many of these wonderful children are forcibly 
conscripted through kidnapping or coercion, and the others join because 
of economic necessity to avenge the loss of a family member or for 
their own personal safety.
  There are so many stories of children being abused in this way, and I 
do want to acknowledge the leadership of the Members of the 
Subcommittee of Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the other Members of the 
committee, now the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) who is 
controlling the time, realizing that these are issues that have been 
vigorously discussed.
  Mr. Chairman, I do believe we must do something about it. The 
protocol that was signed last week extends much needed protection for 
children. I cannot imagine that parents here in America would not have 
their hearts

[[Page 14122]]

broken and their hearts extended to those victimized children who are 
being forced into a vicious war. I believe it is time for us now to do 
the strongest of rejection of those who do so, which would be to 
address them where it hurts, and that is in the pocketbook.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have done many things on the floor 
that I have supported, debt relief, HIV protection; but how can we 
stand as our children are conscripted involuntarily or for the basis of 
economic necessity?
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to extend my strong support for this amendment 
that, if approved, could enormously enhance the lives of our children 
being cruelly used as soldiers around the world
  In short, this amendment would prohibit funding in the bill for 
nations that conscript children under the age of 18 or use child 
soldiers in armed conflict.
  This is a small step that should be taken that this nation has now 
see as a priority. It is important to place this within the bill since, 
as a nation, we are now on record as prohibiting the inhuman practice 
of using children as soldiers.
  Last week, I joined President Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations Richard Holbrooke, and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers for 
the signing of two landmark Protocols that address prostitution, the 
impact of pornography on children, and the global practice of child 
labor. This resolution applauds the decision by the U.S. government to 
support the Protocol that condemns the use of children as soldiers by 
government and nongovernment forces.
  This week, this body passed H. Con. Res. 348, a resolution that 
condemns the use of children as soldiers. And there is a good reason 
why we did that. It is important to note, however, this amendment only 
seeks to stop governments, not all nongovernmental forces or rebels, 
who find ways to bring children into armed conflict. That limitation 
cannot be imposed on the nongovernmental forces at this time.
  It is estimated that this year some 300,000 children under the age of 
18 are engaged in armed military conflicts in more than 30 countries. 
Sadly, far too many of these wonderful children are forcibly 
conscripted through kidnapping or coercion and others joined because of 
economic necessity, to avenge the loss of a family member or for their 
own personal safety. There are so many stories of children being abused 
in this way.
  Military commanders often separate children from their families in 
order to foster dependence on military units and leaders, leaving such 
children vulnerable to manipulation. That is clearly unacceptable. I 
believe it is very unfortunate that military forces actually force 
child soldiers to commit terrible acts of killings or torture against 
their enemies, including against other children.
  Last August, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed 
Resolution 1261, condemning the use of children in armed conflict. On 
May 25, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted an Optional 
Protocol on the use of child soldiers. This is a sensible addition to 
the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  As my colleagues are well aware, The Protocol extends much needed 
protection for children. My fellow Americans, this is one of the first 
international commitments made by this nation that protects our 
children. We can no longer deny that thousands of children are killed, 
brutalized, and sold into slavery. In Sierra Leone, half of the rebel 
forces are under 18 and some are even as young as 4 or 5 years of age.
  The Protocol addresses such action by raising the international 
minimum age for conscription and direct participation in armed conflict 
to age 18, it encourages governments to raise the minimum legal age for 
voluntary recruits above the current standard of 15 years of age, and 
it commits governments to support the demobilization and rehabilitation 
of child soldiers.
  That is a very strong step forward. It speaks to an international 
sense of justice that should, indeed must be honored by governments 
around the world. We should commend President Clinton, U.S. Ambassador 
to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, and U.S. Secretary Lawrence 
Summers for their leadership on this issue.
  My amendment will simply make clear that nations will not receive 
assistance if they use children as soldiers. it is entirely consistent 
with our international obligations and will effectuate such intent in a 
clear and straightforward manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                     [From the Human Rights Watch]

                    Stop The Use Of Child Soldiers!


                      The Voices of Child Soldiers

       1. ``One boy tried to escape [from the rebels], but he was 
     caught . . . His hands were tied, and then they made us, the 
     other new captives, kill him with a stick. I felt sick. I 
     knew this boy from before. We were from the same village. I 
     refused to kill him and they told me they would shoot me. 
     They pointed a gun at me, so I had to do it. The boy was 
     asking me, ``Why are you doing this?'' I said I had no 
     choice. After we killed him, they made us smear his blood on 
     our arms . . . they said we had to do this so we would not 
     fear death and so we would not try to escape . . . I still 
     dream about the boy from my village who I killed. I see him 
     in my dreams, and he is talking to me and saying I killed him 
     for nothing, and I am crying.''--Susan, 16 abducted by the 
     Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.
       2. ``The army was a nightmare. We suffered greatly from the 
     cruel treatment we received. We were constantly beaten, 
     mostly for no reason at all, just to keep us in a state of 
     terror. I still have a scar on my lip and sharp pains in my 
     stomach from being brutally kicked by the older soldiers. The 
     food was scarce, and they made us walk with heavy loads, much 
     too heavy for our small and malnourished bodies. They forced 
     me to learn how to fight the enemy, in a war that I didn't 
     understand why was being fought.''--Emilio, recruited by the 
     Guatemalan army at age 14.
       3. ``They gave me pills that made me crazy. When the 
     craziness got in my head, I beat people on their heads and 
     hurt them until they bled. When the craziness got out of my 
     head I felt guilty. If I remembered the person I went to them 
     and apologized. If they did not accept my apology. I felt 
     bad.''--a 13-year old former child soldier from Liberia.
       4. ``I was in the front lines the whole time I was with the 
     [opposition force]. I used to be assigned to plant mines in 
     areas the enemy passed through. They used us for 
     reconnaissance and other things like that because if you're a 
     child the enemy doesn't notice you much; nor do the 
     villagers.''--former child soldier from Burma/Myanmar.
       5. ``They beat all the people there, old and young, they 
     killed them all, nearly 10 people . . . like dogs they killed 
     them . . . I didn't kill anyone, but I saw them killing . . . 
     the children who were with them killed too . . . with weapons 
     . . . they made us drink the blood of people, we took blood 
     from the dead into a bowl and they made us drink . . . then 
     when they killed the people they made us eat their liver, 
     their heart, which they took out and sliced and fried . . . 
     And they made us little one eat.''--Peruvian woman, recruited 
     by the Shining Path at age 11.


                               references

       1. Human Rights Watch interview, Gulu, Uganda, May 1997.
       2. Testimony given at a Congressional briefing on child 
     soldiers, sponsored by Human Rights Watch, Washington, DC, 
     December 3, 1997.
       3. Human Rights Watch interview, Liberia, April 1994.
       4. Rachel Brett and Margaret McCallin, ``Children: The 
     Invisible Soldiers'', (Radda Barnen, 1996), p. 127.
       5. Center for Defense Information, ``The Invisible 
     Soldiers: Child Combatants,'' The Defense Monitor, July 1997.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no speakers other than a closing 
statement by me, and I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman reserves his 
point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Africa.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) for offering this very important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen the exploitation of children. We have seen 
the exploitation in labor. We have seen the exploitation in sexual 
abuse, and we have seen the exploitation of children as relates to 
conflicts. In Sierra Leone, children as young as 10 and 12 are given 
weapons by the dreaded RUF, a group of brutal rebels who have armed 
children, and other conflicts throughout Africa and Latin America.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen children on the front lines, the Lord's 
Resistance Movement, as it was mentioned, up in northern Uganda, uses 
children as the frontline fighters, so when the government troops 
attempt to get the Lord's Resistance Movement, a rebel group, the 
children are put in front and the children then are in harm's way, with 
the military of Uganda reluctant to fire on the children.

[[Page 14123]]

  Mr. Chairman, this is really a tactic that is used by these terrible 
despots and clan leaders, and so I think that this makes a lot of 
sense. We should not have people under the age of 18 in combat. We 
believe that the exploitation is unbelievable, that in this modern day 
that we can no longer accept what is going on in the world. I believe 
that we should support this. I think that it is a right thing to do.
  I would hope that the point of order would be waived at this point in 
time, because I believe that this amendment by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) which would prohibit funding in the bill for 
Nations that conscript children under the age of 18 or use children 
soldiers in armed conflict should pass.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a Member of the 
Committee on Appropriations and a fighter for world justice.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have spent a lot of time on this floor in the last 
day talking about how at a time of prosperity we should be reaching out 
to families, to children around the world, helping them get educated, 
providing health care, providing the very basics of life. And then when 
we hear the horrors of these children who, in addition to lacking 
education and health care, are being recruited into the armed services 
to fight a war that they do not know anything about, the words of one 
child named Alil ringing in my ear, the army was a nightmare; we 
suffered greatly from our cruel treatment we received. We were 
constantly beaten mostly for no reason at all, just to keep us in a 
state of terror. They forced me to learn how to fight the enemy in a 
war that I did not understand why it was being fought.
  Sadly there are stories like this in several nations all around the 
world, and I support the Jackson-Lee amendment, and I thank the 
gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who has been fighting 
throughout this debate that we may be inclusive and protective of our 
world neighbors and certainly protective of our children who are forced 
into fighting vicious wars.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her leadership, not only 
in this country on behalf of children, but her leadership 
internationally on behalf of children. This is typical of the kind of 
work that the gentlewoman has been doing.
  Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that this year some 300,000 children 
under the age of 18 are engaged in armed conflict in more than 30 
countries. Children are forcibly conscripted through kidnapping or 
coercion and others join because of economic necessity to avenge a loss 
of a family member or for their own personal safety. This may be 
shocking, as this gentlewoman has said, but it is real.
  In this country, we have gone a long way toward protecting children. 
We protect children in the workplace. We protect children and make sure 
if they do not have a family, that they get foster care. We have rules 
about how they can or cannot be punished. We do everything that we can 
to support them from free lunch programs, to free breakfast programs. 
Certainly we can stand up for children who are being used in wars who 
are getting killed and maimed unnecessarily. Vote aye on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) insist upon his point of order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, first I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, then I am going to insist on my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a 
point here.
  Mr. Chairman, it is difficult being chairman of this committee and 
having to stand up here and indicate that I do not support the 
underlying causes that the gentlewoman's amendment addresses. Who in 
the House would be opposed to this?
  The point is, we have a procedure in this body whereby the Committee 
on International Relations is the authorizing committee of all of these 
areas of jurisdiction. And I would just like to send a message to the 
chairman of the committee, if he wants me to accept all of the 
authorization on this bill, well, then I will do it. If he expects me 
to stand up and object and give indication that I do not support the 
underlying causes, he will be disappointed.
  I am still going to object, but to send a message to the Committee on 
International Relations, if they want these things, fine; if they do 
not, they better get over here and start objecting on their own.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and legislation in 
an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2(c) of rule 
XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be made in 
order if it changes existing law.''
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Texas wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak to the 
point of order, and I appreciate several points that the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), has said. 
I will offer to work with the chairman as we move toward conference on 
this issue.
  Let me speak to the point of order as I discuss the opportunity, I 
hope, to be able to work with the gentleman, and that is that we are 
dealing with an appropriations bill that deals with foreign policy, and 
foreign policy that covers a variety of issues. In fact, there is a 
child-support provision in here that we obviously attempted to work 
with.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is within the confines of 
the appropriations bills. It talks about the international policy on 
the question of children. It is noted that we have many children that 
have been killed and brutalized and sold into slavery. In Sierra Leone 
alone, half of the rebel forces are under 18; some of them are 4-years-
old and 5-years-old.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine in the report language and in the 
legislation that we do not have within the context of the section that 
I have offered, where I have deleted and had this in compliance with 
the CBO, it is budget neutral, that this particular amendment, which is 
simply a limitation that indicates that no monies can be used if your 
country flagrantly and boldly uses babies to go into war that we would 
not have that.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that we can work through 
conference if the point of order is upheld, Mr. Chairman, to ensure 
that babies are not dying, not only because of disease and brutality 
but because they are forced to be warriors in war and killing others in 
a brutal and horrific fashion.
  I think that is the worst act that we as adults can do to our 
children, and I would ask that the point of order not be upheld and 
that we be able to move forward on this. I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his sincere effort, and I hope that we will 
be able to work together, maybe if the gentleman would stand. I know 
that the gentleman's heart is there. We worked together.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on my point of order and 
explain the rationale behind my decision to do this. The previous 
speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), had a good 
underlying cause, but there are 15 or 20 underlying good causes coming 
up.
  I sort of resent the fact that I am standing here as an appropriator 
taking the brunt of a position saying that I oppose what the 
gentlewoman wants

[[Page 14124]]

me to do. I do not oppose. We have a strategy. We have a rule. We have 
rules of the House which prohibit this type of activity. And I am 
trying to protect the integrity of the process.
  I applaud the gentlewoman for her efforts. I applaud her mission. I 
support the content of her amendment, but it is violative of the rules; 
and I am here to protect the integrity of the process and, therefore, 
insist upon my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair has sought advice from the 
Parliamentarian and is prepared to rule.
  Does the gentlewoman have further advice for the Chair? Please state 
the advice.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I have advice.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the 
committee and refer the chairman to the underlying bill and its purpose 
and only say that I also look forward to working on this as it moves 
towards conference with the authorizing committee and to provide 
disincentives for this terrible act.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) proposes to change existing law in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from 
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it 
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or 
make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by 
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a 
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The proponent of the limitation assumes the burden of establishing 
that any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial 
or otherwise required by law.
  The proponent in this case has failed to meet the burden. 
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not 
in order.

                              {time}  1300

  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

  Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


            prohibition on funds for kosovo protection corps

       Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be made available for the Kosovo 
     Protection Corps.

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment. It would prohibit 
any funds in this bill from going to the Kosovo Protection Corps, an 
organization that has always been and continues to be a rogue force in 
Kosovo.
  In September 1999, the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, was transformed 
into a 5,000 member demilitarized civilian organization known as the 
Kosovo Protection Corps, KPC. According to U.N. regulations on the 
establishment of the KPC, and this is a quote, ``the Kosovo Corps shall 
not have any role in law enforcement or the maintenance of law and 
order.''
  However, according to an unreleased internal United Nations report, 
the Kosovo Protection Corps has been using violence, extortion, murder, 
and torture. Because this report has not been made public, lawmakers in 
the United States who actually set the United States budget for this 
mission in Kosovo must rely on the media to provide such crucial 
information.
  According to press accounts, the report states that the KPC has been 
involved in ``criminal activities, killings, torture, illegal policing, 
abuse of authority, intimidation, breaches of political neutrality and 
hate speech.''
  The Washington Post reported that the U.N. report states that several 
members of the KPC ``allegedly tortured or killed local citizens and 
illegally detained others, illegally attempted to conduct law 
enforcement activities, illegally forced local businesses to pay taxes, 
and threatened U.N. police who attempted to intervene and stop 
wrongdoing.''
  An article in the British Guardian newspaper indicates that in 
Dragash, two members of the KPC and three others were arrested by U.N. 
police in connection with the killing of an ethnic Gorani. It goes on 
to say the U.N. report cited ``three charges of ill-treatment and 
torture: in Pec, a man was beaten senseless in the KPC's headquarters, 
suffering head injuries and severe bruising from a rifle butt. . . . In 
Prizren, a man from the Torbesh minority . . . was kidnapped and beaten 
up by a KPC member and three other men. And in Prizren KFOR suspended 
alleged torturers from the KPC.''
  A GAO report on security in the Balkans indicates that the Kosovo 
Protection Corps may be adding to unrest and regional instability in 
the region. It states that KFOR and the U.N. have detained members from 
the KPC ``for carrying unauthorized weapons and engaging in violence 
and intimidation against ethnic minorities.''
  So the goals of the U.N., as stated in U.N. Resolution 1244 are 
actually being impeded by the KPC. These goals include: deterring 
renewed hostilities, demilitarizing armed groups, ensuring public 
safety and order, and protecting and promoting human rights.
  The U.N. itself cited the KPC for threatening U.N. personnel in 
efforts to intervene in wrongdoing. So, not only is the KPC responsible 
for human rights violations, but the KPC is making it harder for the 
U.N. to accomplish peace in Kosovo.
  An Amnesty International report issued in February concluded that 
after 6 months of peacekeeping efforts in the region, ``human rights 
abuses and crimes continue to be committed at an alarming rate, 
particularly against members of minority communities.''
  According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2000, ``Ethnic 
Albanian refugees returned to a devastated Kosovo almost immediately 
after the withdrawal of Serbian and Yugoslav forces, and soon began a 
series of revenge attacks against the region's minority populations. A 
wave of arson and looting of Serb and Roma homes quickly deteriorated 
into harassment and beating of individuals. Most serious was a spate of 
abductions and murders of Serbs.''
  Finally, International Crisis Group, an internationally renowned 
conflict prevention and conflict resolution group based in Washington, 
D.C. and Brussels, recently issued a report on the KPC. It states that 
``Even the UNMIK's own officials and some KFOR officers admit (though 
never in public) that the KPC is, and will probably remain, a military-
style organization.''
  These are credible reports from many credible sources that reveal 
that the KPC is causing unrest and instability as it continues to 
engage in violent and brutal practices. These human rights abuses of 
extortion, murder, kidnapping, torture, and intimidation must not 
continue.
  So why should American tax dollars support an organization which is 
actually worsening the situation of ethnic hatred and violence in war-
torn Kosovo? There has been enough violence in the Balkans. Why sustain 
this volatile atmosphere by continuing to allow the KPC to run rampant 
in Kosovo?

[[Page 14125]]

  Most of Europe already knows this. That is why almost all NATO 
countries do not fund the KPC.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio cannot request unanimous 
consent to extend his own time. It is permissible to ask unanimous 
consent that both the proponent and an opponent are given an equal 
amount of time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that both myself 
and the opponent be given 1 extra minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) may proceed for 
1 additional minute.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, most of Europe already 
knows about the KPC. According to a May 10, 2000 United Nations Status 
Report, the United States has pledged about $5 million and Germany has 
pledged about $1.5 million. So the United States foots the majority of 
the bill for an organization which has failed to benefit society in 
Kosovo.
  I am asking for a yes vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Does the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) insist upon his point 
of order?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska withdraws his point of 
order.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) for 6 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment to this bill of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) would terminate funding for the Kosovo 
Protection Corps, the KPC. I am strongly opposed to that amendment 
because it would have the opposite intended effect of the author's 
stated goals and, in fact, contribute to greater instability and to 
increased human rights abuses in Kosovo, thereby complicating the 
mission of our and other NATO peacekeeping troops.
  Strongly supported by the United States, the KPC was formed by the 
U.N. Administration in Kosovo, the UNMIK. Under this crucial program, 
the Kosovo Liberation Army was demilitarized and its former members 
encouraged to become part of an emergency assistance and community 
service.
  Reports of individual members of the KPC, or individuals posing as 
KPC members, committing human rights abuses are disturbing and must be 
continued to be fully investigated and monitored. Any KPC member found 
to have been associated with such activities will be immediately 
dismissed and subject to criminal prosecution.
  I do agree with KFOR and U.N. officials that there must be a zero 
tolerance policy towards offenses committed by those few members of the 
KPC or any other individuals in Kosovo who commit criminal offenses or 
abuse their position in the KPC. That is why we support the approach of 
focusing the relatively small amount of United States assistance to 
Kosovo on judicial and police assistance in order to increase stability 
in this region that has been torn apart by a decade long conflict.
  Denying United States funding for the KPC would not resolve the 
problems that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) believes exists in 
Kosovo and would more than likely increase those difficulties. It would 
have us throw the baby out with the bath water by undercutting a good 
program because a few bad individuals may have been involved. We do not 
stop paying for our police when we find a bad cop in that force.
  Cutting off our assistance to the KPC would jeopardize the 
accomplishments of disarming former combatants and moving Kosovo along 
the path of peace and reconciliation and would undermine our ability to 
influence the development of the KPC. It would increase the risk to our 
troops currently positioned in Kosovo and would threaten to extend the 
time they need to be deployed there, something we do not want to see 
happen.
  Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Gilman) for yielding to me, and I certainly strongly support 
his statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is imperative that we oppose this 
amendment. I believe that this amendment really would wreak havoc in 
the region. The State Department, the administration, all people who 
have dealt with this situation in Kosovo oppose this.
  The Kosovo Protection Corps plays a critical role in Kosovo in many 
ways. After the Kosovo Liberation Army formerly gave up its weapons, 
the KPC was created as an organization which absorbed former KLA 
members into a demilitarized structure. The State Department has 
described the KPC as the most important element of a broad program to 
provide employment for KLA veterans.
  The KPC also carries out critical civilian works projects. NATO 
Secretary-General Lord Robertson has praised the KPC for its work 
throughout Kosovo, which has included repairing roads, bridges, and 
other reconstruction projects.
  Let me read his quote. He says, ``I will continue to support the KPC, 
to demand from the international community the resources that will 
allow it to do this valuable civil job to support General Ceku in the 
role he has of being an influential spokesman for peace and 
reconciliation.'' This is the NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson.
  The Kucinich amendment is based on a supposed unreleased internal 
United Nations report of February 29, 2000, which allegedly makes a 
variety of accusations against the KPC. When my staff requested a copy 
of this report, none was available because it was never released. We 
believe that it is difficult to respond anyway to this report, not only 
because Members cannot review it for themselves, but because the first 
KPC members were inaugurated only 1 month before the report was 
supposedly written.
  On April 22 of this year, 114 KPC officers and personnel joined 230 
local workers and youth groups in cleaning up disease-infested garbage 
mounds throughout Pristina, the capital. In another instance, the KPC 
intervened on February 4 when French and NATO peacekeepers were not 
able to disperse an angry crowd. According to Reuters, ``The situation 
finally calmed down with the arrival of the KPC.''
  Let me read one other quote, and this is a quote from General Klaus 
Reinhardt, commander of Allied Forces in Kosovo, KFOR. He says, ``It is 
my firm belief that the formation of the KPC is an essential step to 
restoring normalcy to this region.''
  So this is an irresponsible amendment. It should be resoundingly 
defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I request that the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) ask unanimous consent so that I could have a whole minute, 
which would be 45 seconds on each side.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given an additional 45 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

[[Page 14126]]


  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York very 
much for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say there are no white hats in this 
operation, and there are neither on the Albanian side nor on the Serb 
side when one considers what happens in Kosovska Mitrovica. It is not 
easy to turn organizations which have grown up in war into democratic 
organization in the pursuit of multiethnic community. But if Kosovo is 
ever to be a multiethnic and a multireligious community, then we are 
going to have to work with these organizations.
  I very much oppose that we adopt the amendment.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The unreleased internal United Nations report on the Kosovo 
Protection Corps using violence, extortion, murder, and torture has 
been widely reported. I am asking all of my colleagues today to take a 
stand for the protection of human rights of all citizens in Kosovo. 
Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  The KPC has become a brutal paramilitary organization, a fact that 
has been confirmed by the U.N. itself, the GAO, and many 
nongovernmental organizations. According to this internal U.N. report, 
the KPC has prevented the U.N. from establishing peace and maintaining 
order in Kosovo. The United States cannot continue to fund such 
activities.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kucinich 
Amendment, which would seriously undermine our efforts to promote 
stability and reconstruction in Kosova.
  This amendment seeks to cut off all funding for the Kosova Protection 
Corps, a civilian organization formed in September of last year to 
employ demobilized members of Kosova Liberation Army on needed efforts 
such as disaster response, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance 
to isolated areas, de-mining and rebuilding the country's 
infrastructure. The KPC, which operates under the authority of the UN, 
offers employments to these veterans to engage in constructive 
activities in support of the country and its people.
  I understand and share the gentleman's concerns over allegations of 
acts of violence committed by purported members of this organization. 
These incidents should be investigated fully and those found guilty 
should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But to 
completely cut off funding to an organization that, in the words of the 
KFOR commander, General Klaus Reinhardt, is ``an essential step to 
restoring normalcy to this region'', would undercut and negate 
everything that this country and our European allies have done to 
restore peace and stability to Kosova.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of former KLA members 
who joined the KPC were not professional soldiers--they were farmers, 
laborers or mechanics, individuals with skills that are desperately 
needed as Kosova re-builds. Yes, they took up arms in the face of naked 
aggression from Serb paramilitary and security forces. Faced with 
similar situations, I doubt many in this Chamber wouldn't do the same 
to protect their homes, their families and loved ones. The war is now 
over, and it is essential that we support programs such as this which, 
in a very real sense, beat swords into plowshares by transitioning 
these veterans to the cause of community service and nation building.
  That cause would be undercut, Mr. Chairman, if we allow this 
amendment to prevail. Let's not destroy a worthwhile program and 
jeopardize the cause of peace because of the misdeeds of a few. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the Kucinich Amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Kucinich 
Amendment to cut funding for the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC). The KPC 
has served as an important force for peace and stability in an unstable 
region. After the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) demilitarized, the KPC 
was formed in an effort to employ former KLA members in a capacity 
which could be beneficial to the region. Since it's inception, the KPC 
has done important work in Kosovo, cleaning disease infested garbage 
dumps in Pristina, repairing roads and bridges and helping to rebuild 
over 1,000 homes.
  While individual members of the KPC have been accused of carrying 
illegal weapons, and while I do believe these individuals should be 
dealt with, the KPC as a whole has played an important role in the 
quest for peace in Kosovo. On February 4th, in Mitrovica, KPC members 
intervened along with French and Italian NATO peacekeepers to disperse 
an angry crowd. The leadership of the KPC has repeatedly spoken out for 
tolerance and reconciliation amongst the different ethnic groups within 
the region.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be a grave mistake to deny funding 
to this important organization at this most tumultuous time in Kosovo's 
history. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, it was a bleak picture early last year in 
the Balkans.
  Slobodan Milosevic had begun a new campaign of terror against ethnic 
Albanians in Kosovo.
  Men of all ages were tortured and killed.
  Women were raped.
  Yet another ethnic population was being ``ethnically cleansed.''
  Refugees poured over the borders to Albania and Macedonia.
  When I visited the refugees last May, they relayed experiences that 
few of us could even imagine are possible in the world today.
  One Kosovar boy saw his father's eyes torn out. He told us, ``you 
can't imagine what they have done.''
  A woman from the Prizren region said that Serb paramilitary forces 
entered her house, looking for her husband--a teacher in a local 
school. The forces took all of the family's jewelry and money. She 
escaped, but her husband and mother were burned alive inside the house. 
The woman said, ``this happened to many people.''
  These are brutal episodes, but too many of us have become numb to 
them because in Milosevic's Yugoslavia last decade, we learned of 
violence like this nearly every day.
  But I know that for many of us, and for many of our parents and 
grandparents, these stories bring back chilling memories of Europe 
during the Nazi reign of terror.
  Last spring, we could have struck our head deep into the sand, and 
said that Kosovo was merely a European problem, but we didn't.
  Together with NATO, we mounted a swift and successful campaign to put 
an end to this awful bloodshed and mayhem.
  Although Kosovo has a long way to go after a generation of ethnic 
tension, years of neglect and months of war, things are getting better 
day after day.
  Democracy, the rule of law and prosperity do not take root overnight. 
They must be nurtured. But with care, they will grow.
  That's why we must reject this amendment.
  It will do nothing more than uproot the careful work we have done so 
far in the Balkans.
  The people of Kosovo are dedicated to democracy, and I know they draw 
their strength from the commitment we in the United States have made to 
them.
  The army fighting for independence in Kosovo last year voluntarily 
disarmed.
  According to the State Department, this demilitarization was the 
quickest in modern history.
  And the new force--known as the Kosovo Protection Corps--which this 
amendment seeks to disband, has helped to rebuild homes, fight fires, 
repair the infrastructure and clean polluted rivers.
  Yes, there have been incidents where individuals have engaged in 
abuses. And these must be dealt with severely.
  In any country where chaos has ruled and war has ravaged civic 
institutions, there is bound to be confusion. Tensions which are ages 
old will not be diffused overnight.
  We should not underestimate the problems.
  But the answer is not to walk away from the problems.
  The answer is to continue to work for peace.
  And that's exactly what we should do in Kosovo.
  Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in strong opposition to the 
Kucinich amendment which seeks to prohibit funds in the FY 2001 Foreign 
Operations Appropriations bill from being used to fund the Kosova 
Protection Corps (KPC).
  KPC plays a vital role in Kosova, filling the void that was left when 
the Kosova Liberation Army (KLA) surrendered its weapons.
  The KPC was formed by the UN Administration in Kosova (UNMIK) as a 
civilian organization responsible for disaster response, search and 
rescue, humanitarian assistance, demining, and infrastructure 
rebuilding. Security in Kosova is not provided by the KPC, but a 
separately trained civilian police and international police force 
serving under the direction of UNMIK. The KPC functions under the 
political authority of UNMIK and the day-to-day operational direction 
of KFOR.
  The KPC carries out important civilian work projects, such as 
building and repairing roads and bridges. In another instance, the KPC 
intervened on February 4 when French and

[[Page 14127]]

Italian NATO peacekeepers were not able to disperse an angry crowd and 
succeeded in restoring order to the situation.
  The KPC has the support of the people in Kosova, the U.S. State 
Department and the United Nations.
  Despite the allegations made in support of the Kucinich amendment, UN 
officials have investigated the allegations leveled against members of 
the KPC and found no evidence to support them.
  International military and civilian leaders in the region have 
expressed their support and gratitude for the efforts of the KPC.
  NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, has praised the Kosova 
Protection Corps for its work throughout Kosova, which has included 
repairing roads, bridges, and other reconstruction and relief projects.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kucinich amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter

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

  Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), add the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


prohibition on assumption by united states government of liability for 
                    nuclear accidents in north korea

       Sec. 701. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter 
     into any agreement, contract, or other arrangement which 
     imposes liability on the United States Government, or 
     otherwise require financial indemnity by the United States 
     Government, for nuclear accidents that may occur at nuclear 
     reactors in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any 
     treaty subject to approval by the Senate pursuant to article 
     II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United 
     States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) will 
control the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This Member rises out of concern that because of reported executive 
action that is currently being contemplated by the President, the 
American taxpayer may soon be required to assume billions of dollars of 
liability for potential North Korean nuclear accidents.
  Under the Korean Energy Development Organization program, KEDO, the 
United States Government committed to the construction of two light-
water nuclear reactors in North Korea with major financing from Japan 
and South Korea. These reactors are designed to diffuse the nuclear 
development program of the Democrat People's Republic of Korea, the 
DPRK, that it had operated and, presumably, used to divert weapons 
grade nuclear material. The new reactors are to be owned and operated 
by North Korea.
  Because North Korea is not known for its nuclear safety, some of the 
essential American construction firms have, quite understandably, 
refused to participate in the KEDO effort without insurance. Private 
insurance companies, sensing a lousy risk, want nothing to do with the 
KEDO program. As a result, the KEDO program could collapse under its 
own weight.
  In an effort to keep the KEDO program moving forward, some in the 
executive branch have proposed that the United States provide insurance 
guaranties for the KEDO program. Mr. Chairman, this is an enormous 
legal liability that is being contemplated by Executive Order. While 
the United States continues to participate in the construction of two 
light-water nuclear reactors in the DPRK is not the issue, we have been 
participating in the KEDO program since 1995; and funds are included in 
this bill to continue that support. The question is whether the United 
States will assume financial liability for the project if accidents 
occur.
  Mr. Chairman, make no mistake, this is potentially a staggering 
liability. It requires faith in the North Korea engineers, who may or 
may not have been trained and over whom we have little or no control. 
It requires faith that North Korea will devote the energy and resources 
to maintain those reactors. It requires that conflict does not break 
out on the Korean peninsula. And if North Korea's safety procedures 
prove inadequate and a Chernobyl-type disaster occurs, it could require 
tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. If there is a nuclear 
accident, there is no quicker way to eliminate the current budgetary 
surplus that many Members of this body have worked so hard to achieve.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member would remind his colleagues that on May 18 
of this year, in an amendment to the defense authorization bill, this 
body considered and voted overwhelmingly to limit the ability to 
provide such insurance guaranty. But the executive branch is ignoring 
or seeking to ignore that overwhelming vote. The amendment before this 
body today sends a very strong message that extending financial 
guaranties to rogue nations is a serious matter.
  If Members of this body are concerned about nuclear proliferation, if 
my colleagues are concerned about fiscal responsibility, or even if 
Members are suspicious that North Korea may not be absolutely and 
irrevocably committed to cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation with 
the West, they must vote for this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
rise in support of the Bereuter amendment and commend its sponsor.
  This bill provides funding that the Clinton administration has 
requested to continue carrying out its policy of giving U.S. foreign 
assistance to North Korea pursuant to the agreed framework of 1994. The 
Bereuter amendment imposes a sensible condition on the funds that this 
bill appropriates for North Korea.
  This amendment prohibits any money appropriated under this act from 
being used to assume any liability for the cost of nuclear accidents in 
North Korea. Incredibly, the administration reportedly is considering 
making U.S. taxpayers libel in the event that the North Koreans 
mismanage their nuclear reactors that the administration wants to build 
there and could trigger a catastrophic nuclear accident. This, 
obviously, would be folly; and the gentleman from Nebraska is doing all 
of us a favor by trying to stop the administration from doing this.
  The distinguished Chair of our House Republican Policy Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), has been very active in protecting 
the interests of the American taxpayer with regard to the possibility 
that current U.S. policy may create a Chernobyl-style disaster in North 
Korea. I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) on the defense authorization bill that addresses these 
concerns, and I am pleased to support the Bereuter amendment to the 
bill as well.
  This is a very timely and important amendment, and I urge our 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that, 
indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has been extremely 
active. He does have an amendment filed, and I will give him the 
opportunity to close in a minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if I have ever seen a bad deal, it is this amendment. 
It is

[[Page 14128]]

bad from a number of perspectives. It was not that long ago that we 
were in the well here wringing our hands about the dangers of a North 
Korean missile coming over and hitting part of the United States, and 
there was no limit to the funding we would spend to stop this threat 
from North Korea: $60 billion for an untested Star Wars program. Rush 
the program through. We have spent a third of a billion dollars in the 
last 9 months.
  We all saw the last success of that program when the booster 
apparently did not get to the target where it was predetermined to hit 
the mark. So we have spent a third of a billion dollars in the last 9 
months. There are people here who want to spend $60 billion before they 
find out whether the system works or not to protect us from North 
Korean missiles. But let us make sure we do not even give the 
administration an opportunity to work out an agreement that stops the 
North Korean missile program.
  A better title for this bill would be ``an amendment to prevent an 
agreement.'' Because before we know what the administration wants to 
do, whether they are going to get a consortium of nations to simply buy 
an insurance program, whether the Japanese and the others in the region 
are going to pay the whole tab and we might have to facilitate some of 
the technical elements of it, Congress is going to rush down here, and 
we are going to tell President Clinton and his negotiators not to come 
to an agreement.
  We are going to spend $60 billion on Star Wars whether it works or 
not. That is a good expenditure, just like the third of a billion we 
have had for the failed tests. Let us just slow down a bit here. What 
the administration has achieved is for the first time in 50 years we 
are having a dialogue with the North Koreans. Now, this is not an easy 
job. This is about one of the most paranoid societies in the world. 
Orwell's view of the world could not figure this place out if he had 
the blueprint in advance.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we have got them to stop their nuclear program. We 
have got them to stop their missile program. There is a lot more we 
have got to do. We have our allies working together with us in a 
coordinated program. We always complain about burden-sharing. Here 
others want to take the lead in the burden, and we have got an 
amendment on the floor to stop us from participating before we know 
what that portion of participation is.
  I understand the desire not to have anything in North Korea that 
could give us a liability. But when Congress is ready to pass on a $60 
billion Star Wars program before the technology works, when we have 
spent a third of a billion dollars in the last 9 months, we should not 
come here and say we cannot spend a penny to implement, negotiate and 
come to an agreement that might shut down any future missile or nuclear 
programs that the North Koreans might undertake is bad policy.
  Let us give the administration a chance. This is the toughest country 
in the world to negotiate with, and we have begun to make progress.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
just want to say that regardless of whether we are doing the right 
thing in the amendment or not, I think the whole indemnification 
process is wrong for us to get involved in.
  What we are saying is that General Electric, which is the only 
American company I know of that is even involved in providing some of 
the resources for the new facility, will not go in there without 
indemnification. So what we are saying, in effect, is that we are not 
going to allow the United States to indemnify General Electric from any 
class action suit that might take place even in North Korean courts.
  American business people are already being subjected to this serious 
problem in South Vietnam now. So I have questions about the 
indemnification.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the 
gentleman's questions, but the questions exist outside of any 
liability.
  We have not yet given the administration opportunity to see what 
portion the Japanese are willing to take, and they are very interested 
in this. So to handcuff the administration before we have even a 
blueprint of what the final negotiations will present us for American 
responsibility, while we are ready to spend $60 billion on Star Wars, 
is irresponsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), but I might just say to the 
gentleman from Connecticut that this has nothing to do with missiles.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering his 
amendment. It is similar to language that this House recently approved 
when I offered my amendment on the defense authorization bill. The 
House voted 334 to 85 to authorize this prohibition on the Clinton 
administration guaranteeing against the cost of nuclear accidents in 
Stalinist North Korea.
  This amendment is imminently sensible, and it must be adopted.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and I say that we should give negotiations a chance.
  If we can spend $60 billion on Star Wars, a third of a billion in the 
last 9 months, we ought to at least give an administration a chance to 
try to work this out which has shut down the North Korean missile 
program, which has shut down their nuclear program, and has made more 
progress on the North Korean peninsula in the last several years than 
all the 50 years before that.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Payne

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

       Amendment No. 57 offered by Mr. Payne:
       Page 132, after line 12, insert the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


          assistance for national democratic alliance of sudan

       Sec. 701. (a) In General.--Of the funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE-Other 
     Bilateral Economic Assistance-economic support fund'' for 
     non-sub-Saharan African countries, not more than $15,000,000 
     shall be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to 
     provide assistance to the National Democratic Alliance of 
     Sudan to strengthen its ability to protect civilians from 
     attacks, slave raids, and aerial bombardment by the Sudanese 
     government forces and its militia allies.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``assistance'' 
     includes non-lethal, non-food aid such as blankets, medicine, 
     fuel, mobile clinics, water drilling equipment, 
     communications equipment to notify civilians of aerial 
     bombardment, tents, and shoes.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that the amendment that I have offered is an 
amendment that would allow assistance to the National Democratic 
Alliance, which is a group of people in the south of Sudan. It will 
provide them with nonlethal equipment, not counting food aid; but it 
would give assistance to the people in the south to support their fight 
against the National

[[Page 14129]]

Islamic front, which is the government of the north, which has given 
the people in the south a very, very horrible time over the past 30 
years.

                              {time}  1330

  In Sudan, close to 2 million people have died in war-related causes. 
Many have died from famine. Many have died from war-related killings.
  Secondly, in Sudan, slavery is condoned by the al-Bahsir government; 
and we feel that this is one of the most tragic situations in the 
world. More people have died in Sudan than in Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo 
all put together.
  We think that this support would help to protect the defenseless 
citizens to provide them with nonlethal assistance such as medicine, 
vehicles, field hospitals, communication equipment, radio transmitters 
so that they can have a way to counter the National Islamic Front's 
propaganda.
  The need is even more important now since the Government is using 
newly found oil revenues to buy arms to destroy the opposition. We 
cannot allow the extremists to win. We must help create a level playing 
field if there is going to be meaningful negotiations and a just 
settlement to the conflict. We must do more to bring about peace in 
Sudan.
  We feel that there should be an end to this conflict, and we would 
like to see the IGAD process led by President Moi of Kenya, who has 
been working with the government of Khartoum and with the SPLA and with 
the National Democratic Alliance to try to come up with a solution to 
end this most horrific situation that is occurring in Sudan.
  We have seen pictures of slaves that have been purchased from the 
slave owners. We have seen the beatings of people who have been held in 
bondage where they are raped or where their Achilles' tendons are cut 
so that they cannot escape, where they are treated even worse than the 
animals in the compound where they have to work in indentured 
servitude.
  And so, we are saying that the world has too long sat by and has done 
too little and that we must step up an aggressive movement to assist 
these people.
  As I indicated before, an estimated 2 million people have died. They 
have died of famine. They have died of war-related incidents. There are 
old Soviet planes that the government in Khartoum uses against the 
villages in the south, planes called the Antinovs. These planes bring 
bombs down to the area. And as the plane goes over and as they approach 
a village, the chickens are the first to hear the planes coming and the 
children who watch the chickens then start to run. Then the older 
people know that the planes are coming and it is time to move out.
  The last bombing, they destroyed a primitive hospital in one of the 
towns. They have bombed a school that the administrators there have 
attempted to conduct educational facilities going on. And so this is 
really something that is the only humane thing to do. We must say that 
enough is enough. I ask that this amendment be adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) wish to 
make his point of order?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order, and I claim 
time in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the long-time interest of 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) in the humanitarian disaster 
in the Sudan. I am not necessarily against the language, but this is 
simply the wrong measure. This is an appropriations bill.
  I will be pleased to work with the gentleman, who has been an 
outstanding advocate on behalf of democracy in Sudan, on these issues 
in our committee and would be pleased to work with him to make certain 
that we get the appropriate vehicle for doing what he is seeking, his 
meritorious goals.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment on the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI in that 
it constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) wish to 
be heard briefly on the point of order?
  Mr. PAYNE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who I 
have had the privilege to work with, for his comments. I think his 
leadership on the Committee on International Relations has been 
exemplary.
  I have had the privilege also to work closely with the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); and I feel very strongly that we 
have to finally move. It is the only right thing to do.
  The pariah government of Sudan, those persons who bombed our 
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, came out of the Sudan. They are 
bombing their own people. Two million people have died.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I would accept the suggestion of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) that we could work together. And I hope that 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations would also agree to 
work along with us. We do realize that this may be perceived as trying 
to legislate through appropriations, but I do appreciate his 
willingness to work with us.
  I commend the gentleman for the relationship that we have and also 
commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has 
seemingly started to appreciate some of these issues. And, hopefully, 
we can work together.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne) explicitly supersedes other law. The amendment, 
therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, if possible, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the chairman to discuss an area that I think in our foreign policy that 
we overlooked, and that is the funding for the former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia.
  This is a country that of all the countries in the Balkans has 
achieved what none of the others have. And, in fact, what we have is a 
multiethnic society that has democracy, a functioning parliament that 
we, through our foreign policy, have not kept our agreements with, and 
specifically, the agreement that we signed that, if we were there 
longer than 5 days, we would renegotiate our agreements for the 
utilization of that society during the war in Kosovo.
  The toll on Macedonia has been tremendous. They had an influx of 
350,000 refugees in a country of 2 million people. That would be like 
us taking 45 million people in.
  The agreements that were made are not being kept with the Macedonian 
people. In this time of instability in the Balkans and the need for 
stabilization, it is, I believe, imperative that, number one, we go 
back and reemphasize our effort for support for that democracy; and, 
number two, we keep the agreement that the administration made.
  I would like to enter into the Record the statements by Ambassador 
Holbrooke, the fact that the administration had asked for more money 
for Macedonia; and, in fact, their request was not for an increase in 
money for Macedonia and to make that a part of the Record.
  The second area that I think that we need to talk about is the 
infrastructure damage that has been done by both the KFOR force and the 
European force to their roads and highways which is handicapping their 
ability to rebuild their democracy and their economics.
  My question would be to the gentleman that if he would he take 
another look at this prior to going to conference to see if in fact we 
cannot live up to our obligations that were promised, number one, and 
number two, invest in a country that has chosen peace instead of 
conflict and is

[[Page 14130]]

demonstrating that a multiethnic parliament and democracy can work in 
that area.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we will be happy to 
give consideration to that. I think the gentleman is fully aware of the 
fact that we have a limited amount of allocation to us.
  The time will come when the gentleman will have the opportunity to 
vote on whether or not we are going to have an increased allocation. 
And if indeed that increased allocation comes, which I am sure the 
gentleman will then not object if we are going to fulfill his request, 
I certainly will consider that.
  I appreciate the knowledge of the gentleman of that area of the world 
and especially Macedonia and would pledge to work with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to reinforce some of the points 
that my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), made but add 
that it was not just the road damage. They will have 580 to $600 
million estimated in trade damage and other costs. They have 50 to 
60,000 refugees still there.
  Macedonia was in a terrible situation. Because, unlike the other 
Orthodox neighbors, they sided with the United States and they let us 
use their roads and let us use their facilities and have paid a 
terrible price in trade. And having the refugees there and having our 
armed forces go through, they have tried to sustain their balanced 
government, but it is under direct challenge.
  Because it has been a destabilizing force, now their borders are at 
risk. It was never a completely clear border between the different 
countries there, anyway. I know that my colleagues are under tremendous 
financial pressure. Anybody watching these debates understands that. We 
all have the sneaking suspicion that there will be more money later. I 
hope my colleagues will strongly consider adding additional funds to a 
country that stood with us.
  Many of us did not favor that intervention. But when we went in, we 
needed to have the protection for American soldiers and the base with 
which to put them through. This country cooperated with us and paid a 
terrible price, and we need to do what we can to help them.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also give the 
same message to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that when the 
time comes for an increased allocation whereby we can facilitate these 
things, we would appreciate very much the support of the gentleman.


                  Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


   limitation on funds for abortion, family planning, or population 
                            control efforts

       Sec. 701. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available 
     for--
       (1) population control educational programs or population 
     policy educational programs;
       (2) family planning services, including, but not limited 
     to--
       (A) the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives;
       (B) printing, publication, or distribution of family 
     planning literature; and
       (C) family planning counseling;
       (3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or
       (4) efforts to change any nation's laws regarding abortion, 
     family planning, or population control.
       (b) Additional Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available 
     to any organization which promotes or makes available--
       (1) population control educational programs or population 
     policy educational programs;
       (2) family planning services, including, but not limited 
     to--
       (A) the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives;
       (B) printing, publication, or distribution of family 
     planning literature; and
       (C) family planning counseling;
       (3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or
       (4) efforts to change any nation's laws regarding abortion, 
     family planning, or population control.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes all the funding for international 
population control, birth control, abortion, and family planning. This 
is not an authorized constitutional expenditure. It should not be spent 
in this manner.
  More importantly, in a practical way, it addresses the problem of 
fungibility. Because so often we appropriate funds, whether it is 
funding for family planning with restrictions against abortion or 
whether we give economic aid or whether we give military aid. All funds 
are fungible.
  So, in a very serious way, we subsidize and support abortion to any 
country that participates once we send them funds. This amendment 
addresses that by striking all these funds which are allocated for 
population control.
  Population control and birth control in many of these nations is a 
serious personal affront to many of their social mores in these 
countries. Also, it is an affront to the American taxpayer because it 
requires that American taxpayers be forced through their taxing system 
to subsidize something they consider an egregious procedure. That is 
abortion. These funds go to paying for IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, 
spermicides, condoms.
  Just recently a study came out that showed that the spermicidal, the 
nonoxynol-9, is something that is paid for with these funds. 
Unfortunately, this spermicidal enhances the spread of AIDS. Talk about 
unintended consequences. Here we are, the other side, who likes this 
kind of spending, they do it with good intentions; and at the same 
time, it literally backfires and spreads AIDS inadvertently.

                              {time}  1345

  For this reason, I offer this amendment to strike all these funds 
because there is no other way to stop the use of these funds once the 
funds get there, no matter what the restrictions are.
  The Mexico City language is something I support and I vote for, and 
the attempt is very sincere to try to stop the abuse of the way these 
funds are used. But quite frankly the Mexico City language does not do 
a whole lot. If the President wants to suspend that language, he can 
and he takes a penalty of $12 million, a 3 percent reduction in the 
amount of money that becomes available for these programs. It goes from 
$385 million down to $373 million and the President can do what he 
wants. So there is really no prohibition. We as American taxpayers do 
support these programs. You say, Oh, no, they don't. We put 
prohibitions. They're not allowed to use it for abortion.
  That is not true. I mean, the language is true; but it does not 
accomplish that. What it accomplishes is that these funds go in for 
buying birth control pills and condoms, and the money that would have 
been spent on birth control pills and condoms go and is used to do the 
abortion. I believe in the fungibility argument in its entirety, not 
just in the family planning. As soon as you give funds in any way 
whatsoever to a country such as China that endorses abortion, I mean, 
we are participants, we are morally bound to say that we are a 
participant in those acts. Even though we say, I hope you don't do it 
and you shouldn't do it and we're not authorizing you to do it, we have 
to remember that funds are fungible and that they can be used in this 
manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from New York seek to control the 
time in opposition?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 14131]]

  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) continues to reserve his 
point of order.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Paul amendment which would 
eliminate all of our international family planning and population 
programs. The House rightly rejected this amendment last year by a vote 
of 145-272. I respectfully submit that we do so again with an even 
larger margin.
  Our family planning and population programs work hand in hand towards 
one very worthy goal, advancing the health and well-being of children 
and families. Simply put, if you seek healthy children, you must have 
healthy mothers. There is a strong relationship between educating women 
on safe motherhood, voluntary family planning and child survival. 
Planning pregnancies is one of the most powerful and effective child 
survival tools in existence. Postponing early high-risk pregnancies, 
giving women's bodies a chance to recover from a previous pregnancy, 
and helping women to avoid unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortion 
can prevent at least one in four maternal deaths.
  We hear again and again that women die from having children too 
young, having children too closely spaced together, and by having more 
children than their bodies can bear. Getting that message out across to 
women is an integral part of our population and family planning work 
because healthier mothers will be better able to care for their 
children.
  Children born to mothers who wait 2 years between births have a much 
stronger chance of survival than those born to moms whose births fall 
less than 2 years apart. Giving women this information can save 
children's lives, can save women's lives. We have to do all we can to 
encourage and reinforce the messages of voluntary family planning, safe 
motherhood, child survival. This amendment would absolutely destroy our 
efforts to help both mother and child. It would destroy the efforts of 
the barber in this small village in India to be taught while he is 
cutting the hair of these men how to work with the men and women in 
teaching them, educating them. That is what family planning is about in 
the poorest parts of our world.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the Paul 
amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has been a leader on this 
international family planning issue as has the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) and so many others in the House of Representatives. 
But as a member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) has led the way.
  This is a hard amendment for me to understand. Maybe we need a lesson 
in the birds and the bees in this Chamber. We really have to be 
thinking seriously about what the message is that will come out of this 
Congress if we vote to eliminate all funding for international family 
planning. The gentlewoman from New York explained obviously how 
necessary this is. We all want to reduce the number of abortions that 
take place. I myself personally consider abortion a failure, a failure 
of education, of prevention, of opportunity for women to be in control 
of their lives and control the timing and size of their families. But 
that is so fundamental.
  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, as we all do, does it 
not make sense, Mr. Chairman, that we would, therefore, try to prevent 
conception and give people an informed way in which to do that.
  So I understand and respect everyone's view on this subject. I 
understand it more easily in terms of the gag rule, which I do not 
support, but I understand that. But as a woman, the idea that we would 
even consider on the floor of this House the notion that we should cut 
off funding for international family planning is incomprehensible to me 
for the following reasons:
  One, it would not reduce the number of abortions, family planning. 
Two, we have the opportunity from the standpoint of population and the 
environment, we have a responsibility to be responsible. I think that I 
am going to have to yield back to the gentlewoman, but I do so 
bewildered by the maker of this motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
has expired. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me see if I can explain as an obstetrician the fundamentals of 
the birds and the bees, about the fundamentals of law. Under the 
Constitution we are not permitted to do these things.
  I agree with much of what has been said. I believe in birth control, 
and I believe it should be voluntary. But this is not voluntary on the 
part of the American taxpayer. They are the ones who suffer the 
consequence of the involuntary compulsion of the tax collector coming 
and compelling the American taxpayer to fund things that they find 
immoral and wrong. That is the lack of voluntary approach that you 
have.
  Yes, there are a lot of good intentions. I think that is very good. 
But there are a lot of complications that come from these procedures. 
As I mentioned before, this nonoxynol, it is a spermicidal, and it 
increases the spread of AIDS. Good intentions, unintended consequences. 
The American taxpayers are subsidizing this.
  What we are saying is that there is a better approach. There is a 
voluntary approach through donations, through our churches. But not 
through the compulsion of the IRS telling the American taxpayers that 
they are compelled to pay for an egregious act that they find 
personally abhorrent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
  Does the gentleman from New York wish to make his point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment on the grounds that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI in that 
it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard briefly 
on the point of order?
  Mr. PAUL. Yes. This is an amendment that I have brought up on several 
occasions. As the gentlewoman just mentioned, we have voted on it. She 
cited the votes that we have had on previous occasions. We have done 
this before. The one question that they have is whether or not these 
funds can be used for lobbying. Of course the Mexico City language, the 
funds are permitted to be used for lobbying and prevention of lobbying 
for the change in the promotion and the propagandizing for abortion and 
birth control.
  I would say this conforms with the Constitution, it conforms with 
this bill, it conforms with what we have done for the past several 
years, and it is strictly, narrowly defined as a prohibition of funds 
to be used to perform population control.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from New York makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas proposes to change existing law, in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from 
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it 
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or 
make judgements and determinations not otherwise required of them by 
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a 
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI. Specifically, subsections 
(a)(4) and (b)(4) of the proposed section in the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas require new determinations not required under 
existing law.
  Therefore, the point of order against the amendment is sustained.

[[Page 14132]]




               Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

  Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be made available to the Palestine Authority.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman claims the time in opposition. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In 1994, the United States signed an agreement with Palestinian 
authorities to encourage American investment with the Palestinian 
Authority, and this would allow the use of OPIC funds.
  In 1995, Vice President Al Gore asked a company in my district to be, 
in fact, the first investor in Gaza. The Bucheit Company got OPIC 
insurance and made a multi-million dollar investment in Gaza, the 
first, encouraged by Vice President Al Gore.
  The company entered into contracts with the Palestinian Authority and 
hired and trained workers in Gaza. There were irrevocable written 
instructions to block wire transfers and dollars.
  In January of 1996, the American company got a $1.1 million loan from 
OPIC to expand the business in Gaza. They wired the funds from D.C. to 
Gaza. The money was stolen, never put into accounts. The State 
Department said, ``It is a private commercial matter. Take it to 
court.'' They took it to court in Cleveland. They won. They were 
awarded triple damages. But now it is being appealed. So last year we 
got language in the bill saying, Let's work this out.
  In October of 1999, OPIC wrote two letters asking the Palestinian 
Authority questions concerning the situation. I want the chairman and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to hear this. The Palestinian 
Authority admitted wrongdoing. They admitted to making fraudulent 
checks to a fictitious company that were cashed in 1996 and 1997. Then 
they seized the equipment of the company and still hold it.
  Under the 1994 agreement, any disputes have to either be amicably 
settled or taken care of through arbitration or legal means and they 
said, We're not going to do anything about it.
  When the company got the OPIC loans, they had to put liens on their 
property. So when everything was defaulted on, the company paid the 
loans out of their own pocket. The Palestinian Authority still has 
their equipment. They have told us to go to hell.
  My amendment comes right to the point to prohibit any funding for the 
Palestinian Authority.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and ask how much time 
I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker and I understand it 
is my right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
has the right to close.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Here is where we are. We had another amendment that would be listed 
as out of order because it would prohibit any funds going to the 
Palestinian Authority until they resolve not only this case but several 
other American companies that have been ripped off.
  If we are going to leverage American dollars, make investments with 
private companies, then have those companies go overseas and be ripped 
off, then who do we represent?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 
the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but 
to tell the gentleman that we should protect American companies as you 
are doing for your constituents in Ohio.
  As the gentleman knows, I have addressed this matter with the 
director of OPIC and told him that if indeed moneys were expropriated 
by the Palestinian Authority, well, then they should discontinue the 
delay in making a decision.
  But the gentleman is right. As he well knows, the Palestinian 
Authority is going to be here in just a few months because they are out 
meeting at Camp David now, making concessions, saying that we are going 
to give them all of these billions of dollars if they will sign this 
peace agreement. I would just like to echo what the gentleman is 
saying.

                              {time}  1400

  If we indeed are going to start giving money to the PLO, then they 
are going to have to abide by standards of cooperation with the rest of 
the world.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the chairman 
supporting my amendment?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The chairman is supporting the gentleman's cause, and, 
if indeed there was not an objection, I probably would vote for the 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I did not bring the one that is subject to a point of 
order.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I understand that.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I am asking for the gentleman's vote. That is the only 
protection this Congress has.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I just told the gentleman that if the amendment were to 
come to the floor, I probably would vote for it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I expect that it will.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying this: Rip them off. Go ahead. 
Rip off American companies and let monarchs and dictators say ``Go to 
hell. Go to court.'' Not in my district. I want an ``aye'' vote on my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
ask the Chair to let me know when I have consumed two minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, if we can eliminate the bloviating, let me simply say 
that I oppose this amendment for two reasons: Number one, it is my 
understanding, we do not have the facts in this case. We do not have 
the facts in this case, and we should not take an action which could 
interfere drastically in the peace talks now going on at Camp David on 
the basis of a 5-minute explanation from one Member of Congress who has 
an ax to grind on the subject. The gentleman may be right; he may be 
wrong. All I know is that my understanding is that at this very moment 
the company to which the gentleman refers may be under investigation by 
the U.S. Government itself for the way it does business.
  Secondly, for us to eliminate all funding for the Palestinian 
Authority would be incredibly against the interests of the United 
States Government. The last time I talked to Prime Minister Rabin 
before he was assassinated, he said to me, ``For God's sake, do not let 
anyone interfere with the ability of the United States Government to 
deal with the Palestinian Authority, because if you cannot deal with 
them, then the only party left on the Arab side you can deal with in 
the Middle East is Hamas, and they are terrorists, and then there will 
be no hope at all for an agreement for peace in the Middle East.''
  Mr. Rabin gave his life looking for that peace, so did Mr. Sadat, and 
I do not think that that should be disregarded because one Member of 
Congress has come to believe that one company, which may be under 
investigation by our own Government, that

[[Page 14133]]

their interests ought to take precedence over the United States' 
national interests.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time have I consumed?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said he had but one 
speaker remaining, or I could have reserved my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Since I said that, the distinguished minority whip has 
asked to speak, and so has the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Then the gentleman should have notified me.
  Mr. OBEY. I cannot see ahead of time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The gentleman has also made allegations of an 
investigation of a company.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. Being 
that the gentleman said he had only one speaker, and I closed, is it in 
order to at least let me have a minute to respond to these types of 
statements, or shall we keep to the fact that the gentleman claimed he 
had but one and forced me to utilize my time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask all Members to suspend.
  Under the rules and precedents of the House, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin defending the committee position has the right to close 
debate. Other statements which may be made in the course of the debate 
cannot be enforced, of course, by the Chair.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut, because I have another Member who also has 
informed me he wishes to comment on the amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio has one company 
with a problem in the Palestinian entity. I have a list here that we 
just in moments put together of 42 countries where American businesses 
have disputes. If we are going to end our foreign policy every time 
there is a corporate dispute, we ought to just pack up and go home.
  We have had five wars in the last 50 years in this part of the world. 
We have had women and children killed, including Americans, in 
terrorist activities and accidental bombings and attacks. We are at 
Camp David today trying to end this conflict that has gone on for a 
century. I admire the gentleman for caring about his constituent, but 
our responsibility here for this unique opportunity for peace cannot be 
squandered for one economic debate.
  Reject the amendment. Support the effort at Camp David.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to also associate myself with the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  I rise in strong support of the Middle East process and in strong 
opposition to the Traficant amendment. Right now, as the gentleman from 
Connecticut has said, the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority are meeting in Camp David seeking to forge an agreement to 
end a generation of conflict. That leaves us with a very clear choice 
today: Do we support that process, or do we seek to disrupt or possibly 
derail a just and lasting peace in the Middle East?
  Now is not the time to be cutting or conditioning aid to the 
Palestinian Authority, or to Israel. It is in our own interest to 
support this peace process and to help build the foundations of peace 
and progress for the Middle East.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to resoundingly defeat this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say to the gentleman from Ohio, after the 
peace talks are over we will have plenty of time to assess the conduct 
of both the Palestinian Authority and the conduct of the company in 
question, and if at that time it is clear that the U.S. Government is 
satisfied with the business practices of that company, and if the U.S. 
Government concludes that it is in the interests of the U.S. taxpayer 
to proceed, then I will be happy to entertain such a proposal. But 
until that point, I believe that it would be irresponsible of us to 
proceed with this amendment at this time. So I would urge a no vote on 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


          limitation on assistance for the government of india

       Sec. 701. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act in title II under the heading 
     ``BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE-Funds Appropriated to the 
     President-development assistance'', not more than $35,000,000 
     may be made available to the Government of India.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama rise?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama will control the time in 
opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for the past probably 10 or 12 years, maybe even 
longer, I have been coming to the floor talking about the atrocities 
that have been taking place at the hands of the Indian government in 
places like Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, and other places in India, and 
today this amendment is merely to update my colleagues and anybody else 
who is paying attention as to where we stand on this issue.
  When only a few hundred people were killed in Haiti, we sent 20,000 
troops into Haiti at taxpayer expense, and the problems there have not 
been resolved. In the Sudan, over 2 million people have been killed, 
and the United States has not really done too much.
  In Kashmir, there are half a million Indian troops that have been 
there for years and years and years imposing marshal law, gang raping 
women, taking men out of their homes in the middle of the night never 
to be seen again, except maybe turning up in the streams around Kashmir 
with their hands and feet bound, having been tortured and drowned.
  Amnesty International concludes the policies of the Indian government 
in Kashmir to be an official policy of sanctioning extrajudicial 
killings. Another half million troops are in Punjab, right next to 
Kashmir.

[[Page 14134]]

  If U.S. action and attention was justified in places like Kosovo and 
Bosnia around the world, then we at least ought to be paying attention 
to what is going on in the area of human rights violations in places 
like Kashmir and Punjab and Nagaland and other places in India.
  India does not allow Amnesty International or other human rights 
groups to go into these areas. Even Cuba, the last communist bastion in 
our hemisphere, allows Amnesty International in. India has killed over 
200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab have 
been killed since 1984, more than 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir have been 
killed since 1988, and thousands of Dalits, or what they call the 
untouchables, the blacks in India, have been killed. We do not know how 
many of them.
  According to our own State Department, India paid over 41,000, 
41,000, cash bounties to the police for killing innocent Sikhs from 
1991 to 1993. They actually paid bounties to kill some of those people.
  In Punjab, Sikhs are picked up in the middle of the night, only to be 
found floating dead in the canals with their hands and feet bound. As I 
mentioned before, the same thing happened in Kashmir. Some Sikhs are 
only so fortunate, and others are just never found.
  Recently, India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the CBI, told the 
Supreme Court that it had confirmed 2,000 cases of unidentified bodies 
that were cremated by the military. Their families did not know what 
happened to them. They were all piled up and cremated.
  It does not get any better in Kashmir. Women, because of their Muslim 
beliefs, are taken out of their homes in the middle of the night and 
gang raped, while their husbands are forced to stay inside.
  The State Department says on page 3 of its report released this year, 
``The National Human Rights Commission does not have the power to 
investigate the military's actions in that area.''
  They went on to say, ``The Indian government rejected the 
Commission's recommendations to bring the army and paramilitary forces 
under closer scrutiny by allowing the Commission to investigate 
complaints of their excesses.'' So the military has so much power, the 
Human Rights Commission in India cannot even look into these things.
  Human Rights Watch, an international organization, says, ``Despite 
government claims that normalcy has returned to Kashmir, Indian troops 
in the State continue to carry out summary executions, disappearances, 
rape and torture.'' That is from this year's Human Rights Report, the 
1999 Human Rights Report, issued last July.
  ``Methods of torture include severe beatings with truncheons, rolling 
a heavy log on the legs, hanging the detainee upside down, and using 
electric shocks on various parts of their body.'' Just imagine what it 
would be like if you had to go through that.
  ``Security forces are making Dalit women,'' the untouchables, ``eat 
human defecation, parading them naked, and gang raping them.''
  Amnesty International says, ``Torture, including rape and ill-
treatment, continued to be endemic throughout the country.'' That is in 
their annual report.
  ``Disappearances continue to be reported during the year, 
predominantly in Jammu and Kashmir.'' Amnesty International again, the 
recent report.
  ``Hundreds of extrajudicial executions were reported in many 
States.'' Again, in the same report.
  In July of 1998, police picked up Kashmira Singh. Police said they 
were investigating a theft. They then tortured him for 15 days. They 
rolled logs over his legs until he could not walk. They submerged him 
in a tub of water and slashed his thighs with razor blades and stuffed 
hot peppers into the wounds.
  Muslim persecution. March 1996, Mr. Jalil Andrabi, chairman of the 
Kashmir Commission of Jurists and a human rights advocate, was abducted 
and slain 2 weeks before he was to travel to Geneva to testify before 
the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

                              {time}  1415

  Christian persecution. Since Christmas day of 1998, there has been a 
wave of attacks against Christians all over the country. Churches have 
been burned, Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked, 
nuns have been raped and priests have been killed. Our State Department 
agrees, there has been a sharp increase in attacks against Christians 
and Christian organizations. This past weekend, just this past weekend, 
two churches were bombed in India. Last month, a women's prayer meeting 
was bombed by militant Hindus. Last month, four Christian missionaries 
who were distributing Bibles were beaten, one so severely that he may 
lose both his arms and his legs.
  Right now, we are talking about giving India more money. We are 
talking about today in this appropriation bill giving them more money 
and yet India has increased their military budget this year by 28 
percent. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on 
conventional and nuclear weapons, and we are subsidizing, indirectly, 
that proliferation of weaponry. This year, the President has requested 
$46.6 million for developmental assistance to India through AID. That 
is an increase of almost $18 million from last year's request. I cannot 
recall the President asking for this large of a request for India ever.
  I understand that the Glenn amendment, which passed the U.S. Senate, 
is currently imposing sanctions on India for some of these violations. 
So why should we be increasing aid to a country that we are currently 
sanctioning for human rights abuses and other travesties? It makes 
absolutely no sense to me.
  We are talking about 25 percent cut with this amendment. I think it 
is justifiable, it sends a strong message, one that will be heard 
around the world, but especially in India.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for agreeing to 
withdraw his amendment, which I understand he is going to do 
momentarily.
  The objective, or my objective in handling this bill is to wind up 
with a final document that does not have offensive language in there to 
my views or the views I think of the majority Members of Congress. The 
very fact that the gentleman has agreed to withdraw it gives me my 
victory, and I can see no sense in standing here all day long and 
delaying the possibility of whether or not Members are going to be able 
to get out of here in a timely fashion to catch their arranged flights 
to go home for the weekend. So I have accomplished my mission, and that 
is that the offensive language to me, with respect to India, is going 
to be withdrawn and the amendment is going to be withdrawn.
  But out of deference to those who want to speak in response to the 
gentleman's remarks, I am going to yield 7 of my 10 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), with the forewarning, Mr. 
Chairman, that she is not going to come forward with a unanimous 
consent request to extend this debate and preclude the possibility of 
Members getting out of here in a timely fashion this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), and I ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) controls 7 minutes which she may yield to others.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Ackerman).
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana. I only regret that we do not 
have as much time to put the light of truth to so many of the things 
that he said, because we have not been given equal time in this debate.

[[Page 14135]]

  That being said, the House has rejected the gentleman's amendment on 
repeated occasions, and I do hope and expect it will do so again today. 
I think it should be clear to all by now that punishing India by 
cutting our assistance is not a policy that this U.S. Congress will 
adopt.
  The Burton amendment is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. In the 
wake of the President's successful visit to India, the U.S. and India 
have a new opportunity to build a broad-based relationship. Instead of 
applauding India for establishing a joint working group with the U.S. 
to fight against terrorism, the amendment would punish India by cutting 
crucial assistance.
  The gentleman makes a great many allegations about human rights 
abuses in India, but conveniently ignores the fact that the people of 
India are the major victims of terrorism perpetrated by groups 
supported and trained in Pakistan and associated with Osama bin-Ladin. 
In fact, after the Kargil incursion and the hijacking of an Indian 
Airlines plane to Afghanistan, the Pakistani-backed terrorists have 
stepped up their attacks on innocent civilians and security forces in 
Kashmir.
  To characterize India's struggle against terrorism as a violation of 
human rights is not only unjust, but also provides aid and comfort to 
the terrorists who have claimed thousands of innocent victims in India. 
That there are things that go wrong in any civilized society, including 
India, are true, and some of the things the gentleman points out are 
true, but these are not done by the government of India.
  Mr. Chairman, churches are bombed and burned here. People are killed 
every day here. Women are raped every day of the year here. These 
things are terrible, but it does not mean that our government is 
responsible. The best way for us to help India continue to improve its 
human rights record is to engage in positive and constructive dialogue, 
one great democracy to another, not with punitive sanctions and cuts.
  The momentum that we have gained in relations by the President's 
visit needs to be strengthened and sustained. For Congress to act now 
to stigmatize India for alleged human rights abuses would send the 
wrong signal to the 1 billion democratic people in India. I urge all of 
our colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). This is the time 
that we should be working together on environmental, education, and 
health issues.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise, as I have many times, 
in opposition to the Burton amendment, and for our continued support 
for the world's largest democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to this 
ill-conceived amendment.
  This legislation has many problems, but one of the bright spots is a 
continued commitment to our Indian allies.
  Unfortunately, this amendment will unfairly cut the critically-needed 
economic assistance funding for India included in this legislation.
  As an important ally and a nation committed to strong democratic 
government, India has worked hard to ensure that the human rights of 
all its citizens are protected.
  The Indian government has aggressively responded to assaults against 
religious minorities and has repeatedly expressed its commitment to 
ensuring tolerance. Recently, in response to attacks on Christians, 
Prime Minister Vajpayee reiterated his nation's desire to be inclusive 
of all faiths and to ensure equal justice under law for all Indians. We 
should support these efforts.
  India is also one of our key trading partners and the Indian 
government has worked hard to create a friendly environment for U.S. 
firms.
  As a result, U.S. investment in India has skyrocketed in the last ten 
years. Direct U.S. investment in India has increased from $500 million 
in 1991 to more than $15 billion today.
  Indin has demonstrated a commitment to continue this growth and I 
strongly believe that we must support their efforts.
  As a key ally and a fellow democracy, India deserves our support.
  However, Congressman Burton's amendment, rather than rewarding India, 
seeks to punish the people of India by withholding crucial humanitarian 
assistance.
  India is a strong and vibrant democracy. It is the world's largest 
democracy. And, the U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest 
investor.
  The momentum gained in U.S.-India relations in recent years needs to 
be sustained and strengthened.
  A vote for the Burton amendment would send the wrong signal to the 
people of India from the U.S. Congress at this very critical time.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the arguments against the punitive anti-
India 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. The President's trip 
accompanied by a bipartisan congressional delegation produced a range 
of agreements on trade and investments, security partnerships and 
cooperation on energy and the environment. In September, India's 
democratically elected prime minister will be visiting the U.S. to 
further build upon this progress, especially in the area of economic 
relations.
  India is the world's largest democracy. It is a country that has made 
tremendous progress in free market economic reforms over the past 
decade. But more to the point, since the gentleman from Indiana has 
been critical of India's human rights records, India's Human Rights 
Commission has been praised by our State Department and many 
international agencies for its independence and effectiveness. Indeed, 
India has become a model for the rest of Asia and the rest of the 
developing world in terms of democratization, economic reform and human 
rights.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, cutting aid to India only serves to hamper 
America's efforts to reduce poverty, eradicate disease and promote 
broad-based economic growth in the world's second most populous Nation. 
This amendment never made any sense, and it certainly makes less sense 
now.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, it is in America's national 
interests to support and sustain India's development. The Commerce 
Department identifies India as one of the 10 Big Emerging Markets. With 
a growing high-tech industry, combined with the support and confidence 
of American investment, India has positioned itself to be one of the 
great success stories of the 21st century.
  India has made tremendous progress in addressing human rights issues. 
The State Department has praised India for its substantial progress in 
the area of human rights. It is a strong, vibrant democracy that 
features an independent judiciary, diverse political parties and a free 
press, which vigorously assists in the investigation of human rights 
abuses.
  This amendment threatens the relationship between the United States 
and the Republic of India. We should not be punishing countries like 
India, an example of freedom and democracy in Asia, while rewarding 
authoritarian governments like China which supports forced labor, which 
opposes freedom of the press, which opposes freedom of religion.
  Mr. Chairman, the Burton amendment is a step in the wrong direction 
for American foreign policy. We should oppose it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because I believe that we 
want peace in India and Pakistan, and my visit with the President in 
those countries, I ask that we oppose this amendment so that peace can 
be had in those nations.

[[Page 14136]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me that we come 
out here on this Burton amendment again. It is going to lose. But I 
implore my colleagues to look seriously and objectively at India. The 
proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently 
intimidates its religious minorities. To use a Hindi word, that is 
bakwaas; that is absolute nonsense. The Indians know they have a 
problem, but they are the most secular country in the world. They 
appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, only the second time in their 
history, to look at the death of an American missionary. They also have 
a separate Human Rights Commission that operates in this country.
  In contrast, consider our own treatment of Arab Americans in this 
country. When they are portrayed as terrorists, we turn a blind eye. 
India recognizes their problem and deals with them. I believe that 
India has problems, but it is a nation that is dealing with them. 
Rather than debate these kinds of amendments, we ought to find ways to 
work cooperatively with India to support their development.
  Vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are discussing the Burton amendment yet again. 
It never passes, and as far as I can tell, is brought up just to be 
inflammatory.
  I implore my colleagues to look at the nation of India objectively. 
Since Independence, India has been a thriving democracy where suffrage 
is universal and voting rates are higher than the United States.
  Unlike most former colonial nations, India has never suffered under a 
military dictator. The United States Military has more influence and 
participation in our government than the Indian Military has in theirs. 
India is a stable democracy, arguably the strongest and most stable in 
all of Asia.
  Proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently 
intimidates its religious minorities. That is bakwaas--pure nonsense. 
India is one of the most secular states in the world. India recognizes 
and guarantees religious freedoms and has the commitment to the rule of 
law to enforce those guarantees.
  There have been isolated incidents--anomalies really--that have made 
the worldwide news, however, India has publicly, officially, and 
resoundingly responded. India appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, for 
only the second time in this country's history, to investigate an 
instance of a Christian missionary's death. Also, India has a separate 
Human Rights Commission that is active and highly independent.
  What is our response in this country when American-Muslims are 
depicted vilely as terrorists? We blindly turn away. India admits these 
problems and addresses them in the courts as well as and in the open 
and totally free press.
  India has its problems, but it is a nation dealing with those 
problems. Rather than debate amendments that divide the US and India, 
we ought to work with India help come to grips with their problems and 
be a partner in the development of technology, trade and culture. The 
US and India have much in common and the potential to be great 
partners, we must not cut India off.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend from Indiana's 
amendment. While I commend my colleague's sincere concern about human 
rights and his tireless work on behalf of the oppressed, I have to 
disagree with him about his assessment regarding India. India has a 
fiercely democratic system that protects and promotes religious freedom 
and an independent judicial system.
  We must not forget that the tensions between the people of India and 
Pakistan are to a very large degree fueled by communist China. 
Beijing's mischief making in Burma, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and occupied 
Tibet, nations that surround India, is a dangerous attempt to keep 
democratic India off balance. China has sold over $2 billion in arms to 
the drug dealing Burmese junta. It has given or sold nuclear and 
conventional weapons to Pakistan. China occupies Tibet on India's 
northern border and Beijing is Sri Lanka's major supplier of arms.
  India faces a difficult challenge in fighting extremists. The same 
vicious terrorists who attack innocent Indians are also responsible for 
the deaths of many innocent Americans. And our requests to the 
Pakistani government to pressure their Taliban clients to turn over the 
Saudi terrorist Osama bin Ladin to American law officers has fallen on 
deaf ears.
  I regrettably, oppose my good friend's amendment. We need to work 
closer with democratic India to promote our similar concerns throughout 
the region. However, this is a wrong amendment targeted at the wrong 
country.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for her excellent work on this and so many other issues.
  We have had an interesting year. President Clinton has led a 
delegation to India and we have begun to undo the damage of the Cold 
War where these two great democracies, the United States and India, did 
not have the best of relations. The Burton amendment is inappropriate 
almost any time; it is particularly inappropriate at this moment. We 
need to build a closer relationship with this largest free country in 
the world.
  It is easy for us to run our democracy with the great wealth we have. 
India runs a democracy in excess of 1 billion people with some of the 
poorest people on this planet. We ought to be working to make a closer 
relationship between India and the United States, these two great 
leading democracies, and not drive a wedge between them. I urge 
rejection of this amendment and the concept that somehow India should 
be a whipping boy. India should be admired for its great successes in 
building a democracy in one of the largest and one of the poorest 
countries with some incredible economic development.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from California for her work in 
these last several days and all of her work here.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
proposition of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) that we not 
provide a 50 percent increase in aid to India. The fact is, we should 
be asking ourselves why, in a country that has a vibrant and growing 
economy, a country that is now moving forward on its own, is the United 
States continuing to give more and more foreign aid to a country like 
India.
  Beyond that question, yes, let us concede that India is a democracy. 
We are proud that India has made some progress and stands in that 
region as a democratically-elected government. In Pakistan, I am afraid 
they have gone in the opposite direction.
  But that does not mean that we should have a reflexive, a reflexive 
response to give India money, or just ignore the transgressions that 
the Indian government commits upon its own people. We should be 
encouraging this democracy to live up to the principles of human rights 
and freedom that they are violating, and not just try to cover it up.
  The fact is that it is clear that there are severe violations of the 
rights of Christians, of Sikhs, of Muslims, that have been blessed by 
the Indian government, if not at the highest level, at the local level.
  We must also recognize the continuing violence and terrorism on the 
subcontinent. Most of it flows from one fact, and that fact is that 
India has refused to allow a democratic election in Kashmir in order to 
solve a problem that a long time ago happened in 1948.
  The United Nations has mandated that they have an election and permit 
the people of Kashmir and Jammu to control their own destiny. Then this 
terrorism that we have heard about would disappear. What we have now 
instead is terrorism on the part of government itself, trying to 
terrorize the people of Kashmir and other dissidents in India into 
submission.

[[Page 14137]]

  Terrorism is nothing more than an attack on unarmed people. We see 
that in Kashmir, unarmed people are being attacked by soldiers who are 
trying to push them into submission because they know in a free 
election the Kashmiris would vote not to be part of India.
  Let us not give India aid anymore. If we do, let us mandate 
democratic change and human rights.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think in this debate we also need to think of India 
in strategic terms, not taking the action that the gentleman has 
proposed, which I think would be harmful to the relationship with 
India.
  In strengthening our ties with India, we have the great advantage of 
common values of democracy and rule of law. With that, we can push for 
the further reforms we want to see in India. But I think we should all 
remember that it is going to take engagement to push for those reforms.
  I think a decade of reforms by several governments has moved India 
from socialism and spurred economic growth. There is a new generation 
of Indians who have taken advantage of this liberalization of their 
economic climate, and frankly, I think that we see reforms coming to 
the fore in India. I think these reforms on the human rights front and 
in terms of trade can frankly succeed there because they have the rule 
of law as an underpinning.
  I think there is an effective bridge with the Indo-American 
community. I think for those reasons this would be counterproductive. I 
think that increasing U.S.-India cooperation is about maintaining a 
regional security balance. I would urge withdrawal of the amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Once again, the object of this piece of legislation is to get a 
document that does not have language that is either offensive to my 
philosophy or even to the will of the House.
  The gentleman from Indiana in the essence of time has agreed to 
withdraw his amendment. That is the purpose. The language will not be 
in there.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will end by saying that a few 
years ago, this amendment did pass. Since then the other side, the 
Indian lobby, has been very effective. I congratulate them on their 
effectiveness.
  The problem still exists, though. I hope one day we will not even 
have to talk about it because they will have solved that problem.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman. Once again Mr. Burton seeks to treat our 
friends in India in an unfair and unjust manner. The House should 
reject this ageless exercise by our colleague. This, like all the 
others over the years, is an ill-advised amendment.
  This Burton Amendment, which would prohibit development assistance to 
India, is a step in the wrong direction.
  The Government of India has consistently been moving at a rapid pace 
to strengthen its ties with the United States and the World. The 
economic and diplomatic relationship between the United States, the 
world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest democracy, can 
only be hurt by successful passage of this Burton amendment. We can not 
and must not ignore the important progress and mutual benefit we have 
achieved in recent years.
  The Government of India has been on a constant pace of change, for 
the last decade. Recent elections have featured world record voter 
turnout, essentially free of violence.
  Mr. Burton, as usual, claims that human rights violations are taking 
place in India. That claim is not supported by the facts. As Members of 
Congress, we must be very careful not to view the Government of India 
as being callous to these alleged human rights violations.
  India has made great strides in their battle to bring its various and 
diverse interests together. Indeed, recent reports by the U.S. State 
Department declare that India continues to make notable and important 
progress with its human rights problems. It would be false and 
misdirected to say that India is not our friend.
  U.S. business in India has grown at an astonishing rate of more than 
50% a year over the past ten years, with the United States becoming 
India's largest trading partner and largest investor.
  India has more than a half century of democratic self rule, and we 
must not break the ties that we have so diligently strived to assemble. 
We must strengthen those ties. That is why we must defeat this latest 
Burton amendment
  We must also note that Indian Americans have become an important and 
active part of the fabric of this Nation. Organized around the country, 
they too use their influence to press for continued improvement in 
their native land.
  Reject this latest Burton Amendment! There is much too much at stake!
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton. This debate seems to 
be an unfortunate rite of summer here in the House. Every year we 
debate a Foreign Operation Appropriations bill and every year the 
gentleman from Indiana tries to cut funding for India, one of our most 
important allies. As in previous years, this attack should be rejected.
  The amendment in question would eliminate programs aimed at improving 
India's development. As my colleagues know, U.S. aid to India is 
primarily used for food, family planning programs, child survival 
programs and infrastructure development. We should be doing all that we 
can to support India's government in stimulating economic development 
and opportunity for the Indian people, not standing in the way of these 
productive efforts.
  Unfortunately, U.S. policy-makers have long neglected this important 
region, one that is home to one-fifth of the world population. That's 
why I applaud the efforts of President Clinton who visited India 
earlier this year and who has invited the Indian Prime Minister to the 
United States later this year.
  There has been good news about India's economic performance in recent 
years; fiscal reforms, market opening and the privatization of state-
owned companies has led to reduced inflation and tariffs as well as a 
reduced budget deficit. The economy's current 6 percent rate of 
expansion puts it among the fastest-growing in the world, as the 
Economist reported earlier last month. India's economic growth 
underlies its enhanced significance politically as a power that will 
play a decisive role for many years to come.
  The U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. 
India continues to reduce and eliminate barriers to trade, and U.S. 
investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to over $15 
billion in 1999.
  Passage of the Burton amendment, however, would be a blow to the 
flourishing bilateral partnership between the United States and India 
and a setback to Indian political and human rights reform.
  As in previous years, the Burton amendment is wrong. It was rejected 
in a bipartisan manner. I urge all of my colleagues to again defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana is 
withdrawn.


             Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

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

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

                    TITLE VII--LIMITATION PROVISIONS

       Sec.__. No funds in this bill may be used in contravention 
     of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds in the foreign 
operations appropriations bill from being used in violation of existing 
laws against the importation of goods made by forced labor; 
specifically, the Tariff Act of

[[Page 14138]]

1930. It is not a new law, but since this act was passed the U.S. 
Government has turned a blind eye to the repeated violations of the 
import of goods made by forced labor overseas.
  Forced labor violates the rights of workers and undermines pro-
democratic forces by providing financial resources and international 
support to the totalitarian dictators under whom they languish. The 
labor system, for instance, in the People's Republic of China, known as 
Lao Gai or reform through labor, imprisons 8 million Chinese in slave 
camps and mental institutions.
  The Lao Gai prison systems continues Mao Zedong's politics of 
despotism. In these work camps prisoners are subjected to beatings, to 
torture, and to near starvation.
  The United States imports $70 billion of goods from China, often 
goods made in these Lao Gai prisons.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in the essence of time and with respect 
to those schedules that have been prearranged, I will be happy to 
accept the gentleman's amendment if we can discontinue debate on the 
subject.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I accept that, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I would say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I have 
serious concerns about the operation of our Nation's assistance 
programs with respect to Ukraine and Russia.
  The gentleman and his subcommittee have been most helpful, but I 
believe there are some remaining items that need attention, 
particularly in the arena of agriculture, where U.S. policy towards 
Russia and Ukraine have lacked primacy, have generally supported the 
old order rather than reform, and have been unrealistic in meeting the 
basic needs of villagers and small holders who are raising the majority 
of food in both nations.
  First, most people know that agriculture depends upon seasons. There 
is a time to plant, a time to nourish, and a time to harvest. No one of 
us can change this natural cycle.
  However, it is my experience that the Agency for International 
Development has not been sufficiently sensitive to these natural 
deadlines when considering applications for program assistance in 
agriculture. Approvals are delayed past planting dates. Termination 
dates are set earlier than harvest dates. It is as if the project is 
being set up to fail because these natural deadlines are being ignored.
  Can the chairman assure me that as we move towards conference on this 
bill, that we can work to be sure that AID focuses more attention on 
agricultural reform in Ukraine and Russia, that it improves the speed 
of its application review process, and that the duration of these 
projects comports with the seasonal deadline?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the 
gentlewoman's concern and will be pleased to work with her to be sure 
that AID makes the improvement in its contracting process that she has 
suggested.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman.
  Secondly, anyone who knows Ukraine knows that its economic future 
will be highly dependent upon a reformed agricultural sector. To fail 
to recognize this fact in any development program is to ignore this 
country's natural strength.
  While I know that the gentleman is not in a position to commit to a 
specific amount, I know that recent aid for agricultural development 
has been declining globally, both in terms of dollars and as a relative 
portion of the AID package.
  Can the chairman give me any assurances that we can work to increase 
the proportion of assistance to agricultural reform efforts in any aid 
package that is provided?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again, I understand 
the gentlewoman's concern. Our committee report supports her approach.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I again thank the chairman.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Russian food aid, the 
Agency for International Development has not placed a high enough 
priority on agricultural and food systems development there.
  Would the chairman agree with me that any food aid provided to Russia 
should be leveraged for greater impact, that any resources generated by 
this aid should be directed toward substantial economic growth and a 
reformed agricultural sector, and that agricultural projects should 
focus on the private sector, especially small-scale producers, small 
hold farmers, and women in order to maximize impact in fostering reform 
and allowing aid to reach the greatest number of people?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I agree with the gentlewoman, we should always use our 
assistance programs in the most effective manner possible.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for his understanding, his 
assistance, his cooperation, his leadership, and his dispatch.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As he 
knows, I have an amendment pending relative to the Panama Canal.
  Given the gentleman's concerns with regard to the impact of the 
amendment and the timeliness of its consideration, there are 
approximately 30 Members who have expressed interest in the issues 
raised by this amendment in that with the abandonment of the United 
States' military presence in that theater, many of us are concerned 
about the threat of drugs coming through Panama into our Nation, as 
well as the inability of us to appropriately respond in the case of 
international defense needs.
  For that reason, I was hoping to condition an appropriation in this 
act, to predicate it upon the good faith negotiations between the 
Government of Panama and the Government of the United States to allow 
the reinitiation of military presence, either at Howard Air Force Base 
or whatever appropriate location may be determined.
  In light of the chairman's concerns about the consequences of this 
amendment, I will not offer the amendment, but wish to seek the 
chairman's agreement and assistance as this bill moves forward to seek 
whatever manner or remedy may be available to us to initiate 
discussions for the reestablishment of some military presence within 
the country.
  I thank the chairman for his courtesies in yielding to me.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman, and we will be happy to work with the gentleman to achieve 
his goals, because we share them.


 Vacating Request for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. 
                               Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with regard to my heretofore discussed 
amendment No. 23, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a 
recorded vote be vacated.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a brief colloquy with 
the

[[Page 14139]]

chairman relative to that issue, and ask the chairman, if he would, to 
see what would be possible to offer some remedy within reasonable means 
that might meet the effects of Congress.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will work with the gentleman 
from Ohio to try to find some legislative solution to the problems that 
exist with the Palestinian Authority and the gentleman's company from 
Ohio, because I happen to believe that the gentleman's company from 
Ohio has a substantial claim that should be paid by the Palestinian 
Authority, if indeed there is a way to do it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not want in 
any way the form of that discussion to have any overtones on the 
importance of what is happening in the talks between Israel and the 
Palestinian Authority. I will defer to the good judgment of the 
chairman.
  I thank the chairman for his consideration.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. No funds in this bill may be used in 
     contravention of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.; popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment simply prohibits money in the bill that 
would be used to fund any action that would contravene the Buy American 
Act.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) for yielding. We accept his amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member of 
the committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment and support the 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote; and, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 48 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment No. 48 offered by Ms. Kaptur:

                               H.R. 4811

                         Offered By: Ms. Kaptur

       Page 132, after line 12, insert the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


         limitation on assistance to the government of ukraine

       Sec. 701. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     assistance to the Government of Ukraine under the heading 
     ``assistance for the independent states of the former soviet 
     union'', is hereby reduced by an amount equal to the amount 
     of any claim outstanding on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act by the United States Government, a United States business 
     enterprise, or a United States private and voluntary 
     organization against the Government of Ukraine or any 
     Ukrainian business enterprise.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
12, 2000, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) reserves a 
point of order.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes on 
her amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically is a limitation amendment, 
limiting assistance to Ukraine reducing it by an amount equal to the 
amount of any claim outstanding on the date of enactment of this act, 
whether that to be a U.S. business enterprise, a U.S. private and 
voluntary organization against the government of Ukraine, or any 
Ukrainian business enterprise.
  It is my intention, as I discuss this, to draw attention to the lack 
of resolution on claims by Land O'Lakes and Pioneer and other such 
claims.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was of the impression that the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I, in the essence of time, I 
sought recognition to strike the last word to give her the ability to, 
I thought, express her views on this subject, which as the gentlewoman 
full well knows, is going to be ruled out of order, and in the essence 
of time I would ask the gentlewoman to keep her comments brief so we 
can get out of Dodge.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do intend to keep 
them brief, but we entered into a colloquy and I appreciate the 
gentleman's forbearance on that, but this was in the form of an 
amendment.
  I wanted to use the opportunity to speak about the lack of repayment 
by Ukraine of various debts that are owed to companies in our country 
and also to speak about U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine, 
particularly as it relates to a sector critical to long-term stability 
in those nations, agriculture and sustainable food production.
  Mr. Chairman, sadly and incredibly, U.S. policy toward Russia and 
Ukraine have ignored agriculture and those nations governments are not 
inclined to pursue a path toward reform without prodding. U.S. policies 
have not only failed to elevate agriculture's importance as a key 
economic and social transformation mechanism; but our actions have 
generally supported the old order, rather than the new, and have been 
seriously deficient in meeting the basic needs of villagers and small 
holders who are raising the majority of food in both nations.
  It is my intent to be very brief; however, I want to state for the 
record that students of history will attest, the economic and social 
systems of the former Soviet state were premised on the production of 
collective farms and the distribution of their earnings to social 
welfare concerns within those countries, everything from schools to 
hospitals. Thus, agriculture was more than a sidebar activity in the 
former Soviet Union. It was the spine of the economy.
  When the Soviet system collapsed, the West made a very serious, and I 
might add continuing mistake, in its efforts to help those nations 
reform and transform. It has largely ignored agriculture. How myopic. 
Any serious effort to transform the economies of those nations must be 
rooted in the countryside.
  Mr. Chairman, not only have the fundamentals of agricultural reform 
been largely absent from U.S. policy initiatives toward Russia and 
Ukraine, some of the steps we have taken have been absolutely wrong-
headed. In Russia, for example, the direct food aid provided through 
AID and USAID has largely supported the very parastatal entities that 
still control production.
  A year ago, when the U.S. Government, without a vote of this 
Congress, sent over $1 billion of food aid to Russia, there was no 
agreement that the proceeds of the sale of those commodities would be 
used for reform in the rural countryside. In fact, the proceeds are 
being deposited in the Russian pension fund, an account over which we 
have no control, no voice, no oversight.

[[Page 14140]]

  Similarly in Ukraine, millions of dollars have been directed to what 
one can politely call the establishment, but not to people desperately 
trying to eke out a living. Take the issue of U.S. tractor sales to 
Ukraine. The sales were conducted through the government of Ukraine. 
Those tractors, which each cost $100,000 more than they would have cost 
in the free enterprise system, could only be afforded by the old 
collectives, not the humble entrepreneurs and women villagers in 
babushkas struggling to restore Ukraine as the breadbasket of that 
region.
  Whether the West likes to admit it or not, the vast majority of food 
being produced in those countries is now occurring on the small holder 
plots, largely tilled by older women. Nothing from our billions of 
dollars have ever reached these deserving people.
  Somebody somewhere better pay attention to what is happening in 
Russian and Ukraine. The West's media is captivated by the goings on in 
Moscow and Kiev and the political intrigue surrounding who the next 
prime minister or president will be.
  I will tell my colleagues, put on your mud boots and walk into the 
countryside where the pain gets deeper. Who is paying attention to the 
fact that 70 percent to 80 percent of the diet of ordinary citizens in 
Russia and Ukraine is bread and potatoes?
  It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to put my statement in the Record. I am going to 
submit everything that has gone wrong in terms of aide assistance to 
Russia and Ukraine since independence was granted there.
  I want to use this opportunity to speak about U.S. policy toward 
Russia and Ukraine, particularly as relates to a sector critical to 
long term stability in those nations--agriculture and sustainable food 
production. Sadly, incredibly, U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine 
have ignored agriculture. And, those nations' governments are not 
inclined to pursue a reform path without prodding.
  U.S. policies have not only failed to elevate agriculture's 
importance as a key to economic and social transformation. But our 
actions have generally supported the old order rather than the new, and 
have been seriously deficient in meeting the basic needs of villagers 
and small holders who are raising the majority of food in both nations.
  As students of history will attest, the economic and social systems 
of the former Soviet state were premised on the production of 
collective farms and the distribution of their earnings to social 
welfare concerns within the state--everything from schools to 
hospitals. Thus, agriculture was more than a sidebar issue in the 
former Soviet Union. It was spine of the economy. When the Soviet 
system collapsed, the west made a very serious--and I might add 
continuing--mistake in its efforts to help those nations reform and 
transform. It has largely ignored agriculture. How myopic. Any serious 
effort to transform the economies of these nations must be rooted in 
the countryside.
  Not only have the fundamentals of agricultural reform been largely 
absent from U.S. policy initiatives toward Russia and Ukraine, some of 
the steps we have taken have been absolutely wrong headed. In Russia, 
for example, the direct food aid provided through AID and USDA has 
largely supported the very parastatal entities that still control 
production. A year ago, when the U.S. government, without a vote of the 
Congress, sent over $1 billion in food aid to Russia, there was no 
agreement that the proceeds of the sale of those commodities would be 
used for reform in the rural countryside. In fact, the proceeds are 
being deposited in the Russian Pension fund--an account over which we 
have no control, no voice, no oversight.
  Similarly, in Ukraine, millions of dollars have been directed to what 
one can politely call the establishment, but not to people desperately 
trying to eke out a living. Take the issue of U.S. tractor sales to 
Ukraine. The sales were conducted through the government of Ukraine. 
Those tractors, which each cost $100,000 more than they would have cost 
in a free enterprise system, could only be afforded by the old 
collectives, not the humble entrepreneurs and women villagers in 
babushkas struggling to restore Ukraine as the breadbasket of that 
region.
  Whether the West likes to admit it or not, the vast majority of food 
being produced in those countries is now occurring on the small holder 
plots, largely tilled by older women. Nothing from our billions of 
dollars have even reached these deserving people.
  Somebody somewhere better pay attention to what is happening in 
Russia and Ukraine. The West's media is captivated by the goings on in 
Moscow and Kiev, and the political intrigue surrounding who the next 
prime minister or president might be. But I will tell you, put on your 
mud boots, and walk into the countryside where the pain gets deeper. 
Who's paying attention to the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the diet of 
ordinary citizens of Russia and Ukraine is bread and potatoes. Caloric 
intake is going down. If the price of bread rises, political unrest is 
not far behind.
  Time and again, the people of those nations go waiting and wanting, 
while assistance from the West misses the mark--
  In Russia, the Russian Rural Credit Fund that could help real Russian 
farmers develop private operations goes waiting and wanting for cash, 
while U.S. assistance flows into government coffers;
  In Ukraine, in 1995, the U.S. government gave $3.6 million in 
commodities through Land O'Lakes to help Ukraine. The proceeds were to 
be used to help Ukrainian agriculture. But it didn't happen. For all 
these years, the U.S. government has tried to settle this matter, the 
latest offer being $1 million for settlement. Promises of payment were 
made last fall. Then last December, I personally asked newly reelected 
President Kuchma to intervene in this matter. Last winter, when I 
traveled to Ukraine, I left a similar request with the Prime Minister's 
office. Promises were made again when I held a meeting this year 
between USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and the Ukrainian Ambassador. But 
these promises have not resulted in performance. Instead, we have seen 
letter after letter, phone call after phone call, argument after 
argument about whether or not the right documents have been exchange or 
the correct contact number has been referenced.
  Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the grandmas in babushkas who till the fields, 
and literally feed that nation, don't even have good shovels or seed. 
They get no real help either from the West or from the government of 
Ukraine. What kind of wrong headedness is this? Frankly, we'd be better 
off to send them seed packets and small rototillers with enough fuel to 
make it through the planting season. It would be more practical and hit 
a home run where it matters.
  Our own Agency of International Development ignores the fact that 
agriculture depends upon seasons. There is a time to plant, a time to 
nourish, and a time to harvest. No one of us can change this natural 
timetable. So why would USAID ignore these natural deadlines when 
Americans attempting to make a difference in agriculture in the field 
face approval delays past planting dates? Or contract termination dates 
set earlier than harvest dates? It appears as if even the meager 
projects addressing rural reform are purposefully set to fail because 
natural deadlines are ignored.
  Let me focus on the amendment relating to Ukraine. It basically is a 
limitation amendment--limiting assistance to Ukraine, reducing it by an 
amount equal to the amount of any claim outstanding on the date of the 
enactment of this Act--whether that be a U.S. business enterprise, a 
U.S. private and voluntary organization against the government of 
Ukraine or any Ukrainian business enterprise.
  It is offered as a way of getting the attention of the government of 
Ukraine to the serious outstanding issues that block full cooperation 
between us, not just in agriculture but as partners in a market 
economy.
  It is my intention to withdraw this amendment this year, in hopes 
that final resolution can be reached on such matters as Land O'Lakes 
and Pioneer Seed. But, I reserve my rights to attach this amendment to 
subsequent legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. GILMAN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the gentlewoman from 
Ohio to withdraw her amendment?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this 
amendment this year, in hopes that final resolution can be reached on 
such matters as Land O'Lakes and Pioneer Seed; but I reserve my rights 
to attach this amendment to subsequent legislation, including perhaps 
legislation emanating from the gentleman's commitment at the 
appropriate point.

[[Page 14141]]


  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebreska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) for bringing up this subject. I think what has happened in 
the latter decade of the 20th century, with respect to our assistance 
programs, internationally and American, to the former Soviet Union, 
certainly including Russia and the Ukraine, has really been a 
tremendous blow.
  It has, I think, been counterproductive for causing them to move to a 
market-oriented economy. It has been counterproductive for democracy. 
In fact, it has contributed further to the corruption that has pervaded 
so many of the former Republics of the Soviet Union, including, 
unfortunately, Ukraine.
  We have, as the gentleman knows, and I am sure the gentlewoman is 
involved directly, so many positive contexts with the people of 
Ukraine, but to see so much of our resources diverted. Recently, it was 
suggested by a reputable source, an independent source in this country, 
that as much as $1 billion to $1.5 billion in assistance, 
international, including American, is diverted each month to private 
bank accounts, at least exported from that country at a time when those 
countries really need to have capital, their own and to attract foreign 
capital.
  We have this huge outflow through Cyprus and other points, and it is 
a robbery of the assets and the potential and the future for the 
Ukrainian people and for the Russian people and for some of the smaller 
republics of the former Soviet Union.
  I think we really have to be more insistent; we need to be more 
careful in having auditing of exactly where these international funds 
have gone. It seems to me in the past we have had too many decisions 
made on supporting various leaders of the former Soviet Union, 
certainly in the case of Yeltsin, when, in fact, we should have been 
building institutions from the bottom up, and working with those 
governors and local officials where, in fact, we have something 
approaching honest government and accounting for the resources 
presented to them by the international community.
  Mr. Chairman, the IMF resources have been misused. In fact, the 
leadership direction to the IMF has come unfortunately from this 
country and from this administration. So I regret greatly that we have 
lost this opportunity in so many of the taxpayers' funds and funds from 
the world's community have been diverted to improper means.
  The gentlewoman raises questions about those Caterpillar tractors. I 
have heard the same story how they ended up in garages of the local 
officials there in a very corrupt process. American companies many 
times are left holding the bills, as well as our taxpayers. So I 
appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this up.
  We need to have reform. We need to be more insistent to make sure 
that the funds we do provide are properly spent and accounted for; and 
I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for 
the remarks. First of all, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) for chairing the Ukrainian caucus, for keeping the 
Ukrainian problem before us in the Congress. I happen to have a large 
Ukrainian American constituency in my own area. I am very much 
concerned about the future of Ukraine and its democratic reforms. A 
great deal has to be done, and we thank the gentlewoman for her making 
certain that the Congress addresses these issues.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) for taking time out of his busy schedule to be here on 
such a critical issue.
  I wanted to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs, for allowing us just this moment. If so many 
billions of dollars were not involved, I would not press to spend a few 
extra moments here this afternoon.
  I wanted to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), for allowing us this time.
  We have had absolutely no other opportunity to bring this to 
international attention than this moment. We think it is the right 
time, and we look forward to working with the authorizing and 
appropriations committees in the future to keep our assistance on a 
short lease and to recover assets that are due to our company and our 
people and to move our aid in the direction of reform in both of those 
very strategic nations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman withdraw her 
amendment?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and I want to commend the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership.
  We have had this issue for our committee over and over again, and I 
know that we are all behind the gentlewoman on this and thank her for 
her leadership.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, we have arrived at the end of the bill, and in 
just a few seconds we are going to rise. I understand that there was a 
ceremony in the Rotunda and that has now ended and Members are now free 
to come back to the Chamber and we can now rise.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the Members of the House that we 
have now a good bill, I know, in the minds of many. Especially in the 
minority it is even a better bill, because they made their points about 
HIPC. I, too, made my points, because within the bill, I had put in 
some of the provisions. I talk about the restrictions on new loans to 
these countries.
  I think all and all we have a good bill at this point, and I hope 
that we will get bipartisan support to send this message on over to the 
Senate where we can get on with this process of the passage of the year 
2001 appropriation bill for foreign operations.
  Mr. Chairman, I would once again like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her many courtesies; and I think, however, 
our balance sheet is a little slanted on my side, because I extended 
her more courtesies than she extended to me. Nevertheless, that is to 
be expected and not in the chauvinistic world. But in the Southern 
world, this is traditional, that Southern men especially are extremely 
courteous to our other staff colleagues.
  I am happy to have had this opportunity during the last 6 years to 
work with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to the members of our 
subcommittee.
  I am happy that we have a bill now that I feel that can be supported 
in a bipartisan way. Even though I thought it was perfect before, I am 
optimistic that now the Senate will agree with me with the 
modifications that have been made that it is now a perfect bill, and 
there will be no reason for a conference; but, nevertheless, we will 
have to see about what happens there.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I want to take this opportunity to

[[Page 14142]]

commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished 
chairman of our Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs, and while on occasion we may not have always 
agreed, we certainly have recognized his outstanding leadership in 
bringing the foreign operations bill to the floor.
  This may be the last occasion in which he does it as chairman of the 
Foreign Ops Committee, and we have valued his hard work throughout the 
years. We want to thank his staff who have been doing such outstanding 
work and also the ranking minority Members, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for 
their outstanding work in foreign operations.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the 
gentleman from Alabama for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say, while I had not intended to comment at all, 
it is difficult to let the time pass by without expressing my deep 
appreciation for the work that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) has done with this subcommittee over the years. We had, to 
say the least, some rough times during this particular appropriations 
year. The leadership that the gentleman has shown has had a huge impact 
in our relations around the world, and I appreciate his being patient 
with me as I try to provide input. I would like to express my 
appreciation as well to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
for her work and leadership on this very tough area.
  Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt that very few of our constituents 
across the country are very excited about spending their taxpayer 
dollars on a thing called foreign assistance. The gentleman from 
Alabama has been able to provide a backdrop that involves questions, 
for example, that relate to the child welfare or development fund that 
have cast a different kind of shadow.
  Indeed, the public is responding very positively to the positive role 
that we can play in strengthening democracy around the world as well as 
helping especially poor people and poor children around the world.
  For the leadership and work that the gentleman from Alabama has done, 
I want him to know I very much appreciate his effort.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. Chairman, I might just convey to the audience that might be 
watching this that this is not an obituary. I am not going to die, and 
I am not going to go away. I am going to be back again next year 
because I have no opposition; and, as a result, I am going to be the 
chairman of another committee. I think whatever committee I get, it is 
going to be a committee whereby I will have some chips to pass around 
this House, and maybe it will not be as difficult as this has been.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as this is the close of this bill, I rise to commend 
once again the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his 
distinguished leadership of our subcommittee.
  As my colleagues can tell, we do not always agree. In fact, a good 
deal of the time we do not agree. But we always have good communication 
because that is really what is important for us to develop a bill.
  Now, it is interesting to me that the gentleman from Alabama said at 
the start of this that he had developed a perfect bill. He saw no room 
for improvement, and it was a perfect bill. Now today, this afternoon, 
he is saying now we have a perfect bill, a more perfect bill. So we are 
getting there. Now we are going to get the most perfect bill as we go 
along in the process.
  I say that, despite the tremendous regard that I have for the 
gentleman, and he knows that, I still am in opposition to the bill and 
would encourage a no vote on the part of my colleagues.
  While we have made some progress in two very important areas, part of 
the funding that we need for debt relief and some additional funding 
for global aid, and those were significant, we certainly did not go the 
full distance on the debt relief, and there are many other deficiencies 
in funding in the bill.
  So, as we take a step down this path, I want to urge my colleagues to 
support the President, to sustain a veto by voting no on the bill.
  But back to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). Perhaps the 
gentleman from Alabama will be a chairman, perhaps he will be a ranking 
member, that is a whole new world that is open to him, and he will know 
then what it is like. Again, hopefully he will receive the same 
treatment as ranking member that I have received from him.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, no doubt the gentlewoman will be the 
House Whip, so then there will be no question that neither one of us 
will be here in any position of authority.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's optimism in that regard.
  But I do want to say that our staffs, and we have acknowledged and 
recognized them at the beginning of the bill, have worked in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  I would not be taking this time except for my great esteem that I 
have for the gentleman from Alabama. People should know what a 
gentleman he is, how open he is to our views, even though he does not 
always accept them, and that he sincerely represents the point of view 
that he brings to the table without guile. So we share that sincerity.
  We come from completely different districts, mine are more globally 
oriented, although, from all I can see, in Mobile and looking South, I 
think the gentleman is going to have a hard time sustaining the idea 
that we should have a small international relations budget.
  As my colleagues know, this is about humanitarian assistance. It is 
about export finance, and it is about our national security. So those 
are all very important initiatives and worthy of support.
  But in any case, again, back to the gentleman from Alabama, he is 
great. He has done a great job over the last 6 years. It has been a 
pleasure to work with him. I think our staffs have worked very well 
together. Perhaps I will have more to say if we ever bring a conference 
report to the floor.
  I want to also say a word about the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
our ranking member. I think our committee is very excellently served by 
them and particularly on this subcommittee where they both have so much 
experience.
  With that again, I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan) and urge a no vote on his bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, often on this floor, good people can have strong 
disagreements about substance, and we certainly do in this bill today. 
Let me stipulate that I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), the subcommittee chair, is a very good person, as is the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking minority member. 
We have very strongly differing views of how adequately this bill meets 
our responsibilities.
  I think the distinguished gentleman from Alabama has done a terrific 
job as subcommittee chairman the last 6 years given the fact his hands 
have been tied most of the time by budget resolutions. I do hope that 
he gets the best possible ranking minority slot on whatever 
subcommittee he wishes in the next Congress.
  But having said that, let me explain my concerns about this bill. 
Despite the increase in funding for debt relief, this bill still falls 
over $200 million, almost $250 million short of the administration 
request for debt relief. When

[[Page 14143]]

one includes the supplemental, the International Development 
Organization is almost $300 million short of the administration 
request.
  We still have substantial shortages in the African Development Fund, 
the Asian Development Fund, the African Development Bank, which is only 
about half funded at half the level the administration is requesting. 
There are a number of other shortfalls as well.
  I think we need to understand that, despite everything that this bill 
does so far, it still does not lay a glove on the major problem which 
confronts the international community in terms of public health. In 
1999 alone, 480,000 children under 15 died from AIDS. Approximately 
430,000 of those deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Around the 
world, as was noted on this floor several times last night, 1,700 
children under 15 years old are, in effect, newly infected with HIV 
every single day. There will be some 44 million children in the 34 most 
affected countries who will be orphaned by that disease within the next 
10 to 15 years.
  I think the world has no idea the human carnage that is in store. 
When I look at this bill, even with the adoption of the two amendments 
that were adopted on the floor, this still falls far short of what is 
required for a Presidential signature. The administration is still 
opposed to the bill, and I certainly do not intend to vote for the 
bill, and I would urge Members to oppose it as well.
  I would also ask that, when we vote on this bill, that we remember 
that we have obligations to our constituents, to our taxpayers, and to 
the fellow human beings with whom we share this planet.
  In my view, this bill does not meet our obligation on all three 
fronts. America does not understand how much it is vulnerable to a 
health epidemic because of the shortfall of funds that we are providing 
in crucial international and domestic health funds. I hope that we do 
not find out over the next 20 years just how vulnerable we are. But I 
believe that the Labor-Health appropriations bill, which we passed 
earlier, and this bill both fall very far short of defending our 
taxpayers and our citizens from that problem.
  I think this bill generally, especially with respect to the 
International Development Association, is needlessly unresponsive to 
the needs of the poorest countries in the world. For that reason, I 
would urge a no vote on this bill and, at the proper time, will have a 
motion to recommit with instructions.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), as has so many other of my colleagues, for the tremendous 
job that he has done shepherding this bill through the process, getting 
us through the subcommittee and the full committee, and getting to 
first base here in the House. We will move on, then, to the other body. 
We will round second, then we will round third, and we will come home 
with a bill that is probably not as perfect as the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said that it was, but it is a bill that has to 
be passed.
  I also want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the role that they 
have played, and I thank all of the Members who took part in this great 
debate all day yesterday and most of today.
  We have talked about a lot of issues. Some of them even were about 
appropriations, believe it or not. Most of them were authorizing 
issues. But, nevertheless, this was a good vehicle. We had good debate. 
For the most part, the Members were very respectful of each other and 
that is great.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) will play a major role in 
the balance of this Congress and in the next Congress and as many 
Congresses as he chooses to be here, because he is an obvious leader, 
and he is recognized as such. His ability to move this bill, which is 
one of the most difficult bills to pass, is proof positive of what I 
have said.
  I want to compliment all of our colleagues in the House, Mr. 
Chairman, because this, believe it or not, is the 11th appropriations 
bill. This is only July. This is the 11th appropriations bill that will 
go through the House not including the supplemental, which we have 
already passed and conferenced earlier. So I am proud of this House of 
Representatives.
  The differences are obvious. That is why there is 435 of us to 
express these differences. But this House has done a good job in 
meeting its constitutional responsibility to move appropriations bills.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I want to compliment the gentleman 
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for an outstanding job, and I 
guarantee him that he is going to be chairman of something very, very 
important. In response to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we 
are hoping that he continues to be the ranking minority member for a 
long time, emphasis on ``minority.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to oppose the motion of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to recommit this bill and to get to final 
passage and send the bill on to the other body.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 298, 
noes 125, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 399]

                               AYES--298

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)

[[Page 14144]]


     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--125

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Snyder
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boucher
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Forbes
     Markey
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Mollohan
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Wise

                              {time}  1535

  Ms. DeGETTE, Ms. KAPTUR, and Messrs. PALLONE, TOWNS, LEWIS of 
California, and JEFFERSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PHELPS, THOMPSON of California, SKEEN, Ms. McCARTHY of 
Missouri, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. KUCINICH, BERRY, MORAN of 
Virginia, NADLER, HINCHEY and MEEHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001''.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill. This 
bill is more than 10 percent below the President's request overall, and 
it severely underfunds programs that are critical to our national 
security and continuing global leadership.
  The bill does include some very necessary funding. The $2.82 billion 
in aid to Israel included in this year's bill is even more important 
today, as it demonstrates our enduring support for Israeli and 
Palestinian efforts to seek an end to their bitter conflict--efforts 
that are even now under way at Camp David. I strongly support the peace 
process, and my lack of support for this bill does not reflect anything 
to the contrary. I believe that U.S. aid to Israel is critically 
important to push this process forward and to ensure that Israel 
remains strong in the face of regional military threats. But as much as 
I value the prospect of peace, I cannot support a bill that falls short 
of our commitments in so many crucial areas.
  I heard one of my colleagues say on the floor yesterday that he 
didn't understand why the debate focused so much on the needs of people 
all around the world, and not about the needs of people in this 
country. After all, he said, we were elected by citizens of this 
country to represent them--not to represent the citizens of Mozambique 
or India or Kosovo.
  First of all, to those who think--as many Americans do--that we spend 
too much on foreign aid, bear this in mind: Foreign assistance makes up 
only .6 percent of all federal expenditures in the fiscal 2001 budget. 
That is only .11 percent of the total U.S. economy, a level tied for 
the lowest percentage on record.
  It's true that the funds in this bill are intended to help those in 
need around the world. I think this is good. In fact, public opinion 
shows that there has been no decline in support for international 
engagement in the wake of the Cold War. Just the opposite--the public 
strongly supports foreign aid, supports a stronger United Nations, and 
supports contributing our fair share to peacekeeping missions. I say we 
have an unprecedented opportunity--and indeed, a responsibility, as the 
richest country in the world--to provide global leadership through the 
spread of democracy and the promise of economic growth.
  But foreign assistance isn't just about helping our global 
neighbors--it is also about guaranteeing our own security. Development 
assistance helps level the playing field by reducing economic 
instability, poverty, and disease--all of which contributes to a 
healthier and safer planet. In our increasingly interconnected world, 
we cannot afford to pretend that adverse events in other countries and 
regions have no bearing on the United States. They do. Devoting 
adequate resources to foreign assistance is a proactive investment that 
will pay off in preventing more expensive crises in the future.
  I say to my colleagues who question the importance of foreign aid, 
this bill doesn't reflect the best of what America can and should offer 
to the rest of the world, and in fact, doesn't even reflect some 
priorities Congress has already set.
  Last year Congress authorized and fully funded bilateral debt 
cancellation, and authorized the IMF to revalue part of its gold 
reserves to write off its debts. Last year Congress also pledged to 
work toward a new process for debt relief and lending at the World Bank 
and IMF that includes greater transparency, participation, and poverty 
reduction. This year we were supposed to finish the job by canceling 
more bilateral debt and funding a contribution to help write off 
additional multilateral debt--which is necessary to leverage 
contributions from other countries. Fulfilling our commitment to last 
year's debt relief agreement would provide incentive to poor indebted 
countries to take the steps necessary to qualify for debt relief 
programs. Instead, today we were going to vote on a bill that provided 
just $82 million for debt relief for some of the poorest countries in 
the world--only 16 percent of the total amount the President requested 
for debt relief.
  I recognize the bill has been improved slightly.
  The House did approve an amendment to boost funds for debt relief 
that will help to keep us on track with our commitment to easing the 
plight of so many nations. I am hopeful that these funds will remain 
intact as the bill moves forward. This is good, but we should have done 
more.
  In addition, there was some improvement regarding funding for AIDS. 
Before it was amended today, the bill would have cut the request for 
funding to fight the global AIDS pandemic by almost 20 percent. This 
would have been a devastating cut at a time when the spread of HIV/AIDS 
poses a serious threat to nations around the world, especially those in 
Sub-Saharan Africa. By 2010, at least 44 million children will have 
lost one or both parents in the 34 countries most severely affected by 
HIV/AIDS. Coming less than a week after the global AIDS conference in 
South Africa, this shortcoming in the bill appeared all the most 
glaring.
  The passage today of an amendment to boost funding for HIV/AIDS 
programs is good news, and I am hopeful that these funds will remain 
intact as the bill moves forward. But again, we should have done more.
  For example, the bill cuts by 30 percent the request for funding for 
international family planning programs, and contains the ``global gag 
rule,'' despite valiant efforts to strike the language on the part of 
my colleagues Ms. Lowey and Mr. Greenwood and many others. The ``gag 
rule'' provision prohibits private organizations in foreign countries 
to which we provide aid from participating in the political process of 
their own country using their own funds. This policy restricts the free 
speech of international non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, it 
undermines our own foreign policy objective of democracy promotion by 
placing restrictions on these organizations that would be 
unconstitutional in the United States. International family planning 
programs save the lives of women and children worldwide, reduce the 
incidence of abortion, and raise the social and economic well-being of 
women all over the globe.

[[Page 14145]]

  The ``global gag rule'' is simply wrong, and--I believe--it is an 
embarrassment to us as a country.
  I am also concerned about the bill's 40 percent cut in the 
Administration's request for contributions to multilateral development 
banks, which would result in substantial reductions in lending for 
health, clean water supplies, education programs, and infrastructure 
needed to reduce poverty in the world's poorest countries. 
Specifically, the bill cuts funding by 32 percent for the International 
Development Association, a main source of resources to battle AIDS, and 
additional cuts are made in funding for the African Development Bank, 
the African Development Fund, and the Asian Development Fund.
  Further, the bill doesn't provide sufficient funds to battle the 
global threat of tuberculosis, a disease that is endangering the health 
and lives of people all over the globe as deadly strains of multiple-
drug resistant TB emerge. Tuberculosis kills two million people each 
year and is the greatest killer of people with HIV/AIDS worldwide, 
accounting for 40 percent of AIDS death in Asian and Africa. Especially 
as the HIV pandemic is exacerbating the rise of TB, I believe that the 
$55 million provided in this bill for international TB control is 
insufficient.
  Finally, I had hoped to vote to support an amendment for an 
additional $15 million for the microcredit program, which provides 
small loans to the very poor for the start-up or expansion of small 
business ventures. These loans have helped to promote economic growth 
in some of the most poverty-stricken regions in the world. 
Unfortunately, this amendment was withdrawn, and I remain concerned 
that this bill doesn't provide sufficient funds of this important 
program.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the overall levels and in 
the priorities reflected in this legislation. We can and should do 
better, and because we haven't, I cannot support this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Bill. I deeply believe that foreign 
assistance is a cornerstone of American foreign policy and diplomacy 
and I have serious concerns that passing a bill this underfunded would 
be determental to America's strategic interests around the world.
  At $2 billion below the President's request, this bill is 
irresponsible. The dramatic cuts to debt relief, HIV/AIDS funding, and 
the restrictions on international family planning programs, would 
imperil millions of women and children. The cuts to microcredit 
lending, International Development Assistance, and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, would bleed dry projects that are a proven 
success for uplifting the poorest families in the world. The 
consequences of abandoning these programs are severe. Diseases know no 
borders. Overpopulation is a burden on the infrastructure of the entire 
world. Ignoring these issues is a threat to our own health and 
environment, and our national security.
  At the outset, all the funding requested to support the Middle East 
Peace Process was included in this bill. Aid for Israel and the Middle 
East has always been my highest foreign aid priority, but the fact that 
these funds had to be compromised for critical increases to provide 
funding for debt relief and HIV/AIDS demonstrates how cash strapped 
this bill truly is. I am confident that all of the Foreign Military 
Financing for Middle East countries will be restored in conference, but 
we must also focus on increasing our commitment to the stability of 
other regions as well.
  Assistance for the politically fragile states in the Former Soviet 
Republics, the Central Asian Republics, and the Balkans is drastically 
below the Administration's request. The bill slashes the Expanded 
Threat Reduction Initiative, which works to prevent the transfer of 
Russian nuclear technology to rogue states, for the second year in a 
row. Furthermore, the attack on debt relief translates into an assault 
on the Latin American and African countries that are struggling to 
implement drastic economic and democratic reforms.
  There are some who believe that we can vote for this bill now and 
threaten to vote against it later if it does not improve. I believe we 
cannot settle for anything less than a better bill. This is only the 
beginning of the process and we should not have to settle for less 
before we go to conference with the Senate. The Republican leadership 
has crafted an untenable bill and I hope that my no vote on this point 
will strengthen the Administration's hand so it can get adequate 
funding for these important priorities, in addition to full funding for 
Israel and our Middle East priorities.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811, the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
  There are many good things in this bill. For example, the aid to 
Israel included in the bill is an important step in maintaining 
Israel's security in a particularly unstable part of the world. It is 
paramount that we continue to stand by Israel, especially as historic 
peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians are 
simultaneously taking place just a few miles from this Capitol at Camp 
David.
  Unfortunately, aid in the bill does not go far enough for other 
countries desperately in need, especially in the continents of Africa 
and Latin America. The bill contains only $82 million of the $472 
million requested for debt relief. It will not even provide enough 
resources to enable two countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, who have met 
all necessary conditions to obtain debt relief, to procure it. If we 
are to have a stable world, we must help those countries that need it 
most. To do otherwise only invites conflict.
  Of particular concern to me is the lack of adequate funding to fight 
the AIDS epidemic that is currently devastating the continent of 
Africa, as well as other regions of the world. The bill only allocates 
$202 million of the $244 requested by the President to fight this 
horrible disease. We have turned out back on Africa for too long, and 
AIDS will not wait for us to find our consciences.
  Finally, the bill includes a modified version of the anti-choice 
``Mexico City'' policy, which prohibits funding of any private foreign 
non-governmental and multilateral organizations that perform abortions 
or lobby to change abortion laws in foreign counties.
  For these reasons, and the fact that the bill is simply too 
underfunded, I oppose this bill.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, today I reluctantly voted 
against H.R. 4811, the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
  I did so for a very specific reason: this proposal contains some 
direct aid to the government of Colombia. In February of last year, a 
member of my district's Menominee Indian Nation was brutally murdered 
in that country. This woman, Ingrid Washinawatok, was in Colombia as 
part of a peaceful educational effort when she was kidnapped and killed 
by the Marxist terrorists of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 
(FARC).
  Since Ms. Washinawatok's murder, Colombian President Andres Pastrana 
has said he is unwilling to extradite those responsible for her death 
to the United States to be tried under U.S. anti-terrorism laws. This 
refusal flies in the face of the cooperative relations our nations have 
enjoyed in the past and directly contradicts legislation I authored on 
the subject--legislation that passed the House last year by a unanimous 
vote. That measure called on the Colombian government to extradite Ms. 
Washinawatok's killers to the United States for trial as soon as 
possible.
  I would also note that some months ago, I specifically asked U.S. 
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey for help in this matter during a 
congressional hearing. He has not responded to the specific questions I 
posed to him.
  In my opinion, if Colombia wishes to continue receiving significant 
U.S. aid, it must be willing to cooperate with us on key matters such 
as this. I hope that my vote against a foreign aid bill that otherwise 
has much in it to support will be seen as a modest message to Colombia. 
It is my further hope that withholding aid to the Colombians will push 
their government to reconsider the folly of their decision not to 
extradite the murdering terrorists who killed Ingrid Washinawatok.
  I offer this statement today because this bill does contain several 
positive provisions that certainly deserve support. These positive 
measures include funding to help bring permanent peace and stability to 
the Middle East. In particular, this proposal would send needed aid to 
support those nations, like Israel, who share our democratic values and 
with whom we have forged loyal strategic friendship. This is funding I 
would have been pleased to support--unfortunately, the mitigating 
circumstances with regard to Colombia precluded me from doing so. While 
I could not vote to pass this bill in its current form, I hope my 
reasons and intentions are now more clear.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this bill. 
While I will support this legislation, I am concerned that this bill 
short-changes the United States' foreign policy initiatives. This bill 
makes large cuts in funding for programs which most directly affect the 
poorest countries in the world--cuts which disproportionately affect 
African and Latin American countries. Further, the bill drastically 
cuts funding for international financial institutions that provide 
developmental loans to poor countries. This legislation also cuts 
funding designated for international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment 
and codifies the ``Mexico City'' restrictions on international family 
planning funding.
  I am pleased, however, that the House approved two amendments to 
address some of

[[Page 14146]]

the funding problems and helps to make this bill better. I strongly 
supported the amendment offered by my colleague, Ms. Waters, to 
increase funding for the HIPC Trust Fund at a level equal to the 
President's request. It is a critical victory that the Waters amendment 
was approved, because passage of the debt relief provisions in the 
underlying bill represent an unacceptable amount.
  As approved by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 4811 provides 
$82 million, or only 16 percent of the President's request for debt 
relief for some of the poorest countries of the world. As a member of 
the House Banking Committee, I am disappointed that the Leadership did 
not make more of a commitment to debt relief, especially in light of 
the accomplishments of my colleague and Chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Jim Leach. Last year, with his strong leadership, the 
Banking Committee approved H.R. 1095, legislation which took an 
important step in relieving some of the debt loads carried by the 
world's most economically distressed nations. While some of the most 
important provisions of H.R. 1095 were realized last year, the FY2001 
Administration request is desperately needed to expand the debt relief 
effort. If the Waters amendment had not been approved, the low level of 
funding including in this bill would have jeopardized the HIPC 
initiative because it may have led other bilateral donors to reduce 
their contributions. I am pleased with the passage of the Waters 
amendment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to ensure that meaningful debt relief can be 
achieved by the world's most impoverished nations.
  I also strongly supported passage of the Lee amendment to increase 
funds for international efforts to address the global HIV/AIDS crisis. 
The recent 13th International AIDS Conference in South Africa 
highlighted the fact that the epidemic in the rest of the world is 
threatening to bring down entire nations. In many of the countries 
throughout the world it has crippled the entire infrastructures; 
education, economic, and national security. It is critical that we 
invest our resources in an effort to turn back the tide. Regrettably, 
the Foreign Operations funding bill would have cut the President's 
request for funding the fight against the global AIDS crisis by almost 
20 percent. This cut would have been devastating, especially so at a 
time when HIV/AIDS poses a serious threat to the stability of lesser 
developed nations around the world particularly in Africa. In sub-
Saharan Africa, the percentage of adults who have been infected with 
HIV is 20 percent or higher. With today's passage of the Lee amendment, 
I am hopeful that funds to fight the global AIDS pandemic can begin to 
make a difference and save thousands of lives throughout the world.
  While I have strong reservations about the underlying bill, I am 
pleased with $2.9 billion in U.S. aid provided to Israel. U.S. aid to 
Israel is one of America's most cost-effective foreign policy 
investments. The economic and military aid that America provides Israel 
serves the interests of both countries by promoting peace, security, 
and trade. Aid to Israel is an essential and efficient means of 
strengthening the Middle East's only democracy. Israel stands out as 
the only steadfast ally that supports U.S. foreign policy and military 
actions and votes with the U.S. and the U.N. more than any other 
country. Aid to Israel supports American diplomatic efforts in 
promoting a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The 
continuity of U.S. aid sends a powerful signal to potential adversaries 
that a negotiated settlement with Israel is the only option since the 
U.S. commitment to Israel is unwavering.
  For my state of Texas, exports to Israel are particularly important. 
Israel has become a world leader in high-technology, agriculture, 
medicine and education. Realizing the great potential for trade and 
cooperation with Israel in these and many other fields, several states, 
including Texas, have established joint exchange programs with Israel. 
Since 1984, when Texas became the first state to set up and promote 
bilateral trade and technological cooperation, more than 20 states have 
followed suit. These agreements have resulted in the opening up of 
trade offices in Israel, creating new jobs and opportunities for the 
people of Texas and Israel.
  Virtually all U.S. aid to Israel--economic and military--helps Israel 
meet its security needs. As other countries in the region enlarge and 
modernize their arsenals, this assistance gives Israel the means to 
obtain expensive, advanced American weaponry that it needs to defend 
itself. U.S. aid reduces the risk of war in the Middle East by 
sustaining Israel's qualitative military advantage over the combined 
military forces of its adversaries who have an overwhelming numerical 
advantage. By keeping Israel's army second to none in the region, this 
direct aid deters aggressors from attacking Israel without an American 
military presence, which Israel has never sought.
  The U.S. aid package contained in the FY2001 Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill is especially critical to Israel this year. As 
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak prepares to meet with President 
Clinton and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat at Camp David 
this week to discuss final status issues, U.S. support for Israel and 
her security needs becomes more critical than ever.
  As the Camp David peace summit is ongoing, I think it is appropriate 
to applaud the courage of the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who 
has withstood a very difficult term in office. In recent weeks, three 
of his coalition members have broken away or resigned because of his 
efforts to seek a lasting peace agreement. Even at this time of 
internal political tension in Israel, it is clear that Prime Minister 
Barak traveled to Camp David with a profound sense of responsibility. 
He understands that he has a mandate from the voters, the citizens of 
Israel to do all that he can to establish peace, not for just for those 
who would benefit now, but for the children and for those not yet born. 
I am hopeful that Mr. Barak and PLO Chairman Arafat can find a way to 
address the critical issues with a respect for all sides that can 
result in a true, lasting peace for the Middle East.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that foreign assistance, which represents 
less than 1 percent of the entire federal budget, is often politically 
unpopular. However, at a time when the United States, having won both 
the cold war and the economic war, reigns supreme as the sole economic 
and military superpower and the leader of the free world, it has become 
incumbent upon us to take a leadership role in pursuing peace and 
prosperity for the less fortunate in the world. Further, I believe it 
is in our own best interest to lead the other free and democratic 
nations of the world in combating poverty and disease--which ravages 
many parts of the less developed world--and poses a significant future 
threat to stability. With that in mind, I hope--as the appropriations 
process moves forward--that the defects in the underlying bill can be 
corrected.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, on July 13, 2000, the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill, H.R. 4811, came to the House floor for a vote. I 
reluctantly vote for this bill for the sole reason of moving the 
foreign affairs platform forward.
  I believe H.R. 4811 is a bad bill for various reasons. It 
appropriates a total of $13.3 billion for fiscal year 2001--$1.9 
billion or 12% below the Administration's request and $451 million less 
than the fiscal year 2000 funding level. This bill makes large cuts in 
funding for programs which most directly affect the poorest countries 
in the world--cuts that disproportionately affect African and Latin 
American countries--and contains only $82 million of the $472 million 
request for multilateral debt relief assistance. Further, the bill 
drastically cuts international financial institution funding that 
provides interest-free loans to poor countries. H.R. 4811 cuts $42 
million from international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, a cut I 
find deplorable.
  Although this bill is badly flawed in many ways, I believe the best 
way to address those problems is to move it forward and express my 
concerns directly to the conferees. If the bill is reported out of 
conference with my concerns left unaddressed, I will support the 
President's veto.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of both the 
Helsinki Commission and the House International Relations Subcommittee 
on Foreign Operations and Human Rights, I am particularly supportive of 
many portions of this Foreign Operations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. The 
section on ``Assistance to Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'' is 
one of the items in which I have a strong interest. This assistance has 
made a difference in many countries.
  Given the fact that the bill leaves FY 2001 assistance at FY 2000 
levels, I want to state that, in southeastern Europe, our priority list 
should begin with a focus on the need for democratic change to Serbia. 
The people of Serbia deserve it; right now they are facing a major 
crackdown by the Milosevic regime on their basic rights and freedoms. 
Democratic change in Serbia is in the U.S. interest. Building democracy 
and prosperity throughout the region, including in Kosovo and Bosnia, 
would then be easier, making our assistance there more effective. Until 
Milosevic is stopped, we face the possibility of more conflict in the 
region, and the need for additional millions of dollars for 
humanitarian aid, reconstruction and possibly military intervention in 
both a peacemaking and a peacekeeping capacity.
  In addition to helping initiate a long-needed democratic transition 
in Serbia, this assistance could bring support for Montenegro, 
Macedonia, and Croatia, now that the relatively

[[Page 14147]]

new governments of these republics have learned the value of embracing 
multi-ethnic cooperation and tolerance, along with cooperation with the 
international community. Mr. Chairman, we should prioritize assistance 
to those who seek to make the right decisions.
  I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee report language states 
its support for the funding levels requested by the President for 
Montenegro, as well as the allocation of $350,000 for an OSCE effort to 
facilitate contacts with democratic forces in Serbia and Montenegro. In 
the near future, the International Relations Committee should mark-up 
similar provisions as part of H.R. 1064, the Serbia and Montenegro 
Democracy Act of 2000, which I introduced in early March of last year. 
I thank the Committee for this report language.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4811) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 546, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4811 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with an amendment to reduce 
     the Asian Development Fund and increase the African 
     Development Fund as follows:
       On page 40, line 23 after the dollar amount insert: 
     ``decreased by $5,000,000)'', and
       On page 41, line 5 after the dollar amount insert: 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I do not intend to 
ask for a rollcall vote again in order to save time, but I do want 
Members to understand what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, shortly I will be asking Members to vote against final 
passage of this bill because, with all of the amendments that were 
adopted today, this bill still falls $224 million short of what is 
needed on the debt relief front. It falls some $270 million short of 
funding the administration's request on the International Development 
Association, or IDA. It funds only one-half the Asian Development Fund 
and only one-half the African Development Bank.
  The Peace Corps is $17 million short of the administration's request. 
The Global Environmental Facility, which has a request for $176 
million, is funded only at $36 million. The InterAmerican Fund, which 
was requested at a $20 million level, is funded in fact at only $10 
million. There are a variety of other problems, as well. And so, I urge 
Members to vote no until we can fix these problems in conference.
  What this motion to recommit will do is to try to add to the points 
made in the debate last night on Africa. The fact is there will be over 
40 million children who will be made orphans over the next few years in 
Africa because of AIDS.
  Taking that into account, this recommittal motion would simply cut $5 
million from the Asian Development Fund and increase the African 
Development Fund by $5 million correspondingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, let me ask my colleagues to vote against the recommittal 
motion. We have had two long days of debate. There has been some 
victories on the Republican side and some victories on the minority 
side. I think, though, that we have a good vehicle that we can address 
even some of the concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
mentioned, some of the deficiencies that are here and admittedly are 
here, but it is the best that we could do under the deck of cards that 
have been used to deal us this hand. This is the best we can do.
  I think the distributions that we have made are fair and equitable. I 
pledge to those of us that are concerned about such things as the Peace 
Corps, and my colleagues know my strong support for them, that if 
additional allocations are made during this process, we are going to 
address the very concerns that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
is concerned about.
  But his motion to recommit transfers from the Asian Development Fund 
$5 million and sends it to the African Development Fund, and I think 
that we should not do that at this time.
  I urge a no vote on the recommittal and a favorable vote on final 
passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 185, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 400]

                               YEAS--239

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon

[[Page 14148]]


     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boucher
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Forbes
     Markey
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Mollohan
     Smith (WA)
     Vento
     Wise

                              {time}  1559

  Mr. SALMON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________