[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14271-14316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cantor). Pursuant to House Resolution 
199 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. 2506.

                              {time}  1035


                     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. 2506) making appropriations for foreign operations, 
export financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002, 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 Thursday, July 
19, 2001, the bill had been read through page 1, line 6.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE


                export-import bank of the united states

       The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized 
     to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in 
     accordance with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none 
     of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be 
     used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the 
     export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any 
     country other than a nuclear-weapon state as defined in 
     Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
     Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance 
     under this Act that has

[[Page 14272]]

     detonated a nuclear explosive after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.


                         subsidy appropriation

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, 
     and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the 
     Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $753,323,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2020 for the disbursement of 
     direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants 
     obligated in fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act or any prior Act appropriating funds for foreign 
     operations, export financing, or related programs for tied-
     aid credits or grants may be used for any other purpose 
     except through the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph are made available 
     notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the Export Import Bank Act 
     of 1945, in connection with the purchase or lease of any 
     product by any East European country, any Baltic State or any 
     agency or national thereof.


               Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

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

       Amendment No. 60 offered by Mr. Visclosky:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``subsidy 
     appropriation'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``administrative 
     expenses'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``child survival and 
     health programs fund''--
       (1) after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(increased 
     by $18,000,000)''; and
       (2) in the 4th proviso--
       (A) after the dollar amount allocated for vulnerable 
     children, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)''; and
       (B) after the dollar amount allocated for HIV/AIDS, insert 
     ``(increased by $13,000,000)''.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, what does the amendment that I and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) are offering do today? Our 
amendment will cut $3 million from the Ex-Im Bank's administrative 
expenses and $15 million for the Bank's subsidy appropriations.
  I would, first of all, point out to all of my colleagues that the 
remaining subsidies and dollars in this bill for the Ex-Im Bank would 
still be $100 million more than the President of the United States 
requested in his budget this year. So even given the cut that the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I seek, we will be over 
the President's request by $100 million.
  It is my understanding that with the change in how we will score for 
loan subsidies, that the range estimated to be provided under this bill 
will be between $12 and $12.5 billion compared to about $10.5 this 
year.
  Why are we offering this amendment? We are offering this amendment 
because last year, over the objections of the administration and many 
Members of this House, the Ex-Im Bank approved an $18 million loan 
guarantee to Benxi Iron and Steel in China.
  This loan increases Benxi's hot roll steel capacity by 11.5 million 
metric tons at a time when the world capacity is in excess of 280 
million tons. Benxi Steel is currently involved in an antidumping case 
before the International Trade Commission because the Department of 
Commerce has already found that Benxi has dumped steel, and their 
margin of dumping on hot roll carbon steel dumping is 67.44 percent. 
This is also the highest margin found by the Commerce Department of six 
Chinese companies currently being investigated.
  The American Iron and Steel Institute in April of last year wrote to 
the Ex-Im Bank and explained that China is increasing its government 
subsidies to steel in preparation for that country's entry into the 
WTO.
  What is the consequence of this loan guarantee? This is a bad loan, 
and it has put American citizens out of work. Since 1998, 23,000 steel 
workers have lost their jobs. We now have 19 steel companies that are 
in bankruptcy, interestingly enough, one of whom declared bankruptcy 
last Monday when the Ex-Im Bank said they should revise some of their 
rules as to how these loan guarantees are made.
  Within those companies, 42,556 Americans are now in jeopardy. Over 21 
percent of all the steel capacity in the United States today is in 
bankruptcy; and, again, I emphasize there is already a 280-million ton 
excess capacity on the world market; and the Ex-Im Bank completely 
ignored that.
  The industry has done everything possible to help itself. They have 
modernized. They have invested billions of dollars. They have closed 30 
million tons of steel in the United States of America.
  Hot roll products today sell for less than they did 20 years ago. 
Where are these employees and these bankrupt companies? They are in 
States like New York, Georgia, Connecticut, Alabama, Missouri, South 
Carolina, Minnesota, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, 
Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, West Virginia, Texas, Utah, and now the 
State of California.
  I find it interesting that Monday of last week, the week when people 
assumed this amendment would be debated in the House of 
Representatives, the President of the Ex-Im Bank proposed that they 
would sharpen their criteria in consideration of loans such as this. 
The President of the Bank said that they should apply to all products 
where there could be conceivable oversupply with the potential of 
harming domestic industry. What a terrific coincidence.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I and others are 
offering an amendment today. Last Monday, the Ex-Im Bank found 
religion. The fact is, under their rules and under their policy 
handbook, they do not have to change the rules. The rules say they 
never should have made that loan guarantee in the first place, and they 
ignored their own handbook.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the gentleman has 
accomplished his mission here. He has gotten them, the Ex-Im Bank, to 
take seriously his point of view here on this particular matter.
  It seems to me that to punish the Ex-Im Bank, this is what the 
gentleman would be doing, and they would be punishing the exporters of 
this country, many of which are small businesses who are struggling to 
stay in business, and take $3 million of their funds, which are for 
salaries.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's argument is based on if 
we could count on the Ex-Im Bank to be serious about their reviews.
  In February 9 of 2001, they wrote a letter to me saying that in 1999, 
the Ex-Im Bank amended its economic impact procedures to make them more 
restrictive in order to minimize any potential negative impacts on 
companies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Visclosky was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then they granted this loan guarantee. Then they came 
out and said, ``Another review of this policy has already been planned 
to begin shortly.''
  We are waiting forever for the Ex-Im Bank to review its plans not to 
hurt American manufacturers as they finance this overcapacity around 
the world.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is an experienced legislator 
here. Obviously, if he is going to change the law, he has to change the 
substantive law here.
  This is an appropriations bill, where we are trying to provide money 
to run the agency. What the gentleman needs to do is amend the 
legislation.

[[Page 14273]]


  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have to reclaim my time.
  I would simply respond to the gentleman that we want to drive home 
the point, because it is not a coincidence that the Ex-Im Bank found 
religion on Monday of last week. The fact is, and it is not a 
coincidence, that today and yesterday and last year the Ex-Im Bank, 
under their policy handbook and under the law, were prohibited from 
making a loan like that.
  It is a fact that the Secretary of Commerce wrote to the Ex-Im Bank 
and said, ``Do not make this loan. You have 280 million excess tons. 
You have lost 23,000 jobs in this country. You have 18 companies in 
bankruptcy, and another one went over the cliff last Monday.''
  They do not listen. The only thing they are going to understand is 
this entire House today voting to cut the recommendation that is 
contained in this bill, which I again would emphasize would leave the 
Ex-Im Bank at $100 million more than the President of the United States 
asked for in his budget request.
  I would implore my colleagues to vote for the Mollohan-Visclosky 
amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this. I think, as the 
gentleman from Washington explained very well, this is an attempt to 
try to take a baseball bat and hit Ex-Im Bank over the head. I 
understand. We do that a lot around here. But it does not get at the 
substance of it. It does not really get at the issue that the gentleman 
from Indiana and the gentleman from West Virginia really want to 
address, because of course it does not deal with a specific loan to a 
specific entity at all.
  As the gentleman from Indiana has explained, it would take $18 
million from the Export-Import Bank and transfer it to some other very 
worthy programs, like HIV/AIDS. It does so in the exact same amount as 
the Bank lent to the Benxi Iron and Steel Company in China.
  Let me just address for a moment what the impact of this amendment 
would be on the work that the Ex-Im Bank does.

                              {time}  1045

  First of all, it needs to be noted that while the gentleman from 
Indiana referred to this as being still well above what the President 
had requested, this is the area that has taken the biggest decrease 
from last year in terms of what the President requested.
  The President asked for a 25 percent cut to the Ex-Im Bank, $229 
million less than the 2001 level of $927 million. We provided for $118 
million more than that, but it is still $107 million less than last 
year. So there is no question that this amendment will significantly 
cut in to the work that the Ex-Im Bank does.
  Fewer funds are in the Ex-Im Bank in their subsidy program this year, 
because if there are fewer funds, it relates directly to a lower volume 
of bank export financing. In fact, we cannot translate this and say 
this is $18 million, because the fact is this would result directly in 
$275 million less in Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees for next year. That is 
the result of taking this amount of money, $18 million of guarantees 
out, and what it translates into in terms of the impact on the Export-
Import Bank.
  We already have exporters in this country that are hurting because of 
the very strong dollar. A strong dollar is good for us, good for the 
economy, but it really hurts when it comes to our exporters, and we are 
hurt in that area. Alan Greenspan just last week testified in the 
Senate that the U.S. economy still faces a number of weaknesses. The 
capital spending is lagging, and unequivocally this demonstrates the 
pain we are feeling in today's economy. So this is not the time to be 
cutting one of the few tools that we have to help to promote exports 
and to help export-related jobs, specifically export-related jobs in 
the gentleman's district, and export-related jobs in all the other 
districts around this country.
  Now, let me also point out the impact a $3 million cut to the Ex-Im 
Bank's administrative expenses would have. It disproportionately hurts 
small businesses. We have already recommended a level that is $2 
million below what the President's request is. So this would cut into 
the technological upgrades that Ex-Im Bank is trying to do, and those 
are essential if we are going to process small business transactions, 
especially insurance transactions.
  So let me summarize by saying that the gentleman's amendment is going 
to cut the work of the Ex-Im Bank. It is not going to have anything to 
do with the particular loan the gentleman is concerned about; but it is 
going to cut out jobs in his district, it will cut out jobs in West 
Virginia, it will cut out jobs around the rest of the country, because 
companies that want to do business overseas will not be able to compete 
with the work that other countries are able to do and to subsidize 
their companies in those countries.
  So this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time, and I would urge we 
not do this.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman has said this is about export-related 
jobs. Indeed, it is about export-related jobs. We have exported 23,000 
steel workers' jobs because of the insensitivity of the American 
Government, and particularly this institution, over the last 3 years.
  This particular loan was egregious, and we should be expressing as 
much concern about the export of jobs from this country. That is what 
we ought to be interested in. Those are the export jobs we ought to be 
interested in.
  Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in the brief time that 
is remaining, I would just say I would challenge the figure that the 
gentleman has used as to whether that kind of job loss is a direct 
result of giving loans to the companies in question. But there is no 
doubt that cutting out Ex-Im all together, by cutting out the loans 
that they do, does result in a loss of sales and that does result in a 
loss of jobs.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), who has done such a tremendous job in this area in offering 
this amendment. The substance of our amendment is simple: we are 
seeking to cut $18 million in funds from the Export-Import Bank. Our 
amendment cuts $3 million from the $63 million provided for the 
administration expenses of the bank and $15 million from the 
approximately $753 million provided for the bank's subsidy.
  Now, understand that the President only requested $633 million for 
the subsidy account. The committee has appropriated $753. So there is 
about a 120 million dollars between what the President requests. We are 
only taking $18 million from what the committee has appropriated, far 
higher than the President's request is still remaining.
  The Visclosky-Mollohan amendment then takes the $18 million and 
places it in good places, Mr. Chairman, in the Child Survival and 
Health Programs fund, with $13 million targeted to the HIV-AIDS 
subaccount and $5 million targeted to the Vulnerable Children's 
subaccount that provides money for displaced children, orphans and 
blind children.
  Mr. Chairman, why $18 million? Why an $18 million cut? The Export-
Import Bank guaranteed an $18 million loan made by the Deutsche Bank of 
North America to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China for 
purposes of modernizing the Benxi Iron & Steel Company's hot strip mill 
located in China. The Benxi hot strip mill located in China.
  A letter from the Secretary of Commerce opposing this loan at the 
time it was being considered dated December 13, 2000, says ``Imports of 
hot rolled steel from China have increased dramatically over the past 
several years from less than 6,000 metric tons in 1997 to possibly more 
than 450,000 metric tons by the end of 2000.'' We need to

[[Page 14274]]

loan money so that China can increase its capacity in hot rolled steel? 
I think not, Mr. Chairman.
  I want to offer my colleagues here in the House the following time 
line, which explains the climate in which the Export-Import Bank 
approved this particular loan guarantee:
  November 13 of 2000, nine U.S. companies who produce hot rolled 
steel, including five integrated producers, one of whom is in my 
congressional district, four mini-mills, the Independent Steelworkers 
of America, and the United Steelworkers of America filed antidumping 
cases against China and 10 other countries. Benxi was cited in the case 
as an exporter of a product dumped in the United States.
  December 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to initiate 
the case based on the belief that there was evidence of dumping.
  December 19, 13 days later, the Export-Import Bank, in its wisdom, 
approved the $18 million loan guarantee in spite of the evidence of 
dumping from China, and Benxi was a producer.
  Two days later, December 22, the International Trade Commission made 
a preliminary determination that the imports of dumped hot rolled steel 
from China were causing injury to the United States industry.
  Hello!
  A Department of Commerce final determination will be issued in 
September, and the ITC will vote by the end of October on whether to 
impose duties. As my colleagues can see, the evidence of illegal 
dumping was overwhelming; yet nonetheless, the Export-Import Bank 
arrogantly ignored the fact that the world does not need any more steel 
capacity.
  The steel report issued last July by the Department of Commerce 
correctly points out that there is significant overcapacity in the 
global steel industry. The report further points out that the London-
based Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau estimated world excess capacity 
to be 250 and 275 million metric tons in 1997 and 1998. These figures 
have not fallen significantly, Mr. Chairman.
  All of this information was available to the Export-Import Bank when 
they made this loan. We cannot allow an institution that is funded by 
American taxpayers' dollars to use that money to guarantee loans to 
support projects that put Americans out of work. Mr. Chairman, the 19th 
steel company has just declared bankruptcy, as the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) pointed out a few moments ago, at the beginning 
of the week; 23,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs as a result of 
this crisis.
  This loan was egregious, Mr. Chairman. This loan was outrageous, and 
we cannot let it stand.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment to 
cut the Export-Import Bank, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise and 
to join me in voting against it.
  The Export-Import Bank provides crucial support for America's 
exporting businesses, especially small businesses and the workers that 
those businesses employ. Support for Ex-Im means real jobs for real 
people. In fiscal year 2000, Ex-Im Bank financed more than 2,500 U.S. 
export sales, supporting $15.5 billion of U.S. exports to markets 
worldwide. Eighty-six percent of these transactions directly supported 
small business.
  In my district alone, since 1996, Ex-Im has supported 76 million in 
exports. Eleven of the 15 businesses supported are small businesses. 
Without Ex-Im, these transactions simply would not go forward. Ex-Im 
only gets involved when the private sector will not. Cutting Ex-Im 
means eliminating opportunities for American businesses and their 
employees.
  Especially with our economy wavering, this is simply the wrong thing 
to do. Exports are crucial to the U.S. economy. Exports account for 
over one-quarter of U.S. economic growth over the last decade and 
support an estimated 12 million American jobs. In order to grow the 
U.S. economy and also to increase the number of jobs, export 
opportunities need to grow as well.
  However, when it comes to international trade, the U.S. is falling 
rapidly behind. There are over 130 preferential-treatment trade 
agreements in effect in the world today. The European Union has 27, 20 
of which they finalized in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the U.S. is a 
party to only two, NAFTA and a free trade agreement with Israel. 
Exporting countries and other countries therefore have advantages in 
markets around the world that U.S. companies do not. In this 
environment, Ex-Im is increasingly important to support exports for 
U.S. businesses. Cutting Ex-Im will only push us further behind.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is especially troubling because it cuts 
$3 million from Ex-Im's administrative budget. That is a direct blow to 
small business. Eighty-five percent of Ex-Im's administrative budget is 
comprised of fixed costs. Out of the remainder, Ex-Im uses a 
significant portion for seminars and other efforts to reach out to 
small business. In reality, transactions involving small businesses are 
the most labor intensive. Therefore, cutting Ex-Im's administrative 
budget has the real effect of cutting out export opportunities for 
small businesses.
  I understand the sponsors of this amendment have concerns about a 
specific transaction. They want to make sure, and I understand this, 
that Ex-Im has appropriate economic impact protections in place. 
However, this amendment is clearly not the means to achieve that goal. 
First of all, Ex-Im does indeed have economic impact protections in 
place. More importantly, Ex-Im has responded to the concerns raised by 
the sponsors of this amendment by going through an extensive review of 
its economic impact procedures. The methods of evaluating economic 
impact are being reformed. In fact, the bank has released new draft 
procedures that are currently open for comment. So there is a process 
under way to address the concerns being raised by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, cutting Ex-Im means cutting U.S. exports, and cutting 
Ex-Im's administrative budget means squeezing out opportunities for 
small businesses. I believe this is the wrong thing to do, is not 
necessary, and should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me, and I 
appreciate the statistics that the gentleman cites, these general 
statistics about the benefit of exporting to the American economy. 
Obviously, the benefit of exports to the American economy are great and 
very important to its well-being. I will stipulate to that.
  What does concern me when we have this debate and there are those who 
cite the statistics, and stand up and do so so eloquently, is when do 
we talk about the downside? When do we talk about concern for the 
23,000 steelworkers who have lost their jobs because of this kind of 
importing and the outrageous impact of the loan?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say 
to the gentleman that there is a review process in place. They are 
looking at the gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. They said that in February of this year.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, I think it would be out of line 
to cut now because that does not do anything for the gentleman's 
problem.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Visclosky-Mollohan amendment. I believe my colleagues are well 
intentioned here today. I would argue that they should take their case 
to the authorizing committee, and I would join them in trying to change 
the law so we would not be in this position in the future.

[[Page 14275]]

  I also think that the Department of Commerce in the anti-dumping case 
is already directing real attention at this problem. That is what we 
should be focusing on.
  Mr. Chairman, to come in here today and take $18 million out of the 
Export-Import Bank, $3 million of which comes from the administrative 
funds which were only increased by $1 million over last year's level, 
means an actual cut of 2 percent. This is salaries. This is health 
care. This is the fixed cost of the agency. I would say that is a very 
brutal cut.
  The other money would come out of the money that is used by small 
businesses and large businesses to support U.S. exports. My concern 
with this amendment is we are punishing America's exporters who are 
also creating jobs. I feel for the gentleman for the loss of jobs to 
steelworkers. The gentleman has to admit that not all of their losses 
are due to the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman gets me additional time, I 
will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern is we are punishing another sector of the 
economy which is crucial to our economic health. In my State of 
Washington, one out of every three jobs is an export job. So my State 
would be punished by this amendment. In fact, we are $100 million below 
last year's level in terms of the loan guarantees. This administration 
has cut it. I would also point out that this is a new administration 
that is not responsible for what the previous administration did on 
this particular loan; and they have said that they are going to review 
this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman he has won his victory 
here today. The gentleman has convinced the new administration that 
this is something which should not be done in the future; and so do not 
punish the Export-Import Bank where jobs in my State will be lost.
  (On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman speaks in 
terms that this cut is going to have a disastrous impact on exporters 
who are assisted by the Export-Import Bank and people in his 
congressional district, perhaps. Hardly. The President requested $633 
million. This committee is appropriating $753 million, which is $120 
million more than the President requested. We are simply taking $18 
million.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, but $100 million less than last year.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, to follow up on the point of the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the word ``cut'' has been 
used here a lot. I used it myself.
  Mr. Chairman, we are over the President's request; but my 
understanding is that the dollars appropriated, and the way it will be 
budgeted will provide for about 12 to $12.5 billion worth of subsidies.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we had gotten last 
year's level, we would be at $15 billion in export support, so it is 
about a $2.5 billion cut which the gentleman will make worse with this 
$18 million cut.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have had, in the last 3 years, 19 
steel companies go bankrupt. That is sobering. Nineteen steel companies 
in this country. We have had 23,000 steelworkers, real jobs for real 
people, laid off. This is here and now.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may finish. When the gentleman talks 
about going to the authorizing committee, we are not talking about 
dealing with an imminent danger. The gentleman serves on the Committee 
on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations can make a statement 
here and now. If we were to go to the authorizing committee, it may be 
2 more years and another 19 steel companies going bankrupt.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman makes a 
mistake if he does not consider trying to change the law so the Export-
Import Bank has to take into account the impact on the domestic economy 
of these exporters.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to joining the gentleman 
in that effort.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I told the gentleman I would be glad to help 
in that effort. But the point here today is this is a meat-axe 
approach. Coming in here and cutting $18 million out of Export-Import 
Bank does not make any sense. The new administration says they are 
going to take the gentleman's position into account. I would urge the 
gentleman to withdraw his amendment, he has made his point, and not 
hurt another sector of the economy.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should urge something else 
because he knows that is not going to happen. Maybe the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) should urge his colleagues who might support his 
position to vote with him.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I always think my colleagues have good 
judgment.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests Members follow regular order.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This is a 
token amount of money being cut from the Export-Import Bank. The 
President asked for a $120 million cut. This is only $18 million. There 
was $120 million added over the present request. This is not a project 
that is a favorite of the President, and he has referred to this as a 
form of corporate welfare.
  This is just a small effort to rein in the power of the special 
interests, the powerful special interests. It has been mentioned that 
jobs could be lost. In the debate, there has been emphasis on jobs, and 
the truth is that it may happen. Jobs could be lost. But what Members 
fail to realize is that the jobs lost are special interest jobs. If my 
colleagues take that same funding, and we never talk about what would 
happen to that $75 billion line of credit of the Export-Import Bank if 
it were allowed to remain in the economy. Other jobs would be created, 
so my colleagues cannot argue half of the case. We have to look at the 
whole picture. Special interest jobs would be lost. True market jobs 
would be increased.
  Mr. Chairman, last week we had a vote on trade with China. I 
supported that vote. I believe in free trade and low tariffs. I believe 
in the right of people to spend their money where they please, and I 
believe it is best for countries to be trading with each other. But the 
very same people today arguing for these corporate subsidies claim they 
are for free trade. If my colleagues are for free trade, they should 
not be for corporate subsidies. They are not one and the same. They are 
different.
  Free trade means there are low tariffs, but we do not subsidize any 
special interests. To me it is rather amazing, the paragraph that we 
are dealing with is called Subsidy Authorization. There is no 
pretension anymore. We just advertise, this as a subsidies. When did we 
get into the business of subsidies? A long time ago, unfortunately. I 
do not think that the Congress should be in the business of subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has something to do with campaign 
finance reform. I am in favor of some reforms, that is, less control. 
People have the right to spend their own money the way they want; and 
when we have the problem of big corporations coming here and lobbying 
us, that is a secondary problem.
  If my colleagues look at the corporations that get the biggest 
subsidies from the Export-Import Bank, they really lobby us.
  Mr. Chairman, what I say is let us have some real campaign finance 
reform and let us get rid of the subsidies and the motivation for these 
huge corporations to come here and influence

[[Page 14276]]

our vote. That is what the problem is. We do not need to get the money 
out of politics, we need to get the money out of Washington and out of 
the business of subsidizing special interests. That is where our 
problem is.
  Last week we voted to trade with China, and I said I supported that. 
But anybody who voted against that bill because they do not like what 
is happening in China should vote for this amendment and also my 
amendment that is likely to come up.
  China gets $6.2 billion, the largest subsidy to any country in the 
world from the Export-Import Banks. China gets it. So why do we first 
want to trade with China, then subsidize them as well, and then 
complain? I would suggest that those who claim they believe in free 
trade, they need to support this amendment because we are getting into 
the interference and manipulation of trade, the subsidy to big 
corporations.
  Those who do not like China should vote for this because there is a 
suggestion that the Export-Import Bank serves the interest of China. So 
to me it should be an easy vote. The only problem with this amendment 
is that it is so small. It does not really address the big subject on 
whether or not the Congress should be in this business. Obviously they 
should not be. Where do you find the authorization to give subsidy 
appropriations in the Constitution? It is not there.
  This is a charade. This is fiction when it comes to looking at 
constitutional law.
  I would strongly urge a yes vote on this amendment and do not support 
this effort to benefit the big companies and hurt the little guys. The 
little guys are the ones who lose this line of credit and push their 
interest rates up.
  Who gets the risk under this situation? The taxpayer. There is a lot 
of insurance in the Export-Import Bank. The risk goes to the taxpayer, 
but the profits go to the corporations. What is fair about that? The 
big corporation cannot lose. So why would the banks not loan to the big 
special interest corporations?
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not seen such obfuscation in all my life as I 
have seen here this morning. Somehow they want us to believe that if we 
take $18 million out of their budget, that the whole import/export 
budget will collapse. The President's budget has $687 million in it. 
The House budget is $805 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment 
which cuts $15 million from the Export-Import Bank subsidy 
appropriations and $3 million from their administrative expenses. It 
troubles me that the Ex-Im Bank approved an $18 million loan guarantee 
to modernize and improve production for a Chinese steel company. Yes, 
you heard it correctly. We are using American taxpayer dollars to 
modernize a Chinese steel company so that it can produce more steel for 
import into the United States, thereby, putting more steel workers on 
the unemployment line.
  To add insult to injury, Benxi, the Chinese steel company, is 
currently involved in an anti-dumping case before the International 
Trade Commission. Once again, you heard it correctly. We are 
guaranteeing a loan for a Chinese steel company which has been charged 
with dumping steel on the American market.
  Does the Ex-Im Bank not know that our domestic steel industry has 
been hurting since the flood of imports began in the late 1990s? In 
fact, since December of 1997, 18 steel companies, and I understand one 
more steel company with a combined total of 36,000 employees, have 
declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy which means 36,000 steel worker jobs 
could be in jeopardy. Since 1998 over 20,000 steel workers have lost 
their jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the competitiveness of the international 
marketplace, and I know our companies can compete if the playing field 
is level. In fact, we have the most efficient and productive steel 
workers in the world. However, not only do we lack a level playing 
field, but American taxpayers are now being asked to subsidize our 
competitors.
  As John Stosel says on ABC's 20/20, ``Give me a break.'' This must 
stop and Congress needs to send a message that it will not tolerate 
these misguided policies. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MASCARA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that on December 15, 
2000 the board of directors of Ex-Im approved a guarantee for an $18 
million credit to support export sales from General Electric in Salem, 
Virginia; Carlen Controls in Roanoke, Virginia; and CIC Company in 
Glenshaw, Pennsylvania for software control systems and main drive 
power supplies and it does go for this project. These are U.S. 
companies that got the loan guarantees.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MASCARA. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just made our point.
  The lack of wisdom is in paying off these companies to support 
investments of the Benxi steel facility in China in order to enable the 
production of tremendous excess capacity in that plant. The gentleman 
just made the point.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania will 
continue to yield, the point I was trying to make was that the 
gentleman said that the guarantee was given to the Chinese company. It 
was not given to the Chinese company. It was given to these three 
American companies.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I think all of us agree that the Ex-Im 
Bank is valuable, that it is valuable to small businesses, that it is 
important for trade, but we are sick and tired of throwing it in our 
face. I represent steelworkers as well as the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), 
and we are sick and tired of this country in our face, our workers 
being put out of work and using our taxpayers' dollars to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking all my colleagues to support the Visclosky-
Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Visclosky-Mollohan 
amendment as the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on the 
Committee on Financial Services. The ranking member of that 
subcommittee is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). While I have 
served for 21 years on the Banking Committee, now the Financial 
Services Committee, this is the first year that I have been the 
chairman of the authorizing subcommittee that relates to the Export-
Import Bank.
  I would say to the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman 
from Indiana that the authorization for the Export-Import Bank expires 
on September 30, 2001 and there is broad and bipartisan concern with 
the case that the gentlemen have brought to our attention. It has also 
been brought to our attention by all of the members of the Steel 
Caucus. In fact, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I 
introduced legislation last week at this time, H.R. 2517 and we have a 
section in that legislation specifically related to Benxi Steel and the 
transaction approved by the Export-Import Bank in December of 2000.
  I would tell the gentlemen that the Export-Import Bank and Treasury, 
which has exercised veto authority over the transactions of the Export-
Import Bank, also has this Member's attention, and I want to make 
changes. If the Banks think they are going to have a straight, clean 
reauthorization bill, they are not going to do it with my approval or 
my active involvement. I very much think we need to give some very 
specific direction to the Export-Import Bank in many areas, and I will 
welcome these gentlemen and other Members' concerns about this specific 
transaction and on other issues.

[[Page 14277]]

  I also think it is crucial that the industries that uses the export 
credit guarantee programs of the Bank understand we need to build a 
base of support for the Bank within the small business community. 
Currently the small business community has about 18 percent of the 
transactions in dollars allocated. That is probably only because 
Congress pushed the Bank to move ahead in its 1996 authorization 
legislation.
  Furthermore, the Export-Import Bank has this Member's attention 
because the Treasury stepped in earlier this year and vetoed two 
transactions, one of which is in my home State, on the use of the tied 
aid war chest. An Austrian firm got that contract for $7-9 million; and 
we lost $100 million worth of follow-up sales annually in irrigation 
equipment--all for no good reason.
  So the Export-Import Bank deserves plenty of scrutiny. We need to 
give them very specific directions. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) and I have begun that effort with section 16 in the 
legislation we introduced. If after examining it you do not think it is 
strong enough, we will listen to your ideas in a further way.
  I also would say this, that you have had an impact already--at least 
potentially. As already pointed out, the Export-Import Bank is now 
going through a process of enlarging and clarifying and getting it 
right in terms of the Ex-Im Bank's impact procedures that they will 
consider. In short, and this is a quote from the Bank's statement of 
objectives, they want to make sure they have more information on the 
following: one, indicators of oversupply that could impact the long-
term economic health of the potentially affected U.S. industries. They 
go on to clarify that objective. Secondly, to consider the broad 
competitive impact to U.S. industries. Here they are proposing to 
consider both direct and indirect impacts. And, third, to consider the 
views of interested parties, including the affected U.S. industry, 
labor organizations, U.S. manufacturers, Congress, nongovernment 
organizations and other U.S. Government agencies, to allow each group's 
view to be weighed in Export-Import Bank's deliberative process.
  I cannot under House rules specifically speak about what the other 
body is going to do about this steel case, but let me just say it has 
their attention as well, and I think it should.
  Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to think long and hard about 
what you are asking the House to do in addressing what is an 
appropriate redress of a very real grievance. Right now, the Export-
Import Bank is dramatically underfunded, under-resourced as compared to 
our competitors. The rationale escapes me, but this administration 
proposed to further cut the Bank's resources by 25 percent. The 
Committee on Appropriations has made up some of that difference.
  One of the concerns I have is about the limit on the administrative 
budget of the Bank, not the transaction budget. The authorizing 
limitations are too skimpy. By this amendment you are cutting back the 
administrative accounty by $3 million. It should be going the other 
way. In fact, in our legislation, I would establish a sub-line item for 
funds for the administrative activities and boost such an 
authorization.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this agency also needs more information 
technology capabilities. They are obsolete. The past chairman and the 
present chairman will admit that is a reality. We need to make changes 
in that respect. We need to make sure that they upgrade. That is 
particularly important for small business. If small business is going 
to take advantage of the opportunities or resources of the Export-
Import Bank, they are the ones that really need to have good 
information technology in place in this agency. We push the Bank 
directly ahead in that area through the authorization legislation we 
have offered.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply ask the question that, with the bill 
that we have today, is it not true that the subsidies that are going to 
be able to be provided with the Ex-Im Bank, even though we have an 
amendment to cut $18 million, is going to be increased substantially?
  Additionally, I would ask the Member, is it not true that the Ex-Im 
Bank is required by law to assess whether its loans and guarantees are 
likely to cause substantial, direct injury to U.S. industry today?
  I trust the gentleman's intention. I believe what he says. The law 
today says they are not supposed to do what they did last year. We need 
to drive home that point, and someone at the Ex-Im Bank ought to know 
what it is like to lose a job.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I think the gentleman is accurately describing the 
language that is there. I think it does not go far enough. I think a 
clarification or elaboration or additional kind of limitations are 
appropriate. Now, they itemize in their proposed review process some of 
the things that might be considered. I hope that that gentleman, like 
this gentleman, will make his comments known to the Export-Import Bank 
during the comment period now underway.
  Is there a cut in the resources of the Export-Import Bank? There is a 
dramatic cut in the resources proposed for the next fiscal year, 
despite the fact that the appropriators have restored some of that cut. 
A 25 percent cut was the original figure that came with the 
administration's budget. That would dramatically reduce our ability to 
compete with the export credit and guarantee agencies of other 
countries. It is the wrong direction. I can understand why these 
gentlemen want to see a change. I do, too.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. We have this deadline coming up on the reauthorization 
of the Export-Import Bank, September 30. This is an issue that has to 
be resolved. It is a time for us to make the kind of changes, not to do 
something which punishes the Bank and not some changes which they can 
ignore, anyway. We need to give very specific guidelines and make sure 
that in fact acting in a fashion which is beneficial to American 
industry. We need to assure that the Bank does creates jobs in this 
country and that it does not have the opposite effect. We need to 
assure that the Bank is particularly attractive for the use of small 
business as well as for some of the largest firms in the United States.
  I ask my colleagues, therefore, to reject this amendment and work 
with us when the authorizing legislation comes to the floor.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to these discussions 
about the Export-Import Bank. Every nation in the world, the 
industrialized world, has an equivalent organization. The United States 
has the least of that kind of organized support of the business 
community through the Export-Import Bank. I hear Members come out here 
on the floor and deplore the trade deficit, that the United States 
takes everything in and never exports anything.
  One of the problems with exporting into the Third World or to even 
other parts of the industrialized world is the question of whether or 
not they can pay back the debt. Now, if a bank wants to lend money to 
General Electric to sell some equipment to whatever country, all the 
Export-Import Bank does is guarantee that if the money is not paid 
back, they will pay the money. They have not lost any money in this 
process. But they need the capital as a backup for all the loans that 
go out into the world.
  We have changed the Export-Import Bank. When I came to the Congress

[[Page 14278]]

back in 1988, it used to be called the Boeing Bank. It is not the 
Boeing Bank anymore. It is a whole lot of other things. In fact, as we 
heard the list of people in this particular one, Boeing is not in it. 
It is General Electric and a lot of other things.
  Last year, fiscal year 2000, there were loans to 2,176 small 
businesses. If you make one loan for Boeing for $100 million, it only 
takes one person, but if you are going to take 2,176 small business 
loans and help small business people get into the international 
economy, you have got to have people who can help them through that 
process. That is why the staff has gotten larger and why taking money 
out of the staff simply makes no sense.
  I see the reason for the size of this amendment, $18 million. It fits 
the $18 million that already went out the door for the Chinese loan 
guarantee. But we are not canceling the loan. It is still going to go 
ahead. This is not the place to fight the argument that you have here.
  If you want to make a change, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) has said it more correctly, get in the authorizing bill and 
decide which industries you are not going to lend to. ``We are not 
going to lend to any foreign steel industry because they compete with 
the United States.'' Then General Electric will not bother going out 
trying to sell anything to them. They will know at the beginning.
  But this coming in afterward and saying to the bank, ``Well, you lent 
to the wrong people so we're going to take your money back,'' I do not 
know what message they get out of that. I guess the message is, we 
should not loan to anybody who makes steel. Maybe we should not loan to 
anybody who makes cars. I mean, the Koreans make cars, the Indonesians 
make cars and other people. Maybe we should never lend any money to a 
country that has carmaking because it competes with Detroit.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think the message is that you do not approve a loan 
guarantee that undermines an industry that is being already devastated 
by imports.
  A point that we made earlier in the debate that Secretary Mineta made 
when he was Secretary of Commerce to the Export-Import Bank on this 
very subject was that China has gone from 6,000 metric tons in 1997 of 
hot-rolled production to 450,000 tons, and they did not need any more 
capacity. In that same time period we had nine bankruptcies and 23,000 
unemployed steelworkers. That is the message that we are trying to 
send.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's 
point, but the fact is the message has been sent and received. We have 
heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) already talk about it. 
That is going to be dealt with. But taking this money out of the bank 
is only going to cripple their ability to aid small businesses.
  Big businesses can take risks. They do. It is nice to have the 
comfort of the Export-Import Bank. But little businesses who make a 
deal in some country, in Africa or Asia, are very much at risk and they 
need the capital. I do not see, unless you want to say that the Export-
Import Bank cannot lend to any industry that is in competition with the 
United States, anything made in the United States, why pick on steel? 
Why should you protect steel? I do not think that you should protect 
steel any more than you should protect anybody else. We can do that in 
the authorizing bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) has expired.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I just want to put Members on notice, we have been very 
generous here in extending the 5-minute debate continually here. At 
some point we are going to have to insist that each Member get their 5 
minutes and speak. But I will not object at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) is recognized for 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are not trying to protect the steel 
industry in the sense the Member has used. I think, to my 
understanding, he has used that phrase. We are trying to protect the 
steel industry from unfair foreign competition, on the one hand; and we 
are definitely trying to protect it from an agency that is funded with 
the people's money going out and empowering China, which has a 
tremendous excess capacity at this point, from developing greater 
excess capacity.
  Yes, we are trying to protect them from that kind of conduct and a 
major American agency that we fund being instrumental in making that 
possible.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the gentleman knows that a 201 case has been filed on steel, and 
Benxi Steel is one of the companies named in that pending International 
Trade Commission case on steel products being imported into the U.S. 
from a variety of countries. So I think there is another potential area 
where redress can be pursued. A ruling is to be made on August 17, 
2001.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter), we are glad we have the attention of his committee and other 
Members of the Congress with regard to the steel industry.
  I hail from the great city of Cleveland, the home of LTV Steel. Let 
me just give you some statistical information about how important LTV 
Steel is to my community and the fact that it, along with 17 other 
steel companies in the United States, are currently in bankruptcy.
  It is estimated that $2.27 billion of the 2001 gross State production 
in Ohio comes from LTV, an impressive amount given the total gross 
State product of Ohio is about $400 billion.
  LTV employs 5,200 persons in Cuyahoga County and 6,600 Ohioans, 
including both organized and exempt positions.
  Based upon the 2000 tax rates, LTV has 3,607 employees in local 
municipalities and provides tax revenue of $4,474,276 generated from 
the workers at LTV.
  Based upon estimates, an additional 12,970 Cuyahoga County jobs are 
dependent on LTV operations and employees. Statewide, 27,020 jobs are 
relying on LTV. These jobs generate an additional $1.1 billion in 
wages.
  LTV pays $338 million in annual wages and salaries and $68 million in 
benefits to current employees in Cuyahoga County, which amounts to 
about $406 million annually in the county.
  Statewide, LTV represents $430 million in annual wages and $85 
million in benefits to employees.
  More than 34,000 employees, retirees and dependents across northeast 
Ohio rely on LTV for more than $72 million in medical benefits 
annually.
  There are 15,000 retirees in Greater Cleveland alone receiving 
pension benefits.
  Annually, LTV purchases $1 billion in goods and services from 1,600 
Ohio companies.
  The steel industry has about 1.75 percent of all the jobs in 
northeast Ohio, with LTV providing nearly 22 percent of the region's 
steel jobs, according to the latest information.
  Why are we standing in support of the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment?

[[Page 14279]]

Because we are standing in support of the steel industry in this 
country. The real dilemma is, and I heard someone talk about Alan 
Greenspan talking about the fact that the steel industry, or industry, 
was not in a dilemma. Alan Greenspan is the one who said last week that 
we should get rid of minimum wage.
  Why are we talking about this issue right here on the floor of the 
House? Because where else do we stand up for workers in the United 
States but on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United 
States?
  There have been a rising tide of layoffs and bankruptcies, driven in 
large part by our government's failure to enact trade policies that are 
important and support the steel industry.
  Why are we after Ex-Im Bank? Because it has in fact supported the 
steel industry in another country while the steel industry is dying in 
the United States. Steelworkers built our country, and we need to let 
the steelworkers continue to work and the steel industry to continue to 
prosper. In other countries, they subsidize the steel industry. In our 
country, we do not. Therefore, we should not be using public dollars in 
these United States, other United States taxpayers, to subsidize a 
country, a steel industry in another country like China.
  Now, you are arguing to me these dollars go to American companies in 
the United States to support a steel company in China. I say to you we 
should not subsidize American companies that subsidize steel companies 
in foreign countries when we are in fact at a trade deficit in the 
steel industry.
  Let me give you just a few more statistics. By the end of last year, 
the industry was operating at less than 65 percent of its capacity in 
the United States, the lowest operating level in more than 15 years.
  Steel imports, which totaled less than 16 million tons in 1991, more 
than doubled in 10 years to an annual total in 2000 of 39 million tons. 
Where are they making the 39 million tons of imported steel? In 
companies like Benxi, which is subsidized by money from Ex-Im Bank.
  More than 15,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs since January of 
1998; 84,000 in the last 6 months.
  Mr. Chairman, I say support the Visclosky-Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking my friend, the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), for the work that he has done as chairman of 
the authorizing committee. The problem is that while he has conducted 
that subcommittee in a very nonpartisan way, and I think we have done 
some very, very good work to fundamentally reform the Export-Import 
Bank in terms of making it more responsive to American workers rather 
than multinational corporations, it remains to be seen whether the 
effort that we have labored for will in fact become law or even be 
heard. We were supposed to have a meeting of the subcommittee, which 
was canceled, I gather by the chairman of the committee. So we will 
learn more about that later.
  Having said that, I rise in support of the amendment, because I am 
not at all sure that the reforms that need to be happening will in fact 
happen. Let me basically talk about the main concern that I have and 
why I support this amendment.
  This amendment is right unto itself, but it touches on a broader 
issue. If American taxpayers are going to be laying out money to create 
decent-paying American jobs, then we have a right to expect that the 
companies who receive that money in fact are expanding their American 
workforce. That is not a very difficult proposition. The truth of the 
matter is that many of the major recipients of Export-Import funds have 
been some of the major companies in this country who are laying off 
American workers. In fact, according to Time Magazine, the top five 
recipients of Export-Import subsidies over the last decade have reduced 
their workforce by 38 percent.
  So you take large corporations who go running to the Export-Import 
Bank, and they say, hey, we need this corporate welfare, and they get 
the support. And the next day they say, oh, by the way, thank you for 
the money; but we are now moving our factories to China or Mexico and 
laying off tens of thousands of American workers.
  Our current trade policy, in my view, is a disaster. We have over a 
$400 billion trade deficit. We have close to a $100 billion trade 
deficit with China. To the degree that American taxpayers' money is to 
be used to subsidize American companies, the taxpayers of this country 
have a right to know that those companies are doing everything they can 
to increase jobs in the United States.
  If a company like General Electric, and let me be specific about 
General Electric, says, and they advertise it to the world, they say, 
gee, we wish that we had a barge so that we could take all of our 
factories to the cheapest-labor countries in the world and layoff more 
American workers, that is what we want to do, that is what they say. 
And then they come to the Export-Import Bank and they say, here is a 
check for you. Go out, take your jobs to China, take your jobs to 
Mexico, use American taxpayer dollars for that purpose. The average 
American taxpayer is outraged by this behavior.
  What the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have attempted 
to do is to craft legislation which does two things: it says to 
companies that are hell-bent on taking our jobs to China and Mexico, 
you can do it; but do not come in and ask taxpayers of this country to 
subsidize it.
  Second of all, we believe that small businesses are the engines for 
job creation in this country, and Export-Import has got to put more 
money into small businesses.
  The issue of the steel company in China is just one of many examples. 
Taxpayer money, American taxpayer money, should not be used to hurt 
American workers.
  In my view, in terms of the Export-Import Bank, we could do one of 
two things: we could kill the whole thing and say we are not giving any 
more subsidies, because it is corporate welfare. That would not be an 
irrational thing to do. The other thing that we can do, and the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I are attempting to do that, 
is to make the Export-Import Bank work for American workers, to support 
those companies that want to grow American jobs.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would say to the gentleman, over the 
last few years the Export-Import Bank has created $60 billion of 
exports from the United States. That means that those were jobs 
created.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me say, this 
has been a spirited debate; and I want to first say that the gentleman 
from Indiana, I have great respect for, and I am a member of the Steel 
Caucus and I come from a steel State. But I have to tell you, this does 
not help the steel industry. It does not help our ability to create 
export-related jobs. This is an amendment that would severely cripple 
the Export-Import Bank's ability to create jobs, particularly in small 
business.
  We have to understand that 80 percent of the transactions of the 
Export-Import bank deal with small business and help small business 
creating export markets all over the world. Every dollar of taxpayer 
money that is invested in Export-Import's program has seen historical 
returns of some $15 for every $1 in credit support for export 
transactions.
  So the result of this amendment, whether we like it or not, and it is 
great to get up here and waive the bloody shirt about the steel 
industry, is it is going to cost us jobs, it is going to shrink our 
ability to export in other markets; and while this budget that we are 
dealing with is critical to creating export jobs, the amendment does 
quite the opposite.

[[Page 14280]]

  Let us not try to punish the Export-Import Bank or do what we are 
trying to do here because of one controversial loan. I would say to my 
friend from Vermont, that was an aberration, not certainly something 
that is business as usual in regard to the China steel issue.
  As the chairman of the authorizing committee, I am here to say that 
our committee is working assiduously on Export-Import reauthorization 
with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter); and I fully expect that we will report a bill that is 
balanced and fair and promotes exports all over the world.
  Let me just say also to my friend from Vermont, who pointed out 
General Electric specifically, let me tell my friend from Vermont about 
a plant that I have in my congressional district in Bucyrus, Ohio, that 
is a General Electric plant. They make fluorescent lighting tubes. They 
currently create and build millions of those that are exported to 
Japan. They make a specific kind of smaller tube than that used over 
here that fits into the Japanese architecture and their homes and 
businesses; and, as a result of using Export-Import facilities, they 
are able to increase that market substantially. Those General Electric 
jobs in my congressional district are very, very important to me and to 
our community.
  I would point out before the gentleman from Vermont makes what would 
appear to be a bad example of General Electric, I would say that the 
General Electric situation certainly that I pointed out is a very 
positive one and points out how good the Export-Import Bank can be.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted to mention to my friend that between 1985 and 1995, the 
workforce, the American workforce of General Electric went down from 
245,000 to 150,000, precisely because it is the policy of General 
Electric to take American jobs to China and Mexico in order to get 
cheap labor. Does my friend not agree with me that we should use 
institutions like the Export-Import Bank to tell General Electric to 
reinvest in America so that we can create more good jobs like the one 
the gentleman referred to?
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the last thing 
the Export-Import Bank needs, and certainly the private sector needs, 
is micromanaging on the part of Congress dealing with a worldwide 
global economy.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the point I would like to make is what they 
are doing here today with this amendment is punishing the export 
segment of the economy that creates thousands of jobs. In the State of 
Washington, the Boeing Company is the Nation's largest exporter. We are 
in a life and death struggle with Airbus. Airbus is subsidized by 
foreign governments. They have all kinds of loan programs to sell their 
exports all over the world.
  What we are trying to ask for here is a level playing field. Let our 
American exporters compete. I want to protect the steel workers, but 
not at the expense of the machinists in the State of Washington. That 
is what we are talking about here.
  Let us protect them both. Let us protect the steel workers and the 
machinists.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me thank the 
gentleman from Washington for his strong comments. Indeed, we are 
trying to expand the pie here. We are not trying to get in a situation, 
hopefully, that the gentleman from Vermont wants, which is the Congress 
determines what private industry hires and fires and then punishes the 
Export-Import Bank or successful exporters as a result.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Oxley was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. 
The gentleman describes the situation, I think, inaccurately; and I 
would like to calibrate his comments a little bit. The gentleman 
suggests and uses the word ``cripple''; that the gentleman's amendment 
would severely cripple the Export-Import Bank.
  I would like to point out to the gentleman in the short time we have 
that the President requested $120 million in the subsidy account less 
than the House appropriated. We are taking $18 million from the House. 
So, therefore, there is about $100 million left more in this bill than 
the President requested to do the good things that the gentleman is 
talking about and that the gentleman from Washington is talking about 
so that the government can support Boeing in its efforts against Airbus 
around the world.
  We are not getting at the good things and the good jobs that are 
created by the Export-Import Bank. What we are getting at are the 
policies that undermine domestic industries that are extremely 
vulnerable at this period of time by financing projects that incredibly 
enhances capacity.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have come to the floor on the abstract, idealogical, 
theoretical underpinnings of this debate which others have been 
eloquent on. I have just come to a very parochial, prosaic but, in my 
district, very meaningful position: this amendment is going to cost 
jobs of people who do work and export products around the world if it 
passes.
  Now, I know that does not sound like a very high-falutin' argument 
couched in great economic theory, but the fact of the matter is, we are 
truly, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said, in a life and 
death struggle in the aeronautics industry to see whether we are going 
to remain dominant internationally, or whether we will lose the 
dominant position in the world. It is just real simple. It is meat and 
potatoes. The fact of the matter is, if this amendment passes, we are 
going to lose the opportunity to export $275 million worth of products 
which means thousands of jobs.
  Because the fact of the matter is, this is, and since a lot of people 
look at the Ex-Im Bank and think, if we just cut the Ex-Im Bank, these 
other entities will not have products. People are not going to just 
stop buying airplanes if we cut the Ex-Im Bank. They are just going to 
buy them someplace else. This is help for the American worker, not the 
foreign worker.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia has talked 
about all the steel companies that are gone. McDonnell Douglas used to 
build commercial airplanes; they are gone. Lockheed used to build 
commercial airplanes; they are gone. We have suffered in this area. We 
have one commercial airplane producer left in America: the Boeing 
Company. And they are in a life and death struggle against four 
governments that underwrite Airbus. I wish my friend from Vermont were 
as passionate in supporting the American companies trying to export as 
we are trying to protect the steel companies. I want to protect them as 
well.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman suggesting that all of 
the money that we are funding in the Export-Import Bank is going to go 
to Boeing?
  Mr. INSLEE. Well, that would be acceptable, of course.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how many votes the 
gentleman can get for it. Does the gentleman know how much money the 
committee is appropriating?

[[Page 14281]]


  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, clearly, Boeing and 
Boeing workers are not the only ones who have a stake in this 
controversy.
  What I am trying to point out is that this has an immediate, real-
life ramification for people who this morning got up and went to work 
in an industry that we are going to have a great chance of losing if we 
do not use the one very modest tool in our tool box to compete with 
this international conspiracy, if you will, to gain international 
dominance in this industry. And this is a very small tool we have. If 
we look at this compared to the subsidization of Airbus by the European 
community, this is almost nothing. Yes, Boeing is not the only player 
in this. But I came here to say that I have people in my district who 
care about it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to answer the gentleman's 
question. Twenty-five hundred small businesses last year got Ex-Im Bank 
loans, totaling about $2.3 billion. Yes, the Boeing Company is a major 
user of this thing, and we finance sales that could not be financed any 
other way and the money is paid back. So what is wrong with that? I 
want to support the gentleman. I hope some day the American steel 
industry can export as well, and then the gentleman will be with me in 
supporting the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the other thing I want 
to point out is, although Boeing is a significant player in this, there 
are small businesses, we are talking 5- and 20-person shops, who can 
avail themselves of this benefit. Those jobs are just as important as 
the machinist jobs in Seattle. They may not be as visible, but they are 
just as important.
  I also want to point out that I believe the future of the Ex-Im Bank 
is not just manufacturing, it is services. Because when we design 
various functions for financial services, insurance and the like, those 
are going to be small businesses as well dealing with intellectual 
capital. I believe that is more in the future of the Ex-Im Bank.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman describes legitimate 
purposes and missions of the Export-Import Bank. What the gentleman may 
not understand if he did not hear the very beginning of the debate is 
we are going after with this amendment some egregious decisions made by 
the Export-Import Bank in subsidizing three of these small companies 
that empowers the Chinese.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
will be postponed.


                  amendment no. 56 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. 56 offered by Mr. Paul:
       Page 2, strike line 21 and all that follows through line 17 
     on page 3.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the paragraph on page 2, 
line 21 entitled ``subsidy appropriation.'' I do not believe this 
Congress should be in the business of subsidizing anyone. We should be 
protecting the American taxpayer, and we should be protecting the 
individual liberty of all American citizens, not dealing in subsidies.
  This paragraph is found in the bill which is called ``foreign 
operations.'' It is a subsidy to large corporations, and it is a 
subsidy to foreign entities and foreign governments. The largest 
foreign recipient of the foreign aid from this bill is Red China, $6.2 
billion. So if one is for free trade, as I am, and as I voted last week 
to trade with China, one should be positively in favor of my amendment, 
because this is not free trade. This is subsidized, special interest 
trade, and I think that is wrong.
  There has been a lot of talk today on the previous amendment dealing 
with jobs, and jobs are important. We have an economy now that is 
turning downwards and jobs are being lost. In this bill, this 
particular paragraph and the Export-Import Bank does deal with jobs.
  Those in opposition to my amendment make the point that jobs are 
enhanced in the big corporations like Boeing. That is true, to a 
degree, but there is a net loss of jobs because the same entity, the 
Export-Import Bank, literally exports jobs by subsidizing and loaning 
money to foreign entities that compete with us. Not only does some of 
this money end up in the hands of our competitors and hurt us here at 
home, but it ends up in the hands of our potential enemies. This is the 
reason why we should be out of the business of the Export-Import Bank.
  It has been said that this is a benefit to so many small 
corporations. In the last 2 years, more than half of the Export-Import 
Bank money went to Boeing. So it is not surprising that the gentleman 
early on mentioned that yes, he would not mind it if all of it went to 
Boeing. It is said that 85 percent of the money in the individual loans 
goes to smaller corporations. That is true, but 86 percent of the money 
goes to the giant corporations. So the big bucks serve the big 
interests who lobby us and spend a lot of time influencing Washington.
  There is a lot of mal-investment in the economy, misappropriation of 
money and investments that generates overcapacity, which is a 
consequence of monetary policy. It is a serious problem; and we are 
today facing the consequence, because we are now moving into a rather 
severe recession. But at the same time, export financing compounds that 
problem. It adds on to it because it is an allocation of credit.
  This argument that we create jobs is fictitious. We do not create 
jobs; we shift jobs, from the weak to the powerful. We do not create a 
new job by stealing, taking out $75 billion worth of a line of credit 
from the banks and giving it to special interests. Yes, it looks like 
they are getting a benefit, but the little guy does not have access to 
that amount of money. Why should the banks not loan Export-Import Bank 
money to the large corporations. They are protected. They are insured. 
Who insures them? The taxpayer. It is a rip-off. The taxpayer suffers 
all of the risks.
  Now, if the deal is successful and there is no economic calamity in 
the country where we go and there is no political crisis, then who 
makes the profits? Corporations make the profits. It is the best deal 
going for large corporations.
  If we oppose corporate welfare and think we ought to address it on 
principle and decide whether or not the Congress and the U.S. 
Government and the taxpayers should be in this type of business, we 
have to vote for my amendment to get us out of this business. This does 
not serve the interests of the general welfare of the people. This is 
antagonistic toward the general welfare of the people. It costs the 
taxpayers money, it puts the risk on the taxpayer, it serves the 
interests of the powerful special interests. Why else would they come 
with their lobbying funds? Why else would they come with their huge 
donations to the political action committees, unless it is a darn good 
deal for them?

                              {time}  1200

  They say it is a good deal for Boeing workers, but in 1995 there was 
a strike by the machinists against Boeing because Boeing agreed to buy 
the tail portion of the 737 from Red China.
  We are certainly losing jobs to Red China, Mexico, and other places. 
I do not mind it if that is a market consequence, but when it is done 
at the expense of the American taxpayer and it hurts us, we should not 
do it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 
Export-Import Bank is a vital tool for

[[Page 14282]]

helping United States businesses export United States goods. It should 
not be eliminated.
  In an ideal world, governments around the world would not subsidize 
their exports, and the United States would not, as well. However, we 
all know that other countries sometimes engage in ruthless trading 
practices, and we must give the United States exporters the tools to 
compete. As long as exporters in Europe and elsewhere are getting 
assistance, the Export-Import Bank will be a vital tool for American 
exporters.
  Recent trends show that export financing is becoming more, rather 
than less common, and major trading nations increased their government-
provided export credit by 30 percent between 1993 and 1998. Total 
credit reached $488 billion in 1988 from other nations, while Export-
Import Bank credits totaled just $14 billion.
  Given the huge and growing trade deficits we face, it is imperative, 
in my judgment, that we give our exporters assistance to remain 
competitive in world markets.
  I have questioned and will continue to question some of the Bank's 
practices and procedures, and the committee will continue to recommend 
appropriate funding levels for the Bank based upon our oversight and 
review of these practices.
  However, eliminating them entirely, as this amendment proposes to do, 
would inflict serious harm on United States exporters, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York has just given some of 
the reasons, with data, to oppose this amendment. This is a draconian 
amendment. It eliminates the Export-Import Bank's transaction program 
altogether. It ends it. It is abject, total, unilateral disarmament.
  Mr. Chairman, the American Export Credit and Guarantee Agency of the 
Export-Import Bank is already underfunded as compared to the similar 
institutions from other major export countries of Europe, Japan, and 
even elsewhere. We are outstripped as it is.
  In a perfect world, we would not have to have subsidy, but we are 
dependent to a major extent in our economy on our job base, on being 
able to export. We have negotiated, with some success, rules for the 
use of subsidies by the major export countries through the OECD. We 
have not completely tied that down, if I may use that down, on tied 
aid. We still have to have a war chest the administration is about to 
use.
  But this is not a perfect world. If our exporters are to compete, if 
we are to build and sustain a job base in this country, we must have an 
effective, properly funded Export-Import Bank in this country. This 
would totally eliminate it.
  I would say that the gentleman is not guilty of doing things halfway. 
He goes all the way on a proposal.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  The gentleman makes the point that we fund in our Export-Import Bank 
less compared to other nations. That possibly is true.
  Mr. BEREUTER. In absolute terms.
  Mr. PAUL. The gentleman argues for an increase. But is it not true 
that the United States has had a healthier economy in the last 10 years 
than most of our competitors, indicating that it probably has not done 
us that much harm by not doing the same things that other countries do 
by penalizing their people with high taxation and making these 
subsidies?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, our economic health relies on a lot 
of things, but we cannot confuse cause and effect. If we lost our 
export sector, we would be in deep trouble.
  Take my own home State, for example, agriculture being one of the two 
major largest exporters. One-third, maybe even more, of everything we 
grow, like the rest of this country, is export. If we lose that base, 
if we would write off 95 percent of the world's people, we are in a 
hopeless condition.
  I would say to the gentleman, I understand his ideological reasons 
for offering this. I happen to dramatically disagree. I think American 
citizens do not support the unilateral disarmament.
  Mr. PAUL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, why 
is it assumed that there would be no export funds available to export 
goods if we did not subsidize the exports?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I would say to the gentleman, it does not totally cut 
off exports, but it does cut off a very significant base if we 
unilaterally disarm. Because in many areas, of course, we are competing 
for third-country markets where the subsidy from the French or the 
Germans or Japanese or some other major export company make the 
difference.
  Without us being there, we certainly do not have a chance to 
effectively compete for those jobs, for those products to be exported 
abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will be brief. Let me just say that I think the arguments have been 
laid out by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
and by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the arguments 
against this.
  I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Texas; and his 
position on these matters. He is very consistent on these kinds of 
amendments. I do appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself conflicted in the sense that I am a free 
trader and I oppose many of the things that many of my colleagues 
around here do endorse. However, in this case, the case of the Export-
Import Bank, I do not go as far as the gentleman from Texas. The reason 
for not doing so I think is fairly simple.
  As the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, in a perfect world, in a 
perfect world we would not have an Export-Import Bank. The Europeans 
and the Japanese and all the other countries would not have the kinds 
of export subsidies that they have.
  But the world is not perfect. The world of trade between countries is 
not perfect. There is taxation, there are regulations, there are export 
subsidies, there are a whole variety of things that go into making it a 
totally imperfect world.
  So in this imperfect world, we have to deal with the reality of what 
we have. I believe that the Export-Import Bank helps us, helps 
particularly our small- and medium-sized businesses, not only the very 
large who ones who do get some of the money. They are not the ones who 
would not have access. They would have access. But it is the small and 
medium businesses that I think are very important to the United States, 
and it is very important particularly to smaller communities around the 
country that they are able to have access to this export financing 
credit that enables them to make a sale overseas, to close the deal.
  The final thing that closes the deal is this Export-Import Bank 
subsidy. It enables them to do that where they would not otherwise be 
able to do it. Many of the other countries in the world use their aid 
very much as tied aid, and we have gotten away from that.
  But the idea that you would have a specific loan given only if it 
buys a product from that country, we have tried to get away from doing 
that with our economic assistance, and I am glad to see that we have. 
The export financing, however, is absolutely critical for our companies 
that try to do this business overseas and are dealing in the imperfect 
world out there.
  So I think it is very important that we keep that. Abolishing it 
completely, as the gentleman from Texas would have us do, abolishing 
that completely and taking away all of our ability to do that I think 
would simply be the wrong thing for us to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and for 
us to continue to reform the Export-Import Bank, to continue to reform 
the whole process worldwide so we can rely less on these kinds of 
subsidies.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 14283]]


  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks and rise in strong opposition to the Paul 
amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed until disposition of all perfecting amendments to this 
paragraph.


     Amendment No. 48 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON 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. 48 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas:
       Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
restores $25 million that was cut by the Committee on Appropriations 
from the administration's request of $107.5 million for the Global 
Environment Facility administered by the World Bank.
  In considering this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind 
my colleagues of the motto ``Think globally, act locally.''
  The GEF was established to forge international cooperation and help 
to finance efforts to address four environmental threats that transcend 
borders: climate change, degradation of international waters, 
biodiversity laws, and ozone depletion. It is administered jointly by 
the World Bank, the U.N. Development Program, and the U.N. 
Environmental Program, with a mission of bringing together governments, 
developing institutions, the scientific community, the private sector, 
and the NGOs toward a common goal of bringing about sustainable 
economic development.
  In the period 1991 to 1999, GEF oversaw more than $2.7 billion in 
grants, which helped to leverage billions more in co-financing from 
partners, that is, recipient nation NGOs, the private sector, et 
cetera. More importantly, these projects are usually small in scale. 
However, when we add them altogether, they have a large, cumulative 
benefit to the global environment.
  The United States is the leading donor to the GEF, and it is 
essential that we continue to lead the way in fostering sustainable 
development and sound environmental practices in developing countries.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would help to ensure that the U.S. pays 
its full 2002 contribution of $107.5 million. GEF funding is especially 
critical in the area of global climate change, where we have tended to 
focus on alleged flaws in the Kyoto Treaty that place too much of a 
burden on industrialized nations, such as the U.S., and not enough on 
developing countries.
  Whether one agrees with this proposition or not, we should all be in 
agreement when it comes to providing funds to help the developing world 
to do their part in reducing the risk of global climate change while 
providing the energy that is necessary for vigorous, sustainable 
economic development.
  The GEF also will play a critical role in the implementation of the 
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. So-called POPs include 
PCBs, DDT, and dioxins. Most have already been banned or are severely 
limited here in the U.S. However, since these chemicals do stay in the 
environment for a long time and have a tendency to spread around in the 
food chain, our own restrictions will be undermined if we do not also 
help developing nations reduce their use of these chemicals.
  My amendment is supported by the leading environmental groups and 
organizations, including the NRDC, Friends of the Earth, US PIRG, LCV, 
Environmental Defense, American Oceans Campaign, and the World Wildlife 
Fund.
  My proposed increase for the GEF is offset by the cuts to the Export-
Import Bank subsidy appropriation. I am proposing this offset not 
because I have any particular animus toward the Export-Import Bank. I 
have always supported it. I personally come from a State that relies 
heavily on exporting goods to other countries.
  However, we are putting more in that budget than the administration 
requests, and we are cutting this part of the budget below the 
administration request. The administration seems to believe that the 
Export-Import Bank can successfully carry out its mission with less 
funding, and I am willing to go along with that recommendation.
  Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I appreciate the comments that the 
gentlewoman from Texas has made and the substance of her amendment. I 
know what she is looking for, as she has said, is a full request for 
the Global Environment Facility.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think this matter is one that 
is going to continue to be discussed between the House and Senate. 
Historically, the other body has usually funded this at a higher level, 
and I know we are going to be reviewing this in conference.
  Certainly the issue is an important one, as recent debate worldwide 
and on the Kyoto matter just this last weekend has highlighted the 
importance of environmental issues; and having a body that looks at 
these issues and also one that helps to fund some of the projects 
dealing with the environment, I think that is very important. So I 
would just say to the gentlewoman that I believe that we will be 
reviewing this matter in the conference. I think she is probably going 
to be much happier when the conference report comes back as it relates 
to the Global Environment Facility.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in view of that 
commitment and interest, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1215


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Crowley

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Crowley:
       Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1)''.
       Page 11, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment in 
conjunction with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). As cochairmen 
of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) have been leaders in their work with India and the 
Indian-American community.
  Mr. Chairman, in January of this year, the Indian state of Gujarat 
was decimated by a devastating earthquake that killed thousands of 
people and turned its infrastructure into rubble. In the aftermath of 
this tragedy, there was a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking as to 
why so many people were killed and why so much damage was inflicted. 
The answer, Mr. Chairman, is simple: the Gujarati Government was not 
prepared to deal with a disaster of such magnitude, despite the fact 
that this region and the south Asian region as a whole is routinely 
subject to such natural disasters.

[[Page 14284]]

  The Crowley-Royce-McDermott amendment seeks to provide sorely needed 
funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development Office of 
Foreign Disaster Relief, the Kathmandu office, so that it may work with 
the governments and communities of Southeast Asia to develop emergency 
response and disaster preparedness capabilities.
  There is no FEMA in India, there is no FEMA in Bangladesh, there is 
no FEMA in Nepal, there is no FEMA in Sri Lanka. In many Indian states 
like Gujarat, there is a serious lack of emergency equipment such as 
ambulances and fire trucks; and as a result, many thousands of people 
in Gujarat died needlessly because of such shortages in sorely needed 
equipment.
  The Gujarat earthquake was but one more in a long series of natural 
disasters that have plagued South Asia. South Asia is in a geographical 
and geological crossroads that makes it very vulnerable to disasters. 
Massive cyclones regularly batter not only Gujarat, but also Orissa, 
Maharashtra, Andhra, Pradesh, and Sindh. Drought is a periodic way of 
life in western India and Pakistan as well. Every season, countless 
thousands die in Bangladesh due to flooding. The instability of the 
Himalayan Mountains forces Nepal in northern India to constantly dig 
out from avalanches and other slides.
  Earthquakes have been a fact of life not only in Gujarat but all 
across the subcontinent for years. No country in the region fully has 
the capability to institute disaster preparedness and response programs 
in a manner that will be sufficient to deal with these disasters. 
Several countries of the region have approached the United States 
Government for technical assistance in order to establish their own 
agencies for disaster management. The establishment of FEMA-like 
organizations in South Asia would greatly increase the capacity of 
nations to deal with such disasters.
  USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA, currently has a 
representative based in Kathmandu, Nepal, who is charged with covering 
the entire region. Over the past 15 years, OFDA has developed a strong 
working relationship with these countries to help them identify the 
best response and preparedness system for each of these countries. An 
increase to OFDA's funding will allow that representative to expand and 
enhance programs in the region to help these nations prepare the 
appropriate response and preparedness capability to deal with past and 
future natural disasters.
  The $10 million for this enhancement would be offset by a $10 million 
decrease in the Andean initiative. This is a small price to pay to 
enable the people of South Asia to survive natural disasters. The 
countless lives that could be saved by enhancing disaster preparedness 
in South Asia far outweigh the small amount of arms and military 
training that would be sent to South America for the same funds.
  The consequences of natural disasters are varied. They may be 
considered in terms of human lives, material goods, economic 
activities, political impacts, associate or psychological factors. 
Societal and economic consequences of such natural disasters are too 
countless to mention. The severe cyclone that developed in the Bay of 
Bengal in October of 1999 hit the eastern coast of India with 
tremendous force, causing floods and wind damage in Orissa, Andhra, 
Pradesh, and West Bengal states.
  A second, larger cyclone, the worst storm in almost 30 years, struck 
India's eastern coastline further impacting those states and the Bengal 
states.
  The Indian Ministry of Agriculture's Central Disaster Mitigation 
Center reported 9,465 persons killed, 2,260 persons injured as a result 
of the two cyclones. Infrastructure destruction was catastrophic. More 
than 15 million people were impacted, 1.5 million homes completely 
destroyed, and damage to the power grid totaled more than 300 million 
rupees. There was a loss of substantial grain storage and limited 
access to safe drinking water, as well as damage to sewer systems.
  Basically, Mr. Chairman, the country was decimated. If we do not do 
this, there will be economies that may never recover.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment; and I 
want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who serves with me as 
the cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-
Americans. I want to thank them for their leadership on this amendment.
  The three of us have introduced this amendment basically to add $10 
million to the international disaster assistance fund for USAID's 
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. And the reason we have done this 
is really in the wake of that earthquake that struck Gujarat. Our 
hearts go out to the people of Gujarat. We had a chance to visit 
Gujarat and see the devastation caused by a quake of a magnitude of 
6.9. There was one town we were in, the town of Bhuj, where literally 
every building seemed to have collapsed. In Ahmadabad, apartment 
complexes had collapsed like accordions on the people inside.
  I think we know of more than 17,000 people that lost their lives in 
Gujarat. There are at least 600,000 homeless. I had, as I said, the 
opportunity to visit the people there after that quake; and it is hard 
to put into words the feeling one gets seeing block after block of 
homes collapsed, seeing the fact that the relief work did not get in 
early enough to save the people, many of the people whose lives could 
have been saved. And the tragic fact is that natural disasters come 
often to South Asia, to that subcontinent. And after the disaster, to 
add insult to injury, comes the monsoon season. Summer brings those 
monsoon rains and the cyclones whipping through the coastal regions. 
And so in western India and Pakistan, where this quake occurred, 
drought is a constant.
  And now in the wake of this earthquake, we have the destruction of 
the dams and so thousands now will die from flooding, and thousands 
will die from flooding in Bangladesh as well. And, unfortunately, no 
country in the region has the capability, Mr. Chairman, to institute 
disaster preparedness and response programs in a manner sufficient to 
deal with these catastrophes. If they did, if they did, tens of 
thousands of human lives would be saved.
  Now, we are in a position to help ensure that the nations of South 
Asia will be prepared to deal with its next natural disaster, and let 
there be no doubt there will be another one, by passing this amendment. 
This amendment would enable south Asian nations to establish a FEMA-
type organization that would greatly increase their capacity to deal 
with any of the disasters of this type.
  When I traveled to India shortly after the earthquake, I heard from 
Indian Government officials and relief organizations about the 
importance of a long-term disaster management plan. There was great 
interest in India in developing a disaster response agency and learning 
from FEMA's expertise. Currently, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster 
Assistance has a single representative in South Asia, only one, charged 
with covering the entire region of South Asia.
  This increase in the budget in OFDA's funding would allow for the 
expansion and enhancement of our efforts to help these nations develop 
this much-needed program. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. It honors America's humanitarian interests; it also reflects 
America's growing political relations with this area of the world.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of this amendment, which would help mitigate the effects of 
future disasters in South Asia.
  We witnessed with horror the devastation caused by the recent 
earthquake in Gujarat, India; but this was not the first nor will it be 
the last such occurrence in Southeast Asia. As reconstruction from the 
earthquake continues, we must look to improve the capacity of countries 
in the region to deal with similar events. The central purpose of our 
foreign assistance program is to help other countries build the 
capacity to help themselves.

[[Page 14285]]

  We help build vibrant NGO networks in the developing world, we help 
ministries of education train teachers and develop curricula to educate 
their children, and we help create health care infrastructures to allow 
poor countries to deliver medication and care efficiently and 
effectively. We should also be helping other countries build their 
capacity to handle unavoidable natural disasters.
  FEMA does a wonderful job dealing with crises in the United States. 
Our friends in India, Bangladesh, and elsewhere in the region require 
similar agencies to help them manage the devastation wrought by 
earthquakes, cyclones, avalanches and other disasters. Better disaster 
management will save lives. It will allow countries that have 
experienced tragedies to recover and reconstruct expeditiously. In the 
long run, it will lessen the massive need for United States foreign 
disaster assistance. I urge my conclusion to support this amendment.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this discussion of India, and I 
appreciate the sensitivities of it and feel great sympathy; but I have 
been watching on television this morning the debate that is occurring 
on the Ex-Im Bank and I really am very alarmed. So at this moment I 
rise in concern over the several amendments, two of which we will be 
voting on to cut or eliminate the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Chairman, it is vital to restore this amount of money that 
already has been reduced by $107 million from the 2001's budget 
allocation. It is also important for us to think in terms of loans 
rather than subsidies. The Ex-Im Bank provides loan guarantees, not 
subsidies, to foreign nations. But the Ex-Im Bank support particularly 
is critical to the world's developing and emerging markets and nations 
that otherwise would not be able to receive private commercial lending 
guarantees to finance their sales.
  I think anybody who lives in the Pacific Northwest has to be known as 
a fan of Boeing, and I am one of those. In fiscal year 2000 alone, the 
Export-Import Bank guaranteed aircraft loans for the sale of more than 
60 aircraft to airlines in 15 different countries. In the last 2 years, 
Ex-Im Bank has guaranteed loans for 185 aircraft that are worth $11 
billion. In my corner of the world, that means 17 percent of Boeing's 
commercial business.
  The Ex-Im Bank is indispensable to the global competitiveness of 
United States exporters like Boeing and many other companies. I think 
this bank helps in its loan guarantees to level the playing field with 
our European competitors in many overseas markets. So I would certainly 
hope that the Members of this body, in their great wisdom and with 
great thoughtfulness, would maintain our competitive edge by opposing 
these amendments when they come to a vote.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Crowley amendment to the foreign 
ops bill that would add $10 million to the Office of Foreign Disaster 
Assistance at USAID.
  It is my understanding that this amendment is going to be changed 
somewhat so that it is $1 million instead of $10 million but that we 
will try in conference to get the larger amount. I know that there is 
likely to be more money available at that level in conference, so I 
commend the author of this amendment for his efforts here.
  I think this is very important, and let me stress that those of us 
who have been around here for a few years know that there are many 
natural disasters that befall the South Asia area, whether it be 
cyclones in Bangladesh, or earthquakes in India, or some of the other 
natural disasters that we have seen over the years. And, of course, the 
U.S. is always there to help out and to provide assistance when those 
disasters occur in India and surrounding countries. But the bottom line 
is what we are trying to do here today is, I think in many ways, much 
more important than disaster relief, and that is preparedness.

                              {time}  1230

  The idea of having a FEMA-type organization in place in South Asia to 
address a long-term disaster management program is probably the best 
idea I have seen around here in years in trying to cope with these 
natural disasters.
  I can tell you from my experience as I live along the shore in New 
Jersey, we have had FEMA many times coming down and helping us with 
hurricane or Northeasterner preparedness. It has saved millions of 
dollars and so many lives over the years because we have FEMA and we 
have preparedness in place.
  I have to imagine that in the case of South Asia, this will make a 
tremendous difference. That is why I encourage this effort whether it 
is $1 million or the $10 million that we hopefully will get eventually.
  Let me say South Asia's geographic location makes it very vulnerable 
to disaster. The Gujarat earthquake in January was just one in a long 
series of natural disasters that has plagued the subcontinent. In fact, 
many states in India alone are continually ravaged by massive cyclones; 
and drought is a way of life in western India. Bangladesh sees 
thousands die in flooding, and the instability of the Himalayan 
Mountains force Nepal and Northern India to constantly dig out from 
avalanches and other slides.
  India, and certainly no other country in this region, fully has the 
capability to institute disaster preparedness and response programs in 
a manner that will be sufficient to deal with these disasters. Several 
countries in the region have approached the U.S. for technical 
assistance in order to establish their own agencies for disaster 
management. The establishment for a FEMA-like organization in South 
Asia would greatly increase the capacity of nations to deal with such 
disasters.
  USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance currently has a lone 
representative based in Kathmandu, Nepal who is charged with covering 
the whole region. An increase in that office would allow that 
representative to expand in and enhance our programs in the region to 
help these nations develop the needed programs.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very important. I cannot stress how 
important it is. I offer my full support to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), and other 
Members of our India caucus and encourage all of my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment to 
increase the amount available for international disaster assistance for 
South Asia for earthquake monitoring. While the Crowley initiative is 
important and well-intentioned, it is regrettable that he intends to 
find the needed resources by reducing the money set aside for the 
Andean Counterdrug Initiative. That portion of this initiative I cannot 
support.
  The Andean Drug Initiative is critical to fighting the movement of 
illicit drugs coming into our Nation. Every community in our America 
has been touched by the pain and suffering that accompanies illicit 
drug usage. Having indicated these concerns, I understand that a 
compromise has now been worked out to reduce the $10 million portion to 
$1 million; and I will reluctantly support that compromise.
  The recent earthquake in India did kill thousands of people and cause 
millions of dollars of damage. I would hope an appropriate amount is 
found to fund this much needed program.
  If our Nation can help develop a monitoring system that will forecast 
future quakes, we would be greatly contributing to the safety of 
millions of South Asians. This is an important and worthy goal to 
achieve. Accordingly, I fully support the Kolbe compromise agreement.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor because I want to tell a tale of 
two cities. Seattle and Bhuj in Gujarat had earthquakes of about the 
same strength. Seattle lost one life, and a few buildings

[[Page 14286]]

had some cracks here and there. There was quite a bit of physical 
damage but nothing like what happened to the city of Bhuj, the area in 
which Bhuj exists, that is, Gujarat, had somewhere between 25,000 and 
100,000 people die. About 100,000 homes were flattened, and it had to 
do with the system of preparedness we have in this country for 
disasters and the absence of such a system in India.
  As you heard from a previous speaker, USAID presently has one person 
sitting in Kathmandu to cover all of the subcontinent, and it is 
clearly not enough when you are looking at situations like this.
  It used to be, the first years I was in Congress, we were out here 
every year giving money to some disaster here or there or another 
place. Hurricane Mitch or the Mozambican floods or a whole bunch of 
things. But this administration has said there will be no disaster 
relief for India or for El Salvador, and they are cutting down the use 
of money from the Surplus Commodities Program. All of those used to be 
programs that were used to deal with human misery.
  I originally started with $100 million for earthquake rehabilitation 
to help them build homes that would survive this kind of an earthquake. 
I am down to $10 million now, and I cannot get it into that. But at 
least we can help them establish a system of earthquake preparedness 
like our own.
  One of problems when you have buildings fall down like that is, how 
do you get to the people who are underneath it? What is required is 
saws that will cut concrete. One of things we know in the United States 
is if we have a disaster anywhere, we can have cement cutting saws 
there within a few hours. The ones that went to India came from 
Switzerland. You can imagine how long it took them to get organized in 
Switzerland, get them on a plane, and fly them. By that time people 
have been lying in rubble for 12 to 24 hours.
  Mr. Chairman, a person can only survive in most of these situations 
for about 72 hours. Occasionally they find somebody after 4 or 5 days; 
generally, however, it is a very short window. So the Office of 
Disaster Preparedness is really to have a list and a cataloging of 
where are the things that we can use for this.
  Mr. Chairman, we also need cranes. If workers are going to lift a 20-
ton slab of concrete, they have got to have cranes available. All of 
these things in the United States, we do not have them sitting 
someplace, but FEMA knows where they are. If there is a problem, the 
calls go immediately, and the equipment comes in. That is what we are 
talking about here with this money for India.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear there is perhaps a compromise in the works for 
$1 million. I only have this to say about $1 million. We are the 
richest country in the world. For us to look at a country of a billion 
people and say hey, we can find $1 million, that is not even a rounding 
error in this place today.
  In my view, $10 million is a minimal contribution that we should be 
able to make to this. I hope the chairman and the ranking member, when 
they get to conference, will see if they cannot get the number up.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Crowley, Royce, 
McDermott Amendment. This Amendment will add $10 million to the 
International Disaster Assistance fund for USAID's Office of Foreign 
Disaster Assistance to help six South Asian nations prepare and 
increase response capabilities for natural disasters. In turn, a 
heightened state of readiness will help the governments of India, 
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan save much-needed 
monetary and natural resources as well as countless lives.
  The earthquake that hit India in January was the latest in a long 
series of reminders that South Asia is in a geological crossroads, 
which makes it especially vulnerable to disasters. The 7.9-magnitude 
earthquake in the State of Gujarat shook office buildings 900 miles 
away in New Delhi and was felt 2,000 miles away in Calcutta. The deaths 
of 15,000 people were a sobering illustration of the lack of disaster 
preparedness in India and South Asia.
  As the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States 
have enjoyed a common commitment to the rule of law and basic freedoms 
as well as longstanding cooperation in the economic, commercial, and 
agricultural fields. The U.S.-India friendship extends to the fight 
against terrorism, the protection of the environment, and the expansion 
of trade.
  Furthermore, India's unwavering dedication to democracy; universal 
suffrage; freedom of religion, speech, and the press; and a deep-rooted 
tradition of nonviolence and tolerance, have demonstrated that nation's 
progress on human rights. As a linguistically, religiously, and 
ethnically diverse nation--home to more that one billion people--India 
presents its leaders with daunting challenges. Nevertheless, India's 
leaders have confronted all problems directly and have shown the world 
how to live with differences under trying circumstances. They have 
demonstrated that tolerance and respect are often the keys to our 
mutual survival.
  At the dawn of the 21st Century, as India and the United States 
continue to grow closer in terms of economic and trade relations, joint 
efforts on counter-terrorism, and strategic cooperation, let us extend 
our hand of friendship and our commitment to strong relations to all 
South Asian nations.
  As a member of the Congressional Caucus on India, I ask my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the Crowley, Royce, McDermott Amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I 
want to thank my colleagues from the International Relations 
Committee--Mr. Crowley and Mr. Royce--as well as Mr. McDermott, the co-
chair of the India Caucus for introducing this amendment to the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations bill. This amendment would add $10 million to 
the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID to fund a disaster 
preparedness and prevention program in South Asia.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen over the last two years a series of 
natural disasters that have wreaked havoc in the countries of South 
Asia--everything from the droughts, cyclones and floods that regularly 
afflict the subcontinent to the devastating earthquake that hit India 
and Pakistan earlier this year.
  The South Asia region is one of the most disaster prone parts of the 
world has some of the poorest and most densely populated countries. 
Experts believe that there is a very high likelihood that an earthquake 
similar to the Bhuj earthquake will strike Nepal within the decade. 
Pakistan and Afghanistan are even now experiencing a severe drought 
that is causing thousands to flee their homes and abandon their farms.
  And yet we have first hand experience in how effective response and 
early warning systems can save lives and minimize destruction from 
natural disasters.
  Our Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established a 
worldwide reputation for fast and effective disaster response. When 
disaster strikes in America, FEMA works with state and local 
governments, non-governmental organizations like the Red Cross and the 
Salvation Army, military and police authorities, and a myriad other 
actors to coordinate an effective disaster response. Such capacity is 
clearly needed in South Asia.
  By working with each of these countries individually and 
collectively, OFDA can help these countries improve their response 
capacity and reduce the devastation and loss of life that inevitably 
follow natural disasters in South Asia.
  Furthermore, by helping to establish greater regional cooperation in 
disaster management will help the countries of South Asia access and 
deploy much needed assets in a more cost effective way and could lead 
to greater cooperation in other areas.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly all of the countries of South Asia could 
benefit enormously from better emergency preparedness and mitigation 
programs.
  However, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) 
currently has a lone representative based in Kathmandu, Nepal who is 
charged with covering the whole region. An increase to OFDA's funding 
would allow that representative to expand and enhance programs in the 
region to help these nations develop the needed programs.
  These programs will help save thousands of lives and will ultimately 
save U.S. taxpayer money over the long run as the countries of South 
Asia improve and build their own disaster management and response 
capacity, thereby reducing their need for American assistance when 
disaster strikes--as it inevitably will.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the Crowley-Royce-McDermott Amendment. It is difficult for

[[Page 14287]]

us to imagine the magnitude of destruction and loss caused by India's 
devastating earthquake in Gujarat. With over 30,000 dead, 500,000 
homeless, and over $5.5 billion worth of damage, Gujarat desperately 
needs the resources to begin rebuilding and recovering from this tragic 
event. As India's largest trading partner and investor, the United 
States has a duty to help the people of Gujarat and ensure that natural 
disasters do not fracture the foundation of the world's largest 
democracy.
  The key to avoiding the unnecessary deaths of thousands of 
individuals is to institute disaster preparedness and response programs 
throughout India. Many South Asian countries have asked our government 
for technical assistance so that they can develop disaster management 
programs. In order to be successful, however, these efforts need 
sufficient funds and resources. An additional $10 million in aid, a 
relatively modest contribution for the U.S., would not only provide 
relief to victims of the recent earthquake, but also help prevent 
future deaths should another earthquake strike this geographically 
vulnerable region.
  With the proper resources, India can harness its manpower to surmount 
nature's greatest obstacles including cyclones, droughts, floods, and 
earthquakes. We cannot afford to see a repeat of January's tragedy, and 
we cannot watch as a nation which accounts for a quarter of the world's 
poor experiences needless suffering. I am certain that Congress will 
recognize that it would be inhumane not to vote in favor of this highly 
cost-effective amendment.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Kolbe as a Substitute for Amendment No. 12 
                         Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe as a substitute for 
     amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Crowley.
       In lieu of the pending amendment:
       Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1)''.
       Page 11, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the 
remarks that have been made here on the floor, most notably by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley); and I associate myself fully 
with the remarks about the importance of providing disaster relief to 
India and South Asia and planning for this kind of thing in advance so 
the number of lives lost can be reduced so the damage can be reduced so 
that the recovery can be greatly speeded up. I think the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley) has proposed an excellent idea.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say why I have my amendment here. First of all, 
we have $200 million in the disaster assistance account. Whether we add 
$1 million or $10 million more is not going to direct $1 more to India 
or South Asia. There are adequate monies in that fund to handle the 
disasters that are likely to occur during the course of the year.
  My second point is our report has language in it that urges them to 
give attention to this problem of disaster mitigation. I think the 
discussion we have had here today reinforces that. My substitute 
amendment, by adding the $1 million that is included in our report 
language into this account, makes it even more abundantly clear.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the substitute amendment avoids us getting into 
the issues such as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has pointed 
out, all of the issues where this money comes out of, and we will have 
those debates shortly, and still makes the point that we expect the 
Agency for International Development and the Disaster Assistance 
Program to look carefully at this issue of mitigation of disasters.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this to our 
attention and would hope that Members would be able to support our 
amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the gentleman's 
amendment to increase the funding for AID from $200 million to $201 
million?
  Mr. KOLBE. That is correct.
  Mr. CROWLEY. And the gentleman has agreed to allocate through the 
conference process to work to ensure that $10 million will be allocated 
from the AID fund that will be directed to the South Asia region, the 
Kathmandu office?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would use the word ``direct'' rather than 
``allocate.'' We do not earmark. We have a direction that they make 
this money available, and they look carefully at the mitigation issues 
in South Asia. I believe it accomplishes exactly what the gentleman is 
asking us to do.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to accept the gentleman's 
substitute. I appreciate my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) expressing my views on the importance of the ability to 
respond to emergencies such as happened in India and Gujarat, and I am 
very pleased to work with the chairman to direct AID to direct the 
funds of $10 million towards this account. We both acknowledge the very 
important work of FEMA and the ability to respond to emergencies such 
as occurred in Gujarat, and working with countries to build that 
capacity.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this must be a real 
affirmation. As the gentleman recalls, we discussed this issue last 
week, and I support the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and thank 
him for his leadership and thank the gentleman for this amendment.
  There are a number of Indo-Americans who have worked so hard on this 
disaster in India, among other places, and I think this is a very 
important step to help them in their efforts, and I thank the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

                              {time}  1245

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        administrative expenses

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and 
     guaranteed loan and insurance programs, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed $30,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses for members of the Board of 
     Directors, $63,000,000: Provided, That necessary expenses 
     (including special services performed on a contract or fee 
     basis, but not including other personal services) in 
     connection with the collection of moneys owed the Export-
     Import Bank, repossession or sale of pledged collateral or 
     other assets acquired by the Export-Import Bank in 
     satisfaction of moneys owed the Export-Import Bank, or the 
     investigation or appraisal of any property, or the evaluation 
     of the legal or technical aspects of any transaction for 
     which an application for a loan, guarantee or insurance 
     commitment has been made, shall be considered 
     nonadministrative expenses for the purposes of this heading: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding subsection (b) of 
     section 117 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, subsection 
     (a) thereof shall remain in effect until October 1, 2002.


                overseas private investment corporation

                           noncredit account

       The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized 
     to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as 
     provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments 
     within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance 
     with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount 
     available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
     and insurance programs (including an amount for official 
     reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed 
     $35,000) shall not exceed $38,608,000: Provided further, That 
     project-specific transaction costs, including direct and 
     indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other 
     direct costs associated with services provided to specific 
     investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be considered 
     administrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.

[[Page 14288]]




                            program account

       Such sums as may be necessary for administrative expenses 
     to carry out the credit program may be derived from amounts 
     available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit 
     and insurance programs in the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation noncredit Account and merged with said account.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                      trade and development agency

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     $50,024,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 60 offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky); amendment No. 56 offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
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 258, 
noes 162, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--258

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--162

     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Gallegly
     Hastings (WA)
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Reyes
     Sabo
     Scarborough
     Spence

                              {time}  1310

  Messrs. GANSKE, GILCHREST, WELLER and DeMINT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SPRATT, RANGEL, SANDLIN, BISHOP, RUSH, BACHUS, EVERETT, 
PETERSON of Pennsylvania, JENKINS and WHITFIELD, Mrs. KELLY and Mrs. JO 
ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 260 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, 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 the amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                  Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 47, 
noes 375, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                                AYES--47

     Akin
     Armey
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Burton
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Culberson
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Duncan

[[Page 14289]]


     Edwards
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jones (NC)
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Ney
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Platts
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Traficant
     Wamp

                               NOES--375

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Gallegly
     Hastings (WA)
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Reyes
     Scarborough
     Spence
     Stenholm

                              {time}  1319

  Mr. HERGER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out 
     the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for 
     other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 2002, 
     unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:


           united states agency for international development

                child survival and health programs fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and title I of Public Law 106-570, for child survival, 
     reproductive health, assistance to combat tropical and other 
     infectious diseases, and related activities, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for such purposes, $1,387,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That this 
     amount shall be made available for such activities as: (1) 
     immunization programs; (2) oral rehydration programs; (3) 
     health, nutrition, water and sanitation programs, and related 
     education programs, which directly address the needs of 
     mothers and children; (4) assistance for displaced and 
     orphaned children; (5) programs for the prevention, 
     treatment, and control of, and research on, tuberculosis, 
     HIV/AIDS, polio, malaria and other infectious diseases; and 
     (6) reproductive health: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be made available 
     for nonproject assistance, except that funds may be made 
     available for such assistance for ongoing health programs: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not to exceed $125,000, in addition to funds 
     otherwise available for such purposes, may be used to monitor 
     and provide oversight of child survival, maternal health, and 
     infectious disease programs: Provided further, That the 
     following amounts should be allocated as follows: 
     $295,000,000 for child survival and maternal health; 
     $25,000,000 for vulnerable children; $434,000,000 for HIV/
     AIDS; $155,000,000 for other infectious diseases; 
     $120,000,000 for UNICEF; and $358,000,000 for reproductive 
     health: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, up to $60,000,000 may be made available 
     for a United States contribution to the The Vaccine Fund and 
     up to $10,000,000 may be made available for the International 
     AIDS Vaccine Initiative: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading and under the heading ``Child 
     Survival and Disease Programs Fund'' in the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2001, up to $100,000,000 may be made 
     available for a United States contribution to a multilateral 
     trust fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available in 
     this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior 
     appropriations may be made available to any organization or 
     program which, as determined by the President of the United 
     States, supports or participates in the management of a 
     program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization: 
     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 abortions; 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 project shall meet the following requirements: (1) 
     service providers or referral agents in the project shall not 
     implement or be subject to quotas, or other numerical 
     targets, of total number of births, number of family planning 
     acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of family 
     planning (this provision shall not be construed to include 
     the use of quantitative estimates or indicators for budgeting 
     and planning purposes); (2) the project shall not include 
     payment of incentives, bribes, gratuities, or financial 
     reward to: (A) an individual in exchange for becoming a 
     family planning acceptor; or (B) program personnel for 
     achieving a numerical target or quota of total number of 
     births, number of family planning acceptors, or acceptors of 
     a particular method of family planning; (3) the project shall 
     not deny any right or benefit, including the right of access 
     to participate in any program of general welfare or the right 
     of access to health care, as a consequence of any 
     individual's decision not to accept family planning services; 
     (4) the project shall provide family planning acceptors 
     comprehensible information on the health benefits and risks 
     of the method chosen, including those conditions that might

[[Page 14290]]

     render the use of the method inadvisable and those adverse 
     side effects known to be consequent to the use of the method; 
     and (5) the project shall ensure that experimental 
     contraceptive drugs and devices and medical procedures are 
     provided only in the context of a scientific study in which 
     participants are advised of potential risks and benefits; 
     and, not less than 60 days after the date on which the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development determines that there has been a violation of the 
     requirements contained in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (5) of 
     this proviso, or a pattern or practice of violations of the 
     requirements contained in paragraph (4) of this proviso, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Committee on International 
     Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a report 
     containing a description of such violation and the corrective 
     action taken by the Agency: Provided further, That in 
     awarding grants for natural family planning under section 104 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 no applicant shall be 
     discriminated against because of such applicant's religious 
     or conscientious commitment to offer only natural family 
     planning; and, additionally, all such applicants shall comply 
     with the requirements of the previous proviso: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of this or any other Act 
     authorizing or appropriating funds for foreign operations, 
     export financing, and related programs, the term 
     ``motivate'', as it relates to family planning assistance, 
     shall not be construed to prohibit the provision, consistent 
     with local law, of information or counseling about all 
     pregnancy options: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.


                  Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Lee

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

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Ms. Lee:
       In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``child 
     survival and health programs fund'', after the first dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $60,000,000)''.
       In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``child 
     survival and health programs fund'', after the third dollar 
     amount in the fourth proviso, insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $60,000,000)''.
       In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``child 
     survival and health programs fund'', after the dollar amount 
     in the sixth proviso, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $60,000,000)''.
       In title II of the bill in the item relating to ``andean 
     counterdrug initiative'', after the first dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(decreased by $38,000,000)''.
       In title III of the bill in the item relating to ``foreign 
     military financing program'', after the first dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(decreased by $22,000,000)''.

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to begin by thanking the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for cosponsoring this amendment which 
would increase the United States contribution to the Global AIDS Trust 
Fund from $100 million to $160 million in fiscal year 2002. I would 
also like to acknowledge and thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 
their strong leadership in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, and for increasing global HIV and AIDS with this 
initial $100 million increase, and by a proposed $100 million in the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  Now, the United Nations Secretary General, General Kofi Annan, has 
stated that a $10 billion annual war chest is needed to fight HIV/AIDS. 
The Harvard AIDS Institute has stated that $10 billion is needed 
annually for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. So while these 
increases are taking us in the right direction, there still is not 
enough money for the Global AIDS Trust Fund.
  Last year, the United States spent $490 million on global HIV/AIDS 
programs. This amount falls short of the billions required to fight the 
global AIDS crisis.
  Now, we all know that the global AIDS crisis, particularly as it is 
affecting the African continent, is the greatest humanitarian crisis of 
our time. Eight thousand people died of AIDS every day last year and 
that means six people died every minute. Since the virus was first 
recognized 20 years ago, 58 million people have been infected and, at 
current rates of spread, the total will exceed $100 million by 2005. 
AIDS has orphaned over 10 million children in Africa. By 2010, there 
will be more than 40 million AIDS orphans.
  I participated in the United Nations General Assembly Special Session 
on HIV/AIDS as part of the official United States delegation. World 
leaders, international HIV experts, and economists in civil society 
called for a $7 billion to $10 billion Global AIDS Trust Fund in order 
to address HIV and AIDS prevention, education, care, and treatment in 
Africa.
  So I want to remind my colleagues that last year, both the House and 
Senate passed bipartisan legislation which authorized the establishment 
of the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund. This bill was signed into law by 
President Clinton.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I will insert for the Record a letter I 
received from the Secretary which indicates the importance of this 
legislation.

                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2001.
     Hon. Barbara Lee,
     Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC
       Dear Mrs. Lee: Thank you for your letter of June 22nd on 
     the negotiations to create a global fund for AIDS, 
     tuberculosis, and malaria. I appreciate the leadership and 
     support that Congress has demonstrated on this issue, and 
     agree that the international community should work to reach 
     agreement to establish the fund as quickly as possible. There 
     has been considerable progress toward this end, and the 
     United States is pushing hard to reach agreement on process 
     details and timetables that will enable the fund to be 
     established and operational by January 2002.
       The United States support a fiduciary role for the World 
     Bank in the global fund, and we are working with other donors 
     to achieve consensus on such a role. We have already had 
     preliminary discussions with the Bank on the substantive 
     elements of such a function.
       It is also the United States' position that the fund should 
     be donor-controlled and broadly representative of all 
     stakeholders, with a major operational role for medical and 
     public health experts. We believe that a consensus is also 
     beginning to form around these issues.
       Thank you again for your continuing interest and concern in 
     this urgent matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Paul H. O'Neill.

  Mr. Chairman, in order to remain at the forefront, our leadership, 
the United States leadership, must include providing significant 
funding to the Global AIDS Trust Fund. Actually, this year our 
authorization, which was agreed upon by our Committee on International 
Relations under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), calls for approximately a $750 million distribution. The trust 
fund will provide direct funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, education, 
treatment, and care services. These funds are desperately needed.
  I believe, and experts support, the fact that the United States must 
commit a minimum of $1 billion for the Global AIDS Trust Fund in order 
to lead this international effort. This will help leverage the $10 
billion requirement, and it will keep the United States in a leadership 
position.
  Now, I understand the financial constraints which are presented in 
this bill. However, I strongly believe that we must do everything that 
we can at every opportunity to bring us closer to that $1 billion 
level. So our $60 million amendment will do just that.
  As discussions about a comprehensive and coordinated global response 
to the AIDS crisis has ensued, there have been many questions about 
whether or not African countries and HIV/AIDS service providers will be 
able to expend large amounts of funding on the pandemic. I want to 
remind my colleagues about the authorizing language in H.R. 3519, the 
Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000. The authorizing 
language included language that indicated that we must build the 
necessary health care and social infrastructure, while at the same time 
providing for care and treatment to ensure long-term success.
  There have been reports which claim the developing countries and HIV/
AIDS service providers will not effectively be

[[Page 14291]]

able to absorb or distribute large amounts of money for the global 
pandemic. But according to a USAID report, there are over 25 countries 
that have been identified as high impact countries, yet aid is only 
scaling up in four of these countries. According to the USAID missions, 
capacities for increases in funding in Africa alone could be doubled 
and spent effectively.
  As for offsets, I want to state for the record that the offsets for 
this amendment will come from an across-the-board cut of the foreign 
military financing budget increases from last year. These cuts do not 
include funding for Israel, Egypt, or Jordan. Our amendment will also 
cut funding from the Andean antinarcotic initiatives specifically, 
military spending for Peru only, once again, only from the increase 
this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California and 
the leadership that she has shown in this fight against HIV and AIDS, 
and I also want to say the same about the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the other member of our subcommittee. Both of them have 
been true leaders in this and, really, the conscience of the House in 
this matter.
  I wish I could agree with the amendment, but I think that we have a 
carefully balanced bill when it comes to our priorities, so I find 
myself in disagreement with this amendment. I think it is worth noting 
that the committee has recommended a generous increase for 
international health, and it has reduced the President's request for 
both of the accounts that this amendment would reduce even further.
  The amendment, while it may be well motivated, threatens the balance 
among competing interests, competing national interests that are found 
in this bill. Arriving at that balance with the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, has not been easy; and I do not 
expect that all of the Members necessarily are going to agree with it. 
But once we upset that, once we demolish that balance, I do not think 
it is going to be easy to restore.
  Unlike last year, we cannot count on the other body to restore 
assistance to the Andean nations, nor can we count on the other body to 
restore further cuts we make in military assistance to Poland or to the 
Baltic States.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would also cut $22 million from the 
foreign military financing program. This is an account that is very 
large at $3.627 billion. But 94 percent of those funds in this year's 
bill are allocated for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. Only $177 million is 
available to the rest of the world. Let me repeat those two figures. 
This amendment cuts $22 million, and that is one-eighth of the military 
assistance to countries outside of the Middle East.
  Who is going to be affected by that? Will this cut be allocated 
against our friends in Poland, in Hungary, or the Czech Republic, those 
who have just joined NATO? It is inevitable that they are going to be 
affected by this. Last year we had a similar amendment, together with 
the Waters amendment, that eliminated all military assistance except to 
Israel and Egypt, and even reduced funding for those countries.

                              {time}  1330

  It also eliminated our military assistance to the Baltic States. 
Members ignored warnings from the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan) in their rush to support popular causes of the day.
  I know that many Americans of Baltic and Central European origin were 
concerned about the action taken by this body last year, because most 
of us heard from them. Those Americans recognized not just the symbolic 
importance but the material importance of the assistance we give to the 
Baltic States and to Poland and to Hungary.
  We should not make the same mistake again, in my view, of ignoring 
those concerns and the vital strategic interest we have in that region.
  With regard to HIV/AIDS, my own commitment and involvement in this 
issue I think is a matter of public record. Just last Friday I chaired 
a day-long panel here in the House of Representatives, four panels of 
experts and leaders who updated dozens of staff members and other 
Members of this body on the current situation with regard to the 
pandemic.
  That day-long seminar drove home very clearly to me the comments and 
remarks and the truth of what the gentlewoman from California has said. 
The crisis in HIV/AIDS has not abated. It is getting worse in the 
world. It requires more resources, a lot more resources.
  Our bill does provide those resources, above and beyond what was 
requested by the President, at the expense of other programs. My 
chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Agencies reflects the priority we are giving in 
this global fight against the scourge of AIDS. We have $474 million for 
HIV/AIDS, and we just added in a recent amendment another $18 million 
to that. Another $80 million was provided by the supplemental 
appropriations conference agreement that Congress sent to the President 
last Friday.
  Taking those two bills together, this bill and the supplemental that 
we just sent to the President, the House would increase AIDS funding by 
76 percent in this year, from $315 million in fiscal year 2001 to $554 
million in 2002, and my mental calculations here are not reflecting the 
$18 million we just added in with the adoption of the other amendment a 
few minutes ago.
  This increase, over 76 percent in HIV/AIDS funding, is what the 
committee has concluded that we can afford and effectively use within 
the allocation provided for this bill. I am uncertain whether another 
$60 million would be obligated and effectively used during the fiscal 
year 2002, but it would be spent eventually.
  I know the gentlewoman has put all of this money into the 
International Trust Fund, which I think, as the gentlewoman knows, at 
this point is still just on paper. We do not have it organized.
  So I would oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues not to adopt 
this amendment but to allow the subcommittee and committee's work in 
this area to stand.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Leach amendment. This 
amendment proposes a smart shifting of funds. It moves foreign military 
funds to an HIV/AIDS initiative that will affect positive changes in 
people's lives around the world.
  HIV/AIDS affects more than 10 million young people around the world, 
making it the largest health crisis children face. As bad or worse is 
that this horrific virus has made orphans of millions of uninfected 
children whose parents have died from HIV/AIDS. How bad does it have to 
get before this Congress realizes that we need to take immediate and 
effective action against the global AIDS epidemic?
  As yet, our response as a nation to this global pandemic has not kept 
pace with the enormous growth in this deadly disease. The countries hit 
hardest remain ill-equipped and unable to respond adequately.
  AIDS is no longer only a health matter. It is a matter of social 
stability. It is a matter of economic development. It is a matter of 
international security.
  Increasing the World Bank's HIV/AIDS Trust Fund by $60 million will 
help to reduce the rate of new infections. It will extend the lives of 
people living with HIV and provide care and support for children and 
families impacted by the disease. The availability of this funding will 
make the difference between death and a healthy future.
  By passing this amendment, the United States will make a practical 
investment and a necessary investment in those across the globe who 
need our help, help they need now. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  First, let me congratulate and thank my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from

[[Page 14292]]

California (Ms. Lee), for her leadership in this effort; and I would 
also express my deep respect for the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
for his commitment in this area.
  I know it is awkward for the Committee on Appropriations, after 
putting substantially more money into this process, to have Members 
come to the floor and ask for more. But let me explain why I think this 
is important.
  If one were sitting on the moon and were to look down at this country 
and the world at this time, it is hard not to conclude that the 
greatest difficulty we have is disease control, particularly AIDS. Our 
Surgeon General has said that this is going to be the largest pandemic 
in human history, exceeding that of the bubonic plague of the 1300s and 
the epidemic of flu in the early part of the last century which both 
killed over 20 million people.
  Twenty-two million have now died from AIDS, and in Africa alone 25 
million have the HIV virus. Obviously, this is a disease that knows no 
borders. Obviously, it cannot be contained in continents. It is rapidly 
spreading into the subcontinent of Central Asia, into Southeast Asia, 
into the former Soviet Union. Over 1 million American citizens have the 
HIV virus.
  Mr. Chairman, now with regard to where the resources for this 
amendment come from, this is a very modest amendment. It takes about 
$60 million from a military interdiction program in Peru and from 
foreign military sales.
  Intriguingly, from a national security perspective, one of the great 
questions is, is the security of the average American citizen going to 
be more likely protected with giving guns and bullets to others at the 
turn of this century or through dealing with this disease in this kind 
of way--expecially when those guns and bullets apply to foreign 
military sales, not provisions for the military of the United States of 
America?
  Finally, let me say why it is with some concern that I rise with the 
gentlewoman. In the last Congress, the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services established a World Bank AIDS Trust Fund and 
authorized a substantial sum of money. Unfortunately, the 
appropriations process did not come forth with the matching obligation.
  So what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and I are 
attempting to do is to meet the beginning of that obligation in a much 
more serious way. This is the will of the Congress in an authorizing 
sense, and it is our view it ought to be matched in an appropriations 
way.
  Finally, let me just say that it is self-evident that we have a 
humanitarian crisis, but it also is an economic crisis. It is a 
national security crisis. It is a crisis that has to be dealt with on a 
worldwide basis. That is precisely what the leaders of the world met 
this last week to talk about. It is precisely what this Congress has to 
deal with today.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her 
effective work to fight for and provide funding for HIV/AIDS. I know 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has been an outstanding advocate of 
the same program.
  Mr. Chairman, I have consistently tried to support that. But I 
reluctantly oppose this amendment, as it will cut into our important 
Andean antidrug initiatives and reduce some very important military 
assistance initiatives, as the chairman pointed out.
  With regard to Peru, I just would like my colleagues, as they discuss 
assistance for Peru, to bear in mind the case of Lori Berenson, the 
case of the American citizen who has been wrongly imprisoned for far 
too long in Peru.
  Mr. Chairman, while I commend our colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Barbara Lee, on her effective work to fight and provide 
funding for HIV/AIDS, which I have continually supported, I reluctantly 
oppose this amendment as it will cut into our important Andean anti-
drug initiatives and reduce some important military assistance 
initiatives.
  And with regard to Peru, I urge my colleagues to bear in mind the 
case of Lori Berenson, the American citizen who has been wrongly 
imprisoned in Peru on charges of terrorism. This case needs to be 
closely examined before we consider granting the Peruvian government 
U.S. aid. Peru needs to understand that the present status of Lori 
Berenson is unacceptable.
  While Peru has made great strides in improving its economy and 
fighting drugs, the Fujimori regime created a judicial system that is 
seriously lacking in independence. Lori Berenson was initially 
condemned under a flawed military court system that imprisoned hundreds 
of innocent Peruvians. Peru has now conceded that Lori was innocent of 
leading or participating in any terrorist organization. Her second 
trial should not have been held without a major revision and reform of 
Peru's anti-terrorism legislation. Her case will remain a thorny issue 
between the United States and Peru until Lori is released from prison.
  Lori has been in prison for 5\1/2\ years, it is time for her to be 
able to return home.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by thanking again the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is a stalwart and wonderful 
leader on this cause, and her fine staff.
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee-Leach amendment 
that would increase the United States contribution to the global HIV/
AIDS fund from $1 million to $160 million. World leaders, HIV/AIDS 
experts and economists have called for a $7 billion to $10 billion fund 
in order to address HIV/AIDS. This amendment is simply a down payment.
  Why are such funds needed? Because we are facing a worldwide crisis. 
More than 36.1 million people are currently infected and living with 
HIV worldwide, and 1.4 million of them, Mr. Chairman, are children. In 
the year 2000 alone, 8,000 deaths occurred every day, or nearly six 
deaths every minute. Experts predict more people will die of AIDS in 
the next decade than have died in all of the wars of the 20th century.
  Equally devastating, the disease also threatens the health and well-
being of uninfected children by taking the lives of their parents. By 
the year 2000, over 42 million children worldwide have been orphaned 
due to HIV/AIDS.
  In the most severely affected regions of the world, a high proportion 
of teachers are too sick to work or are dying of complications due to 
AIDS.
  Condom distribution is key to a successful HIV/AIDS prevention 
campaign. USAID has distributed over 1 billion condoms. In addition, 
USAID is supporting the development of female-controlled methods of 
prevention, such as microbicides.
  If the U.S. Government is committed to supporting efforts that reduce 
mother-to-child transmission, we must put our money where our mouth is. 
An alarming number of children have acquired HIV/AIDS through MTCT, and 
3 million children under the age of 15 have died of AIDS. USAID is also 
funding community outreach to pregnant women to make them aware of the 
risk for the unborn children.
  We must ensure that African governments and development agencies in 
Africa receive the funding needed to continue to expand their work to 
prevent spread of HIV-AIDS and to treat the victims.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support of the Lee-Leach 
global health amendment increasing contributions to the global HIV/AIDS 
fund. It is a pro-life effort, Mr. Chairman. I would encourage support.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western 
Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations, I have had a 
great deal of time and effort spent on the Andean area of this 
hemisphere; and if there is a place in this world that deserves some 
kind of financial aid, this is it, both in the military and also 
because of the fact that we have created a drug problem in this country 
and have made people in much weaker areas like the Andes region develop 
the idea of growing drugs there.

[[Page 14293]]

  We need to support those areas. We need to support them in every way 
we can. Over half of this money that is involved here is for peaceful 
purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I noticed on the amendment that it applies all of this 
money to child survival and health programs. I was reading in record of 
the bill that, and not everybody talks about this, there is $434 
million, and then it is $474 million in the bill. That is $45 million 
above the President's request and above $315 million last year. There 
is also $100 million in our supplement.
  Mr. Chairman, the Child Survival and Health Program funds, and this 
is the part that I found interesting, it funds $295 million just for 
child survival, maternal health; for vulnerable children, $25 million; 
and for HIV-AIDS, $434 million. For other infectious disease, I checked 
on that, tuberculosis and others that generally spring up following on 
HIV-AIDS, and reproductive health and voluntary family planning, that 
also fits the HIV-AIDS program. Then there is a grant to UNICEF. Again, 
much of this could be applied to HIV-AIDS.
  When we add it all up, there is over $1 billion 387 million that can 
be used in this particular area, much more than anybody has been 
willing to talk about so far.
  I would just like to say that the Andean region deserves every 
consideration that we can give it because we have created the problem 
that exists there. The use of drugs in this country has created a 
monstrous drug problem in all of the Andean region; and it is, in my 
considered opinion, very important that we continue to support that 
area, especially since the people in Europe and the other parts of the 
world who have the same drug problem are doing nothing to assist.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words. I thank the sponsors of this legislation, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach), for the outstanding work that they have done continuously, 
along with many, many Members who have joined in, including the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and many others who have 
joined in on this particular aspect of support of the HIV problem.


  Let me simply say that my theme today is that we are our brothers' 
keepers. In newspaper reports we find that 95 percent of all AIDS cases 
are in the developing world and that this strain of AIDS could cause a 
drastic explosion if it jumps to the Western world. More than 70 
percent of all people living with the disease, or 25.3 million HIV-
positive individuals, live in Africa. However, this disease is moving 
to India. We find that the disease is growing the fastest in places 
like Russia and China; and, therefore, this is a world-wide disaster.
  Over 10 percent of the population is infected in 16 African nations, 
but it is spreading. The U.S. Census Bureau calculates that by 2010 
average life expectancy will be reduced by 40 years in Zimbabwe, 
Botswana, and in South Africa by 30 years. The disease destabilizes 
these nations by decimating their workforce, destroying any economic 
prosperity, depleting their military and peacekeeping forces, and 
leaving thousands and thousands of orphans. We expect in the years to 
come that we will find 40 million children orphaned in sub-Saharan 
Africa.
  Let me emphasize the crux of this particular amendment. It is a 
modest amendment. And I do appreciate the needs of peacekeeping in our 
European nations, but I would simply say that there will be no 
opportunity for peacekeeping if we do not fight the devastation of 
AIDS. AIDS devastates the militaries of these respective countries. It 
provides military instability because the military personnel travel 
from country to country and take the infection and carry it elsewhere. 
It destroys economic development; and certainly because AIDS has no 
borders, our children are impacted.
  So I simply offer my support for this amendment, and I believe it is 
a modest amendment in terms of the funds that it takes from the 
respective accounts.
  I would lastly say on the drug issue, as would anyone, we want to 
diminish or decrease the amount of drug use in this country. But I 
believe a key element of that is treatment. No matter how much we try 
to fight the supply, if we do not deal with the issue of treatment, we 
are fighting almost a losing battle. I believe these funds will be 
vitally necessary and useful to be utilized to fight the devastation of 
HIV-AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to extend my strong support for the Lee-Leach 
Global AIDS amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. 
This amendment would increase the United States contribution to the 
global HIV/AIDS fund from $100 million to $160 million.
  The Lee-Leach amendment addresses the global HIV/AIDS crisis--the 
most urgent humanitarian crisis of our time. More people have died from 
HIV/AIDS over the last twenty years than from any other disease in 
history--21.8 million people. In this country we have been able to slow 
the rate of AIDS' death, but the disease is at crisis proportions in 
sub-Saharan Africa, where four-fifths of those deaths have occurred--an 
average of one death every eight seconds.
  The Houston Chronicle reports that 95 percent of all AIDS cases are 
in the developing world, and that this strain of AIDS could cause a 
drastic explosion if it jumps to the Western world. More than 70 
percent of all people living with the disease, or 25.3 million HIV-
positive individuals, live in Africa. Over 10 percent of the population 
is infected in sixteen African nations. The U.S. Census Bureau 
calculates that by 2010, average life expectancy will be reduced by 40 
years in Zimbabwe and Botswana, and in South Africa by 30 years. The 
disease destabilizes these nations by decimating its workforce, 
destroying any economic prosperity, depleting its military and 
peacekeeping forces and leaving thousands of orphans.
  The epidemic is not limited to Africa. Indeed, the fastest growing 
front of the epidemic is now in Russia, where the number of new 
infections last year exceeded the total from all previous years 
combined. In 2000, the number of Russians living with HIV/AIDS 
skyrocketed from 130,000 to 300,000.
  A multilateral response to the global AIDS crisis is the quickest 
mechanism to engage international donors and to initiate a coordinated 
international response to the global AIDS pandemic. World leaders, 
international HIV/AIDS experts and economists and civil society have 
called for a $7-$10 billion dollar fund in order to address HIV/AIDS 
prevention, education, care and treatment in Africa. A significant 
contribution to this goal would be a wise political and national 
security investment.
  The global AIDS trust fund is designed to leverage significant 
contributions from the international community to fight this global 
killer. The Lee-Leach amendment would send a strong message that the 
United States is committed to eradicating HIV/AIDS from the face of the 
earth. If the Lee-Leach amendment is made law, it would provide 
significant direct grant funding to African governments, NGO's and 
civil society in regions of the world that have been hard hit by HIV/
AIDS top turn the tied of HIV/AIDS. The Bush administration has told us 
that the trust fund would be ready to disburse funds by the end 
December 2001.
  I urge all of my colleagues to remember that AIDS knows no borders. 
With more than 4 million infections annually, Africa remains the 
epicenter of the AIDS epidemic. However, AIDS is truly a problem that 
threatens global stability. In India, more than 3.7 million people are 
living with the virus. In 1999, the highest increase in reported rates 
of HIV transmission were found not in Africa, but in the former states 
of the Soviet Union. Keep in mind that stability in those countries 
that possess nuclear weaponry has been a goal of our foreign policy 
since the early days of the Cold War.
  The $60 million we are seeking will be a down payment on a larger 
investment in the global AIDS trust fund. I urge my colleagues to 
recognize this investment and support those amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. However, I do 
want to commend the author for her sincerity and the work that she has 
done on the HIV situation.
  I oppose this for a number of reasons. First of all, let me reiterate 
what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) just said, that 
we have over $1 billion in various appropriation

[[Page 14294]]

efforts to combat AIDS. This bill alone, as the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) has said, we have a $474 million earmark, and then another 
$80 million that was in the supplemental budget, and we just increased 
this $18 million with the Visclosky amendment.
  Now, compare that over $500 million, just on this bill, Mr. Chairman, 
to last year's $315 and the year before about $220 million. Clearly, 
this foreign operations committee is moving at a very aggressive pace 
to try to help this situation worldwide, but also in coordination with 
12 other appropriation committees in their efforts.
  This committee is also funding or encouraging the funding of such 
products as the Morehouse School of Medicine is doing in Atlanta, and 
other nonprofit organizations and research institutes. So we are 
clearly committed to fighting the AIDS situation.
  I want to also talk about where this money is coming from, because 
the author of this amendment is taking money out of some very, very 
vital programs, the foreign military financing assistance programs. Let 
me just read the names of some of the recipients of this valuable 
money: Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Romania, 
Slovakia, and Slovenia. These are all emerging democracies in the 
Balkans.
  How can we, at this critical point in their most recent history, turn 
our backs on them? Why would we cut this money to what are emerging as 
not just great democracies but also free people and allies for the 
United States of America? That is what is going on in the Balkans. That 
is where this money is coming from.
  Now, let us look at the Western Hemisphere. This cuts money from 
people in Argentina, Belize, El Salvador, Haiti, Jamaica. Certainly, 
right now, with all the trouble Jamaica is having, it is not time to 
pull the rug out from under their military assistance.
  So I would say, as well intended as this amendment is, it is financed 
through the wrong mechanisms. And, Mr. Chairman, if that is not bad 
enough, I want to talk about the Andean initiative and a lot of the 
criticism of that. And I share the criticism when we rush out on a 
defense contractor buyer spree, buying helicopters and creating a 
cottage industry for people who deal in quasi- military equipment, but 
there are some other programs in there that are extremely important.
  Judicial training and witness monitoring that NGOs are doing for some 
of these countries. Now, I had a constituent several years ago who was 
jailed in Ecuador. And under the Ecuadoran system of government, an 
individual has to prove that they are innocent. The state does not have 
to prove that they are guilty. It is completely different than America. 
People are put in jail, and they have to build their own case. The 
government does not even have to tell the person jailed what they are 
charged for.
  One of the great disservices we could inadvertently do for our 
constituents in America is to put them at further risk when they go to 
some of these countries in South America. They do need judicial reform, 
and this money cuts that very needed judicial reform.
  So for these reasons I oppose this amendment. Again, I appreciate the 
sincerity of the authors and the supporters of it, but I think we need 
to look again at where they are taking the money and the track record 
of this committee, what it has done, and what its commitment remains to 
be on HIV.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of the Lee-Leach global AIDS 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for their 
leadership on this issue. My second term in the House of 
Representatives, and last year, through my work with the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), I became more and more aware of the need for 
this country to step up to the plate and take its leadership role in 
addressing the pandemic of AIDS.
  In reality, as we nickel and dime our way towards paying for the AIDS 
pandemic in our country and across the world, we ought to be anteing up 
$1 billion from the United States that would allow us to leverage 
another $8 to $9 billion across the world to support this AIDS, to get 
rid of this AIDS pandemic.
  The prior speaker specifically said that we were cutting funds. But 
in fact we are looking at funds to leverage to the trust fund, and we 
are not cutting USAID funds. We are not talking about bilateral funds, 
and we are not talking about decreasing the income of the various 
countries that are being dealt with. We are talking about decreasing an 
increase for these countries, because some of the dollars have actually 
sat being unused. For example, in the country of Peru, military funds 
for the Andean initiative sat unused for a number of years. In 
addition, funds in Colombia would not be affected. Additionally, cuts 
to this initiative are budget cuts only to budget increases over the 
next few years.
  Let me for a moment, Mr. Chairman, tell my colleagues some of the 24 
organizations that are supporting this piece of legislation, and these 
are organizations that are religious, health, hunger and research 
oriented groups.
  They include ACT UP out of Philadelphia, AIDS Action, AIDS Alliance 
for Children Youth and Families, AIDS Nutrition Services Alliance, AIDS 
Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Advocates for Youth, the American Public 
Health Association, Catholic Relief Services, Church World Service, 
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Gay Men's Health Crisis, 
Global Campaign for Microbicides, Global Health Council, Health GAP 
Coalition, HIV Medicine Association, the Human Rights Campaign, 
Infectious Diseases Society of America, Maryknoll AIDS Task Force, the 
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the National 
AIDS Fund, PLAN International, the Presbyterian Church USA, Washington 
Office, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Student Global AIDS 
Campaign, and the Washington Office on Africa.
  All of these organizations get it. All of these organizations 
understand the importance of our addressing the AIDS pandemic across 
the world.
  Now, I am knowledgeable to the point that I have seen and I have read 
that there are grandparents across sub-Saharan Africa that are raising 
35 and 40 grandchildren, and they are raising 35 and 40 grandchildren 
as a result of the fact that AIDS has wiped out generations across sub-
Saharan Africa. We should not continue to let that happen.
  It would be different if we could not make an impact. It would be 
different if we had to say to the world, World, we cannot help you, we 
can let this AIDS pandemic continue to spread. But we can make a 
difference, the big United States of America, the one that comes to the 
plate for everybody else.
  Step up, America. Step up, United States, and fund this AIDS pandemic 
program at its maximum.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. This amendment has the right heart but the wrong idea.
  We all support increased efforts to address the world's HIV-AIDS 
crisis and the chairman of this committee is to be commended for his 
efforts to fund such programs. But the solution to AIDS is not to 
reduce the funding to combat illegal drugs on the streets of the United 
States or to reduce assistance to our allies.
  This amendment reduces military assistance to many of our allies. 
Approximately half of this budget is dedicated to Israel and another 
large percent to Egypt. It is earmarked. That leaves only $177 million 
for the rest of the world, of which this amendment would strike $22 
million, putting pressure both on Israel and Egypt as well as the rest 
of the countries of the world.
  I represent a large Macedonian population. The country of Macedonia 
allowed our troops to be based there. They were drawn into the Balkan 
wars. A unified government that represented all different parts of 
Macedonia has come under duress because of their willingness to support 
America. Now we would turn around with this amendment and reduce aid to 
them.
  I particularly rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice,

[[Page 14295]]

Drug Policy and Human Resources to discuss the importance of fully 
funding the Andean Regional Initiative, to ensure we continue effective 
efforts to reduce the supply of drugs to the United States. Of our 
total narcotics control budget, and I believe in a balanced approach, 
we spend just 17 percent on interdiction and all international aid 
programs, including our past support of Plan Colombia at $1.3 billion. 
We spend almost twice as much, 31 percent, on demand-reduction programs 
as well as other issues.
  Although I strongly believe we must pursue a national strategy evenly 
balanced between supply and demand reduction, it is clear that our 
funding for international programs is not only extremely reasonable in 
proportion to overall drug control spending, but dollar for dollar has 
a disproportionate impact on our strategy. Moreover, it is a critical 
time to our allies in Central and South America.
  In Colombia, opium growing in the north has continued unchecked and 
now provides the vast majority of the heroin that is on the streets of 
America and in our neighborhoods. In south Colombia, we are at the 
start of an aggressive program to eradicate the primary source of the 
world's cocaine. It is important for my colleagues to understand that 
we are still at the start of Plan Colombia. We are likely to falsely 
hear over and over today that it somehow has not worked. How can the 
plan have worked when the first helicopters are just arriving at the 
end of this month and in the next month? Last year's funding is just 
reaching there now.

                              {time}  1400

  Yet we already see the coca growers and the poppy growers starting to 
move to other countries which is why we now have an Andean initiative.
  The political situation continues to be unstable and politically 
volatile. The consequences of a lack of resolve on the part of the 
United States to maintain stability and democracy in Colombia will be 
monumental. Many of those consequences will be felt almost as harshly 
on the streets in our hometowns and in our neighborhoods in America.
  To ensure that our efforts are effective, it is equally critical to 
support a regional strategy to maintain stability and democracy 
throughout the Andean region. Almost half of the money requested for 
the Andean initiative is for countries other than Colombia. Without 
military aid to help restore order, terrorism and conflict funded by 
American and European drug habits have exported terrorism and an 
unbelievable mess in each of these countries.
  When you look at this, we talk about rebuilding their legal systems, 
we talk about alternative economic development, but when the judges are 
being killed, when families and children are being kidnapped, we first 
need to get order. As we work towards order, then we help to rebuild 
their countries. These countries need our help to ensure that narco-
traffic does not simply spread from Colombia to destabilize and corrupt 
other nations, especially those who have made a concerted effort to 
eliminate the drug trade from their countries.
  We need to battle the AIDS virus but we also need to battle the drug 
crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points 
quickly in response to what has been said here today.
  There is $38 million that comes out of the economic assistance for 
the Andean countries. Forty-seven percent of the money that we have in 
that account goes to economic assistance. Half of it goes to economic 
assistance. So you are cutting the money from that.
  You cannot just say you are cutting it from military. You are cutting 
it from the justice programs. You are cutting it from the poverty 
programs. You are cutting it from the alternative economic assistance 
programs.
  Most of our programs have been consolidated to the Andean initiative, 
those in Latin America. If you take those out, there is only $146 
million total for the entire region that is left in all other programs 
of assistance. So you are cutting drastically into those programs.
  Lastly let me say a few words with regard to the trust fund. In this 
bill, we have $100 million in the trust fund. There is $100 million 
that we appropriated the other day that is in the supplemental. And, 
there is $100 million that will be included in the Labor HHS. In total, 
for the trust fund, we have $300 million. This amendment would increase 
it to $360 million. I say we are doing everything we can in the area of 
the international trust fund for AIDS and the other diseases.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise not only as ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of 
the Committee on Government Reform that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder), who just spoke, is chairman of, so I am very familiar with our 
efforts to fight drugs all over the world, but at the same time I stand 
here as one who was just informed by my health commissioner that in the 
City of Baltimore, which is only 45 miles away from here, in my 
district and three ZIP Codes, we have a level of AIDS that is 
approaching very rapidly the levels found in Africa and third world 
countries. That is 45 miles from here, less than an hour's drive.
  So when the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) spoke a little bit 
earlier about his concerns about making sure that we provide a proper 
defense for this country, that not only affects the third world but it 
also affects these very United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Lee amendment 
which seeks to add the $60 million to the U.S. contribution to the 
Global AIDS and Health Fund, and I compliment her on her efforts and 
those associated with it.
  I would also like to state for the record that I am disturbed by some 
of the comments made about this amendment. I am disturbed because I 
cannot believe that Members of this great House have questioned the 
integrity of the amendment. Last week I read in the CQ Daily Monitor a 
quote from a Member on the other side of the aisle when he said, ``Are 
they really trying to add money to HIV/AIDS or trying to cut money from 
the other side?''
  While our efforts in fighting international narcotics are a very 
serious issue and concern, there are many valid issues that must be 
addressed regarding our role in the Andean region.
  Although I am a supporter of Plan Colombia, some of the concerns you 
have heard about today are valid and need further scrutiny. What is 
important at this juncture is finding a cure and stopping the spread of 
a deadly pandemic. AIDS is an all inclusive, nondiscriminatory disease 
that transcends country boundaries, age, gender, and race.
  Experts predict that more people will die of AIDS in the next decade 
than have died in all the wars of the 20th century. It is estimated 
that $7 to $10 billion are needed to fight this global AIDS pandemic. 
Further, I recently read a statement that and I quote, ``It is a 
dramatic paradox that the same continent that saw the appearance of a 
man 6 million years ago is starting to witness our disappearance this 
millennium.'' Yet we continue to quibble over $60 million.
  Listen to the statistics. Worldwide, more than 36 million people are 
living with HIV/AIDS. That is more than the entire population of the 
great State of California. There are more than five million new 
infections each year; 600,000 of those are in children under the age of 
15. By 2010, AIDS will orphan 44 million children. More than a fifth of 
all adults in at least four African countries are infected with the 
HIV/AIDS virus. According to the joint United Nations program on HIV/
AIDS, if the crisis is not addressed, 100 million people will be 
infected worldwide by 2005.
  I believe that the Congress and the President's demonstrated 
unwillingness to increase international family planning funds and the 
crushing debt burden these countries face leave many developing 
countries, particularly

[[Page 14296]]

those in sub-Saharan Africa, with limited options, thereby exacerbating 
this devastating health crisis.
  Of the 22 countries who have received debt relief under the Highly 
Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, two-thirds will spend more on 
servicing their debt than they spend on basic health care. As such, 
those who are suffering from HIV/AIDS and its related illnesses are 
left untreated and unaccounted for.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the means and the moral obligation to maintain 
a commitment to be leaders and fighters on this issue. As such, I urge 
my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee). The funding is critical to sustaining the role 
that the Global AIDS Health Fund can play in eradicating the deadly 
effects of HIV/AIDS. Let us remain steadfast in our commitment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee-Leach amendment which would 
increase the funding for the United States contribution to the Global 
AIDS Fund from $100 million to $160 million. I thank the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for 
all of their leadership that they have provided on this issue.
  Last year I recall that they came to this floor and they asked for a 
bit more assistance; and the Members of Congress saw the wisdom in 
their words and work, and they supported them. I hope that the House 
will give support to this amendment that is being placed before Members 
today.
  The global HIV/AIDS pandemic is the most severe health crisis of our 
time. Over 36 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS, and 95 
percent of them live in developing countries. The impact of the 
pandemic on sub-Saharan Africa defies description. Seventeen million 
Africans have already died of AIDS since the beginning of the pandemic, 
and 25 million Africans are living with HIV/AIDS. Over 6,000 people die 
from AIDS-related diseases every day in sub-Saharan Africa.
  The pandemic has been especially devastating for children. 
Approximately 1 million children are living with HIV/AIDS in sub-
Saharan Africa, and an estimated 600,000 African infants become 
infected with HIV each year through mother-to-child transmission either 
at birth or through breast feeding. The Joint United Nations Program on 
HIV/AIDS, U.N. AIDS, projects that at least half of all 15-year-olds 
will eventually die of AIDS in the worst-affected countries such as 
Zambia, Botswana, and South Africa.
  Furthermore, over 12 million African children have lost their mother 
to AIDS and are considered AIDS orphans. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has 
curtailed the economic development of many African countries. AIDS is 
believed responsible for shortages of skilled workers and teachers, 
high rates of absenteeism, labor turnover, and the deaths of Africans 
at upper levels of management in business and government in many areas 
of sub-Saharan Africa.
  USAID has estimated that Kenya's GNP will be 14.4 percent smaller in 
the year 2005 than it would have been without AIDS. In the Ivory Coast, 
five teachers reportedly die from AIDS during each week of the school 
year. Teachers and other skilled workers can be very difficult to 
replace. In some parts of Africa, employers find it necessary to hire 
two workers for each job opening because they expect one out of every 
two workers to die from HIV/AIDS.
  The HIV/AIDS pandemic has disrupted the lives of farm communities and 
reduced agricultural production. When adult members of farm families 
become ill, they become unable to continue farming. Farm tools and 
animals may be sold to pay for their care. Children are forced to leave 
school and care for their parents. Sharp reduction in crops such as 
maize and cotton and other crops in Zimbabwe have been attributed to 
widespread illness and death from AIDS among farm families and 
agricultural workers.
  United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked for the 
establishment of a Global AIDS Fund to address this devastating 
pandemic. He estimated that it will take $7 billion to $10 billion per 
year to mount a successful effort to treat HIV-infected people and stop 
the spread of AIDS.
  The Global AIDS Alliance estimates that it will take $15 billion per 
year, yet current spending on HIV/AIDS is only $1 billion per year from 
all sources combined. This bill provides a paltry $474 million in 
funding for international HIV/AIDS programs. The United States 
certainly can do better. The United States should be a leader in global 
AIDS funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lee-Leach amendment 
and demonstrate the commitment of Congress to worldwide efforts to stop 
the spread of this deadly disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that some of us are beginning to sound like a 
broken record. But we will be on this floor day in and day out at every 
point that we can join this issue. We will be here. We will not sit 
silently by and watch the devastation that we are witnessing in the 
world, and particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and be quiet.
  One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, What more 
do they expect? We are putting money in the budget. We keep putting 
money in the budget. Members heard what the estimates are. $1 billion 
from all sources when we need $10 billion to 15 billion. We have a long 
way to go.
  Mr. Chairman, Members will be hearing from us often. Members will be 
hearing from us in the most profound way we can put forth this issue. 
We have got to have more money to stop the pandemic.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee-Leach amendment. I thank 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach) for introducing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard about the severity of the AIDS pandemic. 
It has at this point exceeded in damage to human life the flu pandemic 
of 1918; and before it is stopped, it probably will exceed the damage 
to human beings of the Black Death of the 14th century.
  There are some countries where one out of every four people is 
already affected. We still do not have a cure. We have some 
ameliorative treatments, and those treatments are not affordable to 
people in most of the developing world. It is the greatest single 
threat that humanity faces today.
  The amounts of money we are spending on it, frankly, put us to shame 
when we consider the priorities. Any budget is a set of priorities. The 
Global AIDS Trust Fund in this budget will get $100 million in this 
bill; another $100 million in the Labor-HHS bill; bilateral aid from 
AID adds another $247 million, for a total of $447 million proposed in 
the United States budget.
  Mr. Chairman, we are spending about $6 billion a year on missile 
defense research. Some people think we ought to spend more, some think 
we ought to spend less. $6 billion for a possible threat; $447 million 
for an existing mortal threat that is in front of our eyes.

                              {time}  1415

  The U.N. has estimated that we should be spending 7 to $10 billion a 
year, the world, not just the United States, seven to 10 times the $1 
billion the world is spending on this now. This modest amendment would 
add $60 million. The total U.S. commitment would go from $447 million 
to $507 million in a budget of roughly $1.8 trillion.
  Again, look what we spend money on: $6 billion on missile defense. 
This money, $60 million, is minimal. It is taken from foreign military 
aid, mostly to Latin American countries which, frankly, is not all that 
necessary, I do not know about the great military threats faced by 
Latin American countries, and from drug initiatives abroad which have 
not cut down the flow of drugs into this country. The threat of AIDS is 
a heck of a lot more threatening to us than any drug problem could ever 
conceivably be.

[[Page 14297]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt this amendment. $60 million is a 
pittance. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) should have added 
another zero. It should have been $600 million. But then we would not 
seriously consider it. But the pittance that is added here is the very, 
very least we can do so that we can say to our children, we did not 
ignore the AIDS crisis, the worst crisis to humanity in at least 600 
years.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just briefly wanted to rise to commend the makers of 
this motion, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and commend them for their leadership. 
I also want to acknowledge the great job that the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) did 
in the bill in increasing the funds for HIV/AIDS because the number has 
increased. As one who has worked on this issue over the years, I can 
only say that this problem of HIV/AIDS has been exacerbated by poverty 
in the world. AIDS and poverty are a terrible combination. They exist 
side by side in the developing world.
  But it is the poverty of our language that I wanted to address right 
now. We must have some poverty because we have not been able to 
convince the Congress of the need for us to have more funds into the 
global fund for AIDS and other infectious diseases.
  My colleagues have spoken eloquently to the numbers of people with 
HIV/AIDS, and I want to repeat one of those numbers. That is, that left 
at the pace that we are going now, the UNAIDS program reports that, by 
the year 2005, 100 million people will be infected with HIV/AIDS. How 
much more staggering would the numbers have to become for us to respond 
in a way that is commensurate with the leadership of our country, that 
is commensurate with the need that is out there?
  The HIV/AIDS issue internationally and at home challenges the 
conscience of the world. The United States must lead the way in meeting 
that challenge.
  I will submit the rest of my statement for the record, but I commend 
once again the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) for their leadership on this.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak today in support of the Lee-Leach 
amendment to dedicate resources to the fight against the global HIV/
AIDS crisis. The scope and severity of this crisis are not just a 
global health challenge but one of economics as well. The crisis has 
been felt harshly by less developed countries, the very countries whose 
governments are least equipped to handle this scourge.
  Critics of this amendment are concerned that it would reduce foreign 
military spending. But the global HIV/AIDS crisis poses as direct a 
threat to the security of many nations and the safety of their citizens 
as a more conventional military challenge would. The global fight 
against HIV/AIDS requires at least the same commitment that this Nation 
has made to training foreign militaries or fighting our war on drugs. 
If we do not take part in funding the research and the treatment, it 
could wipe out our forces, not only abroad but here in this country, 
too.
  Let us shift our priorities. Let us train an army of doctors to fight 
the global HIV/AIDS crisis. Let us declare war on this dreaded disease. 
And, most importantly, let us vote for the Lee-Leach amendment which 
will take a strong first step at addressing the economic challenge of 
the global HIV/AIDS crisis.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Lee amendment. It is not a matter of debate 
that the HIV/AIDS crisis is devastating Africa. More than 25 million 
people in sub-Saharan Africa are living with HIV/AIDS. Nearly 4 million 
were infected during 2000 alone. AIDS has deprived children of their 
parents, robbed schools of their best teachers, and stripped businesses 
of their most able employees. It is devastating the military forces of 
many African countries, posing a serious threat to United States 
national security interests in the region, and AIDS will cut life 
expectancy in some African countries in half in the next decade. That 
is just Africa. HIV infections are growing exponentially in the Russian 
Federation, 3.7 million are already infected in India, and there is an 
emerging crisis in China.
  HIV/AIDS is both a national security issue and a moral one. Our 
response must reflect the massive humanitarian and national security 
implications of the crisis. I am very pleased that this bill provides a 
total of $474 million to address the HIV/AIDS crisis. I am also pleased 
that our subcommittee has established a pattern in recent years of 
providing increasingly higher funding levels for this purpose. But I do 
believe we can do more. Our efforts to address this pandemic must be 
bilateral and multilateral and must encompass everything from care and 
treatment to prevention and education. The United States through USAID 
has taken a leadership role in the fight against HIV/AIDS. We should 
play a similar role in multilateral efforts as well.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her 
amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend my friends on both sides of the aisle who 
have brought to the attention of the House and the American people the 
pandemic problem of AIDS. I salute them in their efforts. 
Unfortunately, I believe that their efforts here may be well-intended, 
but in fact this amendment is somewhat misplaced.
  Anyone who has held a dying African child in their arms, or witnessed 
someone suffering from AIDS, shares their well-intended compassion. I 
think this Congress has demonstrated, both in this bill and by the 
action of the Congress last week to increase the AIDS contribution by 
some 76 percent. I have held one of those dying African AIDS children 
in my arms. Unfortunately, at this time, to be honest, the only thing 
we can do is give them some comfort. Most of them will unfortunately 
die, and your heart does ache when you see the rows of graves across 
the African landscape and now across the horizon of many other 
countries.
  The key to success in this area is research. We should be devoting 
our resources to research. I am pleased under the Republican Congress 
we have doubled the amount of money for medical research, and I think 
we are well targeted to finding a cure.
  What we do not want to do here today in misguided compassion is to 
turn the clock back, though, on our efforts to stem illegal narcotics. 
This is a headline from my newspaper: Drug Deaths Top Homicides. For 
the first time, in 1999, drug-related deaths in this country exceeded 
homicides.
  We knew that some years ago when we took over the House of 
Representatives as a new majority the seriousness of the threat we were 
facing with illegal narcotics. They made the same decision some time 
ago in the Clinton administration to start cutting some of these 
programs. On this chart is where the cuts started in 1993, the same 
kind of cut that is proposed here today. Unfortunately back then they 
started dismantling the Andean strategy and assistance. When this 
occurred we saw a skyrocketing of drug abuse in this country and drug 
deaths in this country. Only after we restarted this effort, and the 
chart here clearly points it out, have we made a dent in this problem.
  Now would be the worst time to turn the clock back. Where is the 
heroin and the cocaine and the other drugs coming from that are killing 
our youth and our population in unprecedented numbers? They are coming 
from Colombia. That is why we targeted Colombia.
  Does the plan work to stop illegal narcotics? With the Speaker and 
others involved in the subcommittee on drug efforts which the Speaker 
chaired before me, and we targeted the places where our drugs are 
coming from,

[[Page 14298]]

Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration 
cut assistance to Colombia; and we were able just recently to start 
that with Plan Colombia. But we see in Peru almost a complete 
eradication of cocaine production. In Bolivia, I can announce that our 
task is complete and accomplished with few dollars.
  The problem we have in Colombia is that terrorism, which is killing 
thousands and thousands of people, is financed by illegal narcotics 
traffic. Colombia is now the source of deadly heroin. Look at this 
chart. In 1993, zero amount of heroin was produced there. Now, 75 
percent of the heroin killing men and women and children in our streets 
comes from Colombia. That is why we are targeting this country.
  This is not a pretty picture. This is one of my constituents. His 
mother gave me this picture to show the Members of the House. This 
young man was one of my constituents. He died of a heroin overdose. 
That heroin is coming from Colombia. It came from this route that we 
would now eliminate and destroy a program that we have started and that 
we have begun anew to curtail these deadly drugs from coming into our 
country.
  What is worse about the drug epidemic, and we will hear more 
testimony about this in the coming weeks, is the heroin use and hard 
drug use is hitting our teens. It is hitting our minorities, but it is 
also hitting those most vulnerable in our society, our young people, 
both minority and others.
  To make a mistake here with misplaced compassion, I urge my 
colleagues not to do it. Do not make that mistake. We can address both 
the problems of AIDS and we can also fight the war on illegal 
narcotics.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Lee-
Leach Global AIDS Amendment for the Foreign Operations Appropriations 
Bill.
  The HIV/AIDS pandemic is the most devastating human disaster our 
world has ever known, with more people having died from AIDS-related 
complications than any disease, war, or natural human disaster ever 
recorded. Since the beginning of the fight against HIV/AIDS in the 
early 80's, more than 22 million people have died, with Sub-Saharan 
Africa bearing the brunt of the devastation.
  At the present time, more than 70 percent of the 35 million people 
infected with HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the nation of South 
Africa having the world's largest number of HIV infected individuals, 
more than 4 million people, living with AIDS.
  My area of the world, the Caribbean, though much smaller in size and 
population, has an HIV infection rates second only to those in Africa. 
AIDS is already the leading cause of death in the Caribbean for those 
aged 15 to 45 and as in many other areas of the world, the number of 
cases is growing at an exponential rate according to the Caribbean 
Epidemiology Center.
  I am alarmed, as I am sure we all are, by the fact that left un-
addressed, more than 100 million people, well more than \1/3\ the 
population of the United States, will be infected with HIV by the year 
2005. Something must be done!
  Although the loss of life presents the most tragic consequences of 
HIV/AIDS, additional consequences include resulting military, social, 
and economic instability. AIDS, unlike many diseases, takes those in 
the most productive yeas of live, resulting in a significant decline in 
the number of individuals in affected countries that are available to 
serve as educators, health care providers, and other skilled laborers.
  In addition, it has resulted in more than 13 million orphans, 95 
percent of whom live in African nations. As a result of the significant 
losses of life, some developing democracies have begun to recruit these 
orphans, many of whom have no completed adolescence, into armies used 
to fight regional wars.
  Although we still wish it were more, the Lee-Leach Amendment provides 
the opportunity for the United States to do its part in the global 
fight against HIV/AIDS, increasing the U.S. contribution to the global 
HIV/AIDS funds by $60 million to a total of $160 million. Our 
contribution will be used to leverage additional funds from our 
international partners in the public and private sector, with the hope 
of raising the 10-15 billion dollars per year requested by United 
Nations.
  It would send a strong signal that the United States is committed to 
eradicating HIV/AIDS from the face of the earth and also provide 
significant direct grant funding to African and Caribbean governments, 
NGO's and civil society in regions of the world that have been hard hit 
by HIV/AIDS so that we can finally begin to turn the tide of the 
disease.
  I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile amendment, which will 
help save the lives of millions of people infected with HIV.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Lee-
Leach amendment to increase the United States contribution the global 
HIV/AIDS fund $100 million to $160 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee Mr. Kolbe and the Ranking Democrat, 
Nita Lowey for their hard work on this bill. I am grateful that they 
were able to find additional money for the bilateral HIV/AIDs program 
over the Administration request.
  However, this amendment seeks additional funds for the Multilateral 
efforts. Mr. Chairman, a multilateral response to the global AIDS 
crisis is clearly the quickest mechanism to engage international donors 
and to initiate a coordinated international response to the global AIDS 
pandemic. World leaders including UN Secretary General Kofi Anan and 
international HIV/AIDS experts and economists have called for a 7-10 
billion dollar fund in order to address HIV/AIDS prevention, education, 
care and treatment in Africa.
  The global AIDS trust fund is designed to leverage significant 
contributions from the international community to fight this global 
killer. The Lee-Leach amendment would send a strong message that the 
United States is committee to eradicating HIV/AIDS from the face of the 
earth. If the Lee-Leach amendment is passed, it would provide 
significant direct grant funding to African countries, NGO's and civil 
society in regions of the world that have been hard hit by HIV/AIDS to 
turn the tide of HIV/AIDS.
  Furthermore, the Bush administration has briefed us that the trust 
fund is making strong progress and should be ready to disburse funds by 
the end of this year.
  A few weeks ago, my committee, under the leadership of our 
distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde, passed a bipartisan, ground-
breaking bill authorizing $750 million for a multilateral fund to 
combat HIV/AIDS.
  So far, the Bush administration has offered $200 million--100 million 
from Foreign Ops and 100 million from Health and Human Services.
  While this was a good start, it is by no means a good end. I urge my 
colleagues to support an increase to this fund by supporting the Lee-
Leach amendment.
  I know it is not easy to cut other programs and I wish it were not 
necessary. However, the Administration, in all its wisdom, has decided 
that a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut is more important than funding these 
global priorities.
  Well, that being the case, we cannot afford to wait around until the 
Administration gets its priorities straight. We must act now.
  The Global AIDS fight must be joined now. The consequences if we wait 
are too terrible to contemplate.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 
The Lee-Leach amendment will increase the United States contribution to 
the global HIV/AIDS fund from $100 million to $160 million. This 
increase--albeit not enough to curb the pandemic, will be of enormous 
help in the short run because HIV/AIDS continues to devastate every 
corner of the globe. Mr. Chairman, it is incomprehensible to think that 
the increase called for in this amendment possibly cannot be adopted 
tonight because of the cynical few in this chamber who believe that 
Congress has more pressing needs right now than to further increase 
appropriations to control this epidemic. To them I say it is our duty 
and responsibility to not turn away now.
  This year marks the 20th year since the Centers for Disease Control 
published its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report with a small 
segment dedicated to a rare pneumocystis pneumonia present in five gay 
men in Los Angeles. It was the first published account of what we would 
come to know as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, commonly known as 
AIDS.
  Now, twenty years later, thirty-six million people presently live 
with HIV/AIDs worldwide and 22 million have died of the disease. In 
Sub-Saharan Africa, 25 million people are living with HIV/AIDS and in 
India, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean; the numbers of infections are 
rising at alarming rates.
  Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of the world's 36 million AIDS victims live 
on the African continent--and women are the largest segment of victims 
and continue to be at the greatest risk.
  This year, over six hundred thousand children will be born HIV-
positive, or become infected after their birth and during

[[Page 14299]]

breastfeeding. Few will survive childhood. Equally disturbing is the 
fact that the disease threatens the health and well being of uninfected 
children by taking the lives of their parents. By the year 2010, over 
42 million children worldwide will become orphans due to HIV/AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lee-Leach Amendment 
to increase our contribution to the global HIV/AIDS fund from $100 
million to $160 million. It will be a wise humanitarian and national 
security investment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee 
amendment to increase United States funds to fight the global HIV/AIDS 
pandemic and also in support of the McGovern amendment which will 
improve the health of mothers and children and combat the spread of 
infectious diseases around the world. I commend the authors and 
cosponsors of these amendments for bringing them before us today.
  These two necessary and complementary amendments will enhance our 
efforts to help stop the spread of many terrible diseases, including 
polio, tuberculosis, and AIDS, and help children and their mothers 
around the world survive. The terrifying statistics about the HIV/AIDS 
pandemic, which is ravaging sub-Saharan Africa and threatens to do the 
same in many other regions around the world, are becoming all too 
familiar. Twenty-two million people world wide have died from AIDS, 
nearly double that number are living with HIV/AIDS, and if we don't 
take effective action 100 million people could be infected with HIV 
within the next four years. And a staggering number of orphaned 
children have been left by parents who have died because of AIDS.
  But this pandemic is taking its toll not just in these personal 
terms. It is wreaking havoc on the economic and social fabric of many 
nations. In addition, this pandemic presents us with an international 
security problem as it fuels military instability, as well.
  But we cannot allow the enormity of the problem to numb us or 
convince us that this pandemic is beyond our ability to fight it. 
Instead, the scope of what we face must serve as a siren calling us to 
take even stronger action than we have to date. I remain convinced that 
winning this battle is the moral imperative of our time. So let us 
marshal the resources we need and let us make sure we are using those 
resources wisely. We should pass these amendments to help us mount a 
comprehensive fight against HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

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

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       Page 6, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 5, after the second dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first thanking the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) for their incredible work on this bill.
  Today, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this amendment that I 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) 
and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) are offering together.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple amendment. First, it will 
add $50 million to the infectious diseases account specifically for 
international tuberculosis programs. We need to invest more in programs 
that combat the spread of TB. Funding for international TB control was 
virtually nonexistent in 1997. While funding has modestly improved in 
recent years, we still have a long way to go to make up for the long-
running neglect.

                              {time}  1430

  Current funding levels are not sufficient to address the scope of the 
disease and to protect the health of Americans. TB kills 2 million 
people each year, and more than one-third of the world's population is 
infected with TB. It is the leading killer of women and creates more 
orphan children than any other infectious disease. As the New York 
Times editorialized last week, a little money now can control this 
neglected killer before we face a global epidemic.
  The amendment will also add $50 million for the Child Survival and 
Maternal Health account. Eleven million children die every year from 
preventable causes. Child survival programs are critical to saving the 
lives of children and have been one of the most effective U.S. 
investments for the last decade and a half. The polio eradication 
programs in particular have been highly successful; and since 1998, 
polio has been reduced worldwide by 90 percent.
  According to the World Health Organization, maternal health is the 
largest disparity between the developed and developing countries. 
Maternal mortality is on average 18 times higher in developing 
countries, and children are much more likely to die within 2 years of a 
maternal death.
  The increase funding provided by this amendment for these global 
health programs will literally make the difference between life and 
death for billions of people. This is a modest investment that will 
yield critical returns.
  The offset for these programs will reduce the $676 million Andean 
Counter-Drug Initiative by $100 million in military aid for the 
Colombian Armed Forces. Here, too, the choice is simple. This House has 
a chance to send a straightforward message to the Colombian military: 
sever all ties with the paramilitary groups and sever them now. As my 
colleagues know, over 70 percent of the human rights crimes committed 
against the civilian population in Colombia, massacres, torture and the 
destruction of communities and the displacements of the population, are 
perpetrated by the paramilitaries, and the Colombian military works in 
collusion with those groups. In fact, just recently Amnesty 
International issued a report on the persistence of ties between the 
Colombian military and their paramilitary cohorts.
  The last Congress, the previous administration, and, to date, the 
current administration, have failed, in my opinion, to act seriously 
about human rights in Colombia. We have attached human rights 
conditions to our aid package that are essentially meaningless. If the 
Colombian military behaves badly, and it has, we have been content to 
waive our conditions and to keep writing checks. What kind of message 
did this send?
  Today, we have an opportunity to send a different message, to show 
that we do care about human rights, that we are serious when we demand 
that the Colombian military stop collaborating with paramilitary 
forces. Congress should not be an apologist for bad behavior. We should 
not look the other way or rationalize what continues to be a disturbing 
alliance that threatens the future of civilian institutions in 
Colombia.
  Now, let me point out to my colleagues that nearly $300 million 
remains in this bill to help Colombia and the Pastrana government with 
development, moving the peace process forward, strengthening civil and 
judicial institutions and supporting the police. In the defense 
appropriations bill, which we will debate later this year, there will 
be at least $80 million for the Colombian Armed Forces. In addition, 
approximately $158 million in military aid remains in the pipeline from 
last year's package.
  This amendment is not about walking away from Colombia; rather, it is 
about saying very clearly that human rights do matter and that the way 
to

[[Page 14300]]

promote stability in the region is for the Colombian military to end 
its collaboration with paramilitaries.
  Now, even if some of my colleagues are ambivalent about the Colombian 
offset, I hope you will not be ambivalent about supporting increased 
funding for these critical women's, children and health programs. The 
Andean Counter-Drug Initiative is $226 million more than the amount in 
this bill for our worldwide programs to combat infectious diseases and 
for child survival and maternal health; $226 million more.
  This amendment is truly about choices, about priorities, about saving 
lives. I urge my colleagues to sup-
port the McGovern-Hoekstra-Pelosi-Morella-Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McGovern 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I am 
reminded just a couple of days ago when we first took up this bill, 
last Thursday, that several Members came to the House floor to praise 
the bill. The manager on the other side of the aisle and I appreciated 
the compliments about bipartisanship and the balance that is reflected 
in the committee's recommendations. But approval of this amendment 
would weaken that hard-to-achieve bipartisanship. It would destroy the 
balance that is found in our bill. Let me explain why I think this is 
the case.
  First, as a Member who comes from southern Arizona and represents a 
border State and a border district, I know the importance of Latin 
America to the United States. I am sure the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is also personally familiar with Latin America and parts 
of it. I am sure he does not intend to shortchange development in Latin 
America, but that is what this amendment would do.
  Let me state a very simple fact: this amendment cuts development and 
humanitarian assistance for Latin America by $50 million, or more than 
10 percent of the amount in this bill. Let me repeat and elaborate on 
what I just said: the McGovern amendment cuts development assistance to 
Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Brazil. The McGovern amendment cuts human 
rights and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in 
Colombia. Yes, it would also cut some military assistance for Colombia. 
Read the last part of the amendment; page 25, line 7: ``After the 
dollar amount insert the following, reduce by $100 million.''
  It does not read cut military assistance to Colombia by $100 million; 
it does not exempt economic assistance for the Andean region, 
assistance for Peru or Bolivia or funding for the Colombian National 
Police. Now, I have seen a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that makes those 
claims. In fact, it says, ``The amendment does not cut any economic 
assistance for the Andean region, assistance for Peru, Bolivia or 
funding for the Colombian National Police.'' This is incorrect. This is 
not true. This is a misstatement. This is not a fact. It is not 
correct. It simply is wrong.
  My conclusions reflect the text of the amendment that is before us. 
My assumption is that the executive branch will allocate reductions 
mandated by this amendment across all programs in the Andean Regional 
Initiative. It would be equally reasonable it assume that the executive 
branch would give priority to eradication and security assistance and 
make cuts in development and humanitarian assistance beyond what I 
assume.
  It is not reasonable to assume, I think, that the executive branch 
under this, the previous President or any President, is going to take 
all the money out of the Colombian Army. So it is reasonable it assume 
this money is going to come out of economic assistance. As much as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts may wish that it would come all out of the 
military assistance, the amendment does not say that. So it is 
incorrect for us to assume that that would be the case. In fact, we can 
assume quite correctly that it would come out of all of those.
  Of course, some support this amendment because they seek more funds 
to combat tuberculosis, and that is a noble cause. More deaths among 
women under 45 are caused by TB than by AIDS. It is the major immediate 
cause of death of those living with HIV-AIDS.
  The question is how rapidly can the Agency for International 
Development and its cooperating organizations ramp up what had been a 
relatively small program for TB. Only 3 years ago, AID was spending 
less than $15 million for TB. This year, we recommend $70 million. That 
is an almost five-fold increase. It is difficult to implement that in 
the short-term.
  This amendment would add another $50 million to that, bringing it to 
$120 million, or an eight-fold increase, 800 percent increase, over 4 
years. Yes, the needs are there, but how quickly can we absorb that? 
How quickly can the infrastructure around the world absorb that?
  I am reminded of the efforts of Queen Elizabeth I to cure her 
subjects of tuberculosis, of those people who were within the Queen's 
touch. In the 17th century, a form of glandular TB known as the King's 
Evil caused horrific swelling from infected glands in the neck. 
Eventually it led to death. So wherever Queen Elizabeth went around her 
kingdom, persons infected with this form of TB would crowd around her, 
hoping the royal touch would cure them. Some days she touched hundreds 
of people, and was exhausted by the effort.
  I wish, I wish that the $50 million here for tuberculosis could make 
the difference hoped for by the sponsors of this amendment. However, 
like the royal touch of Queen Elizabeth, another $50 million for 
tuberculosis may raise indeed our spirits and make us feel good, but it 
is not going to affect tuberculosis for the current year.
  Unlike Queen Elizabeth's touch, however, this amendment will have 
adverse effects. It will cut development assistance in Latin America. 
It will signal to our neighbors that this country is disinterested in 
their security and in their development.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point. The reason 
why our amendment does not specify military aid is because the 
amendment would have been ruled out of order. I am sure somebody on 
that side would have called a point of order against it. We would have 
been legislating on an appropriations bill.
  Under the gentleman's argument, the entire $676 million Andean 
counter-drug package could be utilized for military aid in Colombia. 
Our legislative intent is being made clear by this debate. We do not 
want $100 million to go to the military of Colombia, because we are 
sick and tired of their continued collaborations with paramilitary 
groups.
  The reason why we are moving this amendment forward, quite frankly, 
is because this Congress has not been clear, this administration, and, 
to be fair, the previous administration, has not been clear, about 
standing up for human rights. If we do not make it clear now by sending 
a strong signal to the military of Colombia that we want them to sever 
all ties with the paramilitaries now, then I do not know what we can do 
to make that case.
  So that is what the intent of this amendment is, and that is why we 
did not specify the word ``military'' in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following in the Record:

                [From Amnesty International, July 2001]

        Colombia: Military Links to Paramilitary Groups Persist

       In early 2001, Colombia's human rights crisis has continued 
     to deepen against a background of a spiraling armed conflict. 
     The parties to the conflict are intensifying their military 
     actions throughout the country in campaigns characterized by 
     gross and systematic violations of human rights and 
     international humanitarian law. The principal victims of 
     political violence continue to be civilians, in particular 
     peasant farmers living in disputed areas, human rights 
     defenders, journalists, judicial officials, teachers, trade 
     unionists and leaders of Afro-Colombian and Indigenous 
     communities. Violations of international humanitarian law by

[[Page 14301]]

     armed opposition groups increased significantly in 2000. 
     These groups deliberately and arbitrarily killed several 
     hundred people, including judicial officials, local 
     politicians and journalists. In 2000, more than 4,000 
     individuals were victims of political killings, over 300 
     ``disappeared'', and an estimated 300,000 civilians were 
     internally displaced. Armed opposition groups and 
     paramilitary organizations kidnapped at least 1,500 people.
       Illegal paramilitary groups--operating with the tacit or 
     active support of the Colombian armed forces--carry out the 
     majority of Colombia's political killings, many through 
     massacres of four or more people. In contrast to their 
     declared aim to combat guerrilla forces, paramilitary groups 
     continued to target the civilian population through 
     massacres, torture, the destruction of communities and the 
     displacement of the population. The government has taken 
     little effective action to curtail, much less to end, 
     widespread and systematic paramilitary atrocities, despite 
     repeated promises to dismantle paramilitary forces. The armed 
     forces have failed to attack or dismantle paramilitary bases, 
     the majority of which are located in close proximity to army 
     and police bases. Collusion between the Colombian security 
     forces--particularly the army--and paramilitary groups 
     continues and, indeed, strengthened in 2000. Instances of 
     collaboration include the sharing of intelligence 
     information, the transfer of prisoners, the provision of 
     ammunition by the armed forces to the paramilitary, and joint 
     patrols and military operations in which serious human rights 
     violations are committed.
       Given the Colombian security forces' poor human rights 
     record and their on-going collaboration with illegal 
     paramilitary groups, Amnesty International opposes military 
     aid to Colombia. Our opposition will continue until concrete 
     steps are taken to systematically address these issues. Until 
     then, military aid will only contribute to a deteriorating 
     human rights situation and could strengthen specific units 
     which collaborate with paramilitary groups.
       Amnesty International USA recommends that the House of 
     Representatives pass an amendment to cut military aid to 
     Colombia from the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill;
       Congress include strong human rights conditions excluding a 
     national security waiver on any aid approved for Colombia;
       Congress and the Administration urge the Government of 
     Colombia to sever ties between the Colombian military and 
     illegal paramilitary groups, capture and prosecute 
     paramilitary leaders, and dismantle paramilitary bases; and
       Congress and the Administration urge the Colombian State to 
     carry out all human rights investigations and trials under 
     civilian jurisdiction, with the full cooperation of the 
     security forces.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 19, 2001]

                        The Tuberculosis Threat

       The London neighborhood of Newham is a good illustration of 
     the perils of complacency about tuberculosis. That East End 
     borough now has 108 cases of tuberculosis per 100,000 
     inhabitants--double that of India and on a par with Russia. 
     Many of those sick are immigrants from Asia and Africa, a 
     reminder that tuberculosis anywhere can mean tuberculosis 
     everywhere. But Newham is also suffering because London needs 
     to spend more on public health. There are not enough nurses 
     and specialists in the worst-hit areas to control the 
     disease.
       The House of Representatives will consider funding for 
     international tuberculosis programs as part of the foreign 
     operations appropriations bill this week. The bill currently 
     provides only $70 million for global tuberculosis programs, 
     just $10 million more than last year. Far more is needed to 
     stop the global resurgence of the disease, which kills two to 
     three million people a year.
       The task is urgent in part because of the rise of 
     tuberculosis resistant to the usual antibiotics. Dr. Lee 
     Reichman, director of the New Jersey Medical School's 
     National Tuberculosis Center in Newark, gives a chilling 
     account of the threat in his new book, ``Timebomb,'' written 
     with Janice Hopkins Tanne. The epicenter is Russia, where the 
     prison system is churning out resistant tuberculosis, Dr. 
     Reichman says. But resistant forms of the disease have been 
     found in virtually every part of the United States. Unlike 
     standard tuberculosis, which can cost as little as $10 to 
     cure, the resistant version costs upwards of $20,000 to treat 
     over several years, and some patients cannot be cured.
       The other reason more people are dying of tuberculosis 
     today than ever in history is AIDS. One-third of the people 
     in the world are infected with bacillus that causes TB. 
     Ninety percent, however, will never get the disease--unless 
     their immune systems are compromised by AIDS. Forty percent 
     of Africans with AIDS have tuberculosis, which is the leading 
     killer of people with AIDS.
       That suggests a simple and cheap way of prolonging the 
     lives of millions of AIDS sufferers--cure their TB. Once 
     their tuberculosis is gone, many AIDS patients will enjoy 
     years more of relatively good health before they get another 
     opportunistic infection.
       Tuberculosis kills more people around the world each year 
     than any other infectious disease and is more easily 
     transmitted than AIDS. But unlike AIDS, most forms are easily 
     curable. The World Health Organization has just created a 
     global drug fund that will supply countries with an 
     uninterrupted flow of medicine if they can use it properly. A 
     little money now can control this neglected killer before we 
     face a global epidemic of a version that has outrun our 
     ability to treat it.
                                  ____


  Excerpts From the Colombia Section, ``2000 Country Reports on Human 
      Rights Practices''--U.S. Department of State, February 2001

       Members of the security forces collaborated with 
     paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances 
     allowing such groups to pass through roadblocks, sharing 
     information, or providing them with supplies or ammunition. 
     Despite increased government efforts to combat and capture 
     members of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed 
     to take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary 
     forces find a ready support base within the military and 
     police, as well as among local civilian elites in many areas.
       Throughout the country, paramilitary groups killed, 
     tortured, and threatened civilians suspected of sympathizing 
     with guerrillas in an orchestrated campaign to terrorize them 
     into fleeing their homes. . . . Paramilitary forces were 
     responsible for an increasing number of massacres and other 
     politically motivated killings. They also fought guerrillas 
     for control of some lucrative coca-growing regions and 
     engaged directly in narcotics production and trafficking. The 
     AUC paramilitary umbrella organization, whose membership 
     totaled approximately 8,150 armed combatants, exercised 
     increasing influence during the year and fought to extend its 
     presence through violence and intimidation into areas 
     previously under guerrilla control while conducting selective 
     killings of civilians it alleged collaborated with 
     guerrillas. The AUC increasingly tried to depict itself as an 
     autonomous organization with a political agenda, although in 
     practice it remained a mercenary vigilante force, financed by 
     criminal activities and sectors of society that are targeted 
     by guerrillas.
       Credible reports persisted of paramilitary installations 
     and roadblocks near military bases; of contacts between 
     paramilitary and military members; of paramilitary roadblocks 
     unchallenged by military forces; and of military failure to 
     respond to warnings of impending paramilitary massacres or 
     selective killings. Military entities often cited lack of 
     information or resources to explain this situation. Impunity 
     for military personnel who collaborated with members of 
     paramilitary groups remained common.
       (Prepared by the Washington Office on Latin America, 202-
     797-2171. Emphases added)

 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the Human 
              Rights Situation in Colombia, March 20, 2001

       The paramilitary phenomenon continues to expand and 
     consolidate. The government's commitment to confronting these 
     groups has been weak and inconsistent. Evidence of this can 
     be seen in the responses to the [UN High Commissioner for 
     Human Rights] Office's communications with the authorities 
     about imminent attacks or about the existence of bases, 
     roadblocks and paramilitary movements. The instruments 
     adopted by the Government to combat paramilitary groups have 
     proven ineffective in containing their expansion and 
     dismantling them. In other cases those instruments have not 
     been applied. There is still great concern about the 
     persistent links between public servants and members of 
     paramilitary organizations, as well as the lack of 
     punishment. (Paragraph 254)
       The paramilitary groups continue to be the principal 
     perpetrators of collective killings. The Ministry of Defense 
     reports that paramilitary groups are responsible for 75 
     massacres, which is 76% of all massacres committed between 
     January and October. The practice of collective killings of 
     defenseless civilians is their principal method of operation 
     and war strategy. (Paragraph 88)
       The fact that some of the military personnel dismissed this 
     year have joined the paramilitary groups a few days after 
     their removal from active service is an additional cause for 
     deep concern and serious reflection . . . There is a well-
     known paramilitary roadblock at the entrance of the village 
     of El Placer, just fifteen minutes from a battalion of the 
     Army's 24th Brigade. The roadblock continued to operate eight 
     months after the Office reported directly observing it. The 
     military authorities denied in writing the existence of this 
     paramilitary post. The Office also observed ongoing 
     paramilitary operations at the ``Villa Sandra'' ranch, 
     between Puerto Asis and Santa Ana. Putumayo, a few minutes 
     away from the Army's 24th Brigade. Later there was a report 
     of two raids by the public forces, though they apparently did 
     not produce any results. The existence and operation of the 
     paramilitary base is public knowledge. In fact, international 
     journalists repeatedly visited the base and published 
     interviews with the paramilitary commander. (Paragraph 134)

[[Page 14302]]

       The Ministry of Defense has not made public the total 
     number of internally displaced people registered during the 
     year, but according to numbers published by the Ministry, 
     between January and June 2000, 71% of displacement was 
     presumably caused by paramilitary groups. 14% by guerrilla 
     groups, 15% by combined guerrilla and paramilitary actions, 
     and 0.04% by armed agents of the State. (Paragraph 141)
       (Unofficial translation prepared by the Washington Office 
     on Latin America, 202-797-2171. Emphases added.)

  Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), as well as the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their 
leadership and hard work on this issue. Would that we could legislate 
on this, because certainly we would move in the direction that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has set forth.
  I am pleased to support this important amendment. It is important to 
the millions of people who die from tuberculosis each year; it is 
important to the mothers in developing countries who have maternal 
mortality rates 18 times that of people in developed countries; and, 
Mr. Chairman, it is important to the people of Colombia who live in 
fear because our past efforts have failed them.
  Last year, the Congress agreed to a $1.3 billion supplemental 
appropriation for a 2-year package for Colombia and surrounding 
countries. Now, between this appropriation and the defense 
appropriation, we are being asked for another $1 billion.
  Last year we were told that our taxpayer dollars would be used to 
increase protection for human rights, expand the rule of law, and 
promote the peace process in Colombia. We were told it would be used to 
eradicate coca crops across Colombia. We were told it would be used to 
promote alternative crops and jobs in Colombia. That is what we were 
told.
  After close examination of the evidence, we simply have to ask, where 
did the money go? The human rights situation in Colombia has gotten 
worse, the peace process is no closer than it was, and many of the 
crops eradicated were actually food crops. And now we are being asked 
to buy the same set of broken promises as last year, and this is not 
progress.
  We all know that the Colombian military has close ties with the 
paramilitary organizations responsible for large scale massacres of 
civilians. Our own State Department has documented that the Colombian 
Armed Forces aid paramilitaries by providing them with intelligence, 
supplies, ammunition, and that they often fail to protect civilians 
from attacks.
  The military funding we give in the hopes of helping the Colombian 
people is, to some degree, having the opposite effect. In the first 18 
days of this year, 170 people were killed in 26 massacres. Data shows 
that as of April, deaths due to political violence roughly doubled 
those from previous years. These are innocent people trying to make 
Colombia a safer and more prosperous place, like Cristobol Uribe 
Beltran of the Association of Workers and Employees in Hospitals, 
Clinics and Organizations, who was kidnapped on June 27th and 
assassinated the very next day, innocent lives brought to an end for no 
legitimate reason. This is not progress.
  We have seen the human rights abuses in Colombia continue to escalate 
since last year's aid package. More than 300,000 people were forcibly 
displaced from their home by political violence. There continues to be 
hostage-taking, torture, killing of civilians. Our aid is being used 
against people who have been mislabeled as guerrillas and are often 
students, professors and priests. They are taken captive by the 
paramilitaries and oftentimes never heard from or seen again. Our aid 
has been used to destroy food crops and put harmful herbicides in the 
rivers and ponds in Colombian villages. It has displaced people from 
their land and homes and forced them to relocate, and this is not 
progress.
  We need to take a hard look at the situation we are dealing with in 
Colombia and make the sound judgment that our military aid efforts are 
simply not working. The aid we are providing is being misplaced, and I 
believe there is a role for the United States to play in this situation 
that is entirely different.
  We can provide resources to build infrastructure, so crops can get to 
markets profitably; we can provide assistance to help build a court 
system to the point where it is effective, fair and respected; or we 
can build schools and roads and community support; or we can build a 
competent, efficient, respected police force and a military force that 
does not favor the paramilitaries or ignore paramilitary atrocities.

                              {time}  1445

  With all of these options at our disposal, we are being asked to 
choose the one we know will not work because it has not worked in the 
past.
  This amendment recognizes that act and, instead, diverts some of this 
money from this wasteful program to one that saves lives. That is the 
intent of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, we ask that this money be used for tuberculosis aid and 
not for military purposes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress's record in handling this issue is a sorry one 
indeed, and I think it institutionally ought to be ashamed of itself 
for its total lack of guts in defending our obligations under the 
Constitution and our prerogatives under the Constitution. Basically, we 
are engaged in a war a long ways away in Colombia, rather than engaging 
in that war on our own streets here at home. We cannot do much about 
that today under the rules under which we are being forced to debate 
this bill.
  But I want to be very blunt about what I think is happening. We are 
right now engaged in this war, even though this Congress never had an 
intelligent, thoughtful debate through the normal processes of this 
House. We are not operating under an authorization produced by the 
authorizing committee. We are operating under a political compromise 
fashioned by the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, 
and the present Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), and rammed through this House on both sides of the aisle with 
no real ability of the authorizing committee to effect in any way the 
outcome.
  With all due respect to the Committee on Appropriations on which I 
have served for over 30 years, that is not the job of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The job of the Committee on Appropriations is to fund 
programs previously authorized, and certainly it is not the job of the 
Committee on Appropriations to get this country in a position where we 
could inadvertently be sucked into a conflict that could keep us there 
for years.
  The question is not whether we like the rebels in Colombia and the 
question is not whether we like the President of Colombia; the question 
is whether or not we believe that that society, as presently 
constituted and constructed and organized, has the ability to make what 
we are doing in this program work and, in my view, based on long 
observations of that society, I do not believe that that is the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote something said by Jim Hoagland, 
who I think can accurately be described as a moderate conservative 
columnist in The Washington Post. This is what he wrote a year ago. 
``In Colombia, the United States pursues unattainable goals, largely 
for domestic political reasons with inappropriate tools.'' Then he 
says, ``Now in the rush to the quagmire, we see the following:'' and 
then he goes on to talk about what happens when it becomes clear that 
in the considered judgment of the U.S., air force officers in the 
Colombian military will not be able to maintain the Blackhawks under 
the conditions in which they will be flying has shown to be correct. He 
asked what will happen then. Then he simply goes on to make the point 
that the Congress is slipping us into this war little by little the way 
that Kennedy and Johnson did in Vietnam, and we all know what the

[[Page 14303]]

disastrous results were of that operation.
  I am also frankly mystified by the views of our new Drug Czar, John 
Walters. Walters was quoted a year ago as attacking the idea that we 
ought to focus on drug treatment. When he was discussing the value of 
that idea he said this: ``This is an ineffectual policy, the latest 
manifestation of the liberals' commitment to a `therapeutic state' in 
which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.''
  I find that comment to be condescending and arrogant and, most of 
all, misguided. The fact is that if we take a look at the research done 
by SAMHSA, the agency charged with knowing what we are doing on drug 
treatment and rehabilitation, if we take a look at studies done by 
RAND, financed, in part, by the U.S. Army, they estimate that a dollar 
spent on treatment here at home is 23 times as effective as fighting a 
war or trying to interdict drugs internationally.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am for doing both, but I am not for 
spending over $1 billion last year and almost that amount this year 
over 1,000 miles away from home when we still have drug addict after 
drug addict roaming the streets of our cities untreated and unable to 
get into the drug treatment programs that we have provided in this 
country, simply because this Congress is too misguided and does not 
provide the money.
  It seems to me that this amendment is a token effort at what we ought 
to do on this program, and I, for one, intend to support it. I have no 
illusion that it is going to pass, but it is what we ought to do and, 
most of all, this Congress ought to have a full-blown, detailed debate 
on this issue after we have had briefings from the administration and 
others so that we know what the facts are on the ground and we are 
operating on the basis of facts, not ideology, or operating on the 
basis of substance, not politics. I think the leadership of both 
parties has been disgracefully negligent in getting us to drift into 
this war without any real thought about what the outcome is going to 
be.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Andean 
regional initiative in the bill is already $55 million below the 
President's request. At the same time, this bill has already provided 
$1.39 billion for child survival and disease programs, which has 
significantly increased.
  Let us talk about health programs in particular. I want to talk about 
the public health effects of illegal drugs in the United States. The 
cocaine and heroin which comes to the United States from the Andean 
region, and almost all of our cocaine and heroin comes from the Andean 
region, seriously impact our hospital emergency departments. Heroin 
visits are rising and cocaine visits are holding steady. In 1999, more 
than half a million drug-related emergency room visits were reported, 
over 196,000 related to Andean cocaine and over 84,000 in American 
hospitals related to Andean heroin. Every year, our Nation spends $12.9 
billion to cover the health costs of illegal drugs, which have 
predominantly come in from the Andean region.
  I support the bill's generous funding level for international health 
programs. I believe it is extremely ill-advised to further increase 
this spending at the expense of a significant portion of our 
international narcotics control program, which is fundamentally 
designed to protect the health of American citizens by keeping illegal 
drugs out of the United States. These programs account for just 5 
percent of our overall drug budget. In fact, the $100 million at stake 
in this amendment is 11 percent of the entire U.S. budget for 
international narcotics control. We cannot and should not trade the 
health of American citizens simply to make a political statement.
  Now, I would like to respond to a number of false allegations that 
have occurred regarding what is going on in Colombia. Colombia is not 
Vietnam. It is a longtime democracy. It is one of the oldest 
democracies in this hemisphere. Vietnam was not.
  The Colombians themselves are fighting and dying. They are not 
fighting and dying because of their political problems, they are 
fighting and dying because of our narcotics addictions in the United 
States. This is not a civil war, this is a war funded, whether they be 
the ultra-rightist groups or whether they be the FARC, whether they be 
the ELN, through narco-protection and narco-dollars. We have caused 
their conflict. We have moral obligations to help them address their 
conflicts. They have had the equivalent of 30,000 American police 
officers killed in the line of combat trying to eradicate drugs that 
are being grown for our neighborhoods and our streets. It is not like 
Vietnam. It is a country that was a democracy where now, people have 
fled because they are kidnapped, because they are terrorized, because 
of our addictions. We are not engaged in a war in Colombia. We are 
trying to assist them fight a war that was driven by us.
  Furthermore, we heard about the peace process in Colombia. President 
Pastrana, whether we agreed with it or not, and I had some 
reservations, he gave a demilitarized zone. He bent over backwards to 
work with the FARC. What he got was slapped in the face. He turned his 
other cheek. They continued to grow drugs and they expanded their 
operations, and what he got when he turned his cheek was they slapped 
him in the face. The failure of the peace process is not with the 
Colombian government. They have turned their cheek and turned their 
cheek and turned their cheek.
  We have also heard that many crops were eradicated that were food 
crops. That is simply a false allegation on fumigation, and I am sure 
we are going to debate that further today.
  Furthermore, there have been smears on the Colombian military. We 
have worked to improve the human rights division. A number of us on the 
Republican side have been criticized in the past for being too oriented 
towards the Colombian National Police which had a great human rights 
record. With the last administration and with the support of the House, 
we expanded our aid to the military in return for commitments on human 
rights. It is not an easy process, as we have tried to educate other 
countries where we provide military aid around the world in addition to 
our military when they are overseas and our police forces, so 
occasionally there are human rights violations.
  It has not been proven that they have gotten worse, nor is it proven 
that they have ties to the ultra-rightists in that country and where 
there are, we ought to rout them out. That is why some of us have been 
more oriented towards giving the money to the Colombian national police 
rather than the military. Their elected government in Colombia asked us 
for help for their military, rather than just the Colombian national 
police. We responded to an elected government unlike Vietnam, and then 
we get criticized because some of the funds went to the military.
  Furthermore, some of the blame in Colombia being placed on the 
government or on our anti-narcotics efforts is like blaming police 
officers for the fact that crime has increased. It is like blaming 
judges and the citizens for the fact that terrorism has increased. What 
they have is a rampant problem in their country that is indeed 
threatening democracy, and what we seem to want to do at times is stick 
our head in the sand and say, well, this does not have anything to do 
with us. In 1992 to 1994 this House, along with the newly elected 
President, cut the interdiction budget. What we saw was a supply coming 
into America soar. We saw the prices on the street drop. We saw the 
purities come up. To get back to where we were in 1992, we would have 
to have a 50 percent reduction in drug abuse in America.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)

[[Page 14304]]


  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, it is critical, not because of what is 
happening in Colombia, but because 67 to 80 percent of all the crime in 
every Member's district is drug-related. We should not cut back our 
efforts when we know where the coca is being grown; we know where the 
heroin poppy is being grown. When it spreads into the oceans and then 
crosses our borders, from the Canadian border, the Mexican border, the 
East and West Coast and starts to moving into our streets, it becomes 
more expensive to find it, it becomes more expensive to treat it, it 
becomes more expensive to lock people up, than if we can help the 
Colombians and the Peruvians and the Equadorians and the Bolivians 
fight the battle in their homelands.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern amendment; and 
I commend the gentleman for his leadership in bringing it to the floor. 
I want to follow up on some of the remarks made by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member, on the need for 
us to have this debate.
  We are talking about, between last year and this year, a $2 billion 
expenditure on this initiative that has seen very little light of day 
in terms of what it contains and what its effectiveness is. What the 
McGovern amendment would do is to take $100 million from that funding 
for the Andean initiative and spend it on child survival and maternal 
health and to fight infectious diseases, polio tuberculosis and 
malaria.

                              {time}  1500

  Where that money would come from is a line in the bill that simply 
says, ``for necessary expenses to carry out section 480 of the Foreign 
Assistance Act solely to support counterdrug activities in the Andean 
region of South America, $676 million, to remain available until 
expended.'' It does not say anything about economic assistance, human 
rights, humanitarian assistance, or anything like that. It says, ``$676 
million.''
  We would have liked for this amendment to be a match for the one I 
offered in committee, where we could say that the $100 million came 
from the military assistance, but the Committee on Rules would not have 
put that in order.
  So in responding to the comment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) that it takes from these other areas, no, it does not. The goal 
is to take it from the military assistance. If the administration 
chooses to take it from humanitarian and economic assistance, that is 
the choice of the administration. It is not the wish of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) or the cosponsors of his amendment.
  Why is this important? The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said 
earlier that the Rand organization presented a report that said that 
treatment on demand in the United States is 23 times more effective 
than eradication of the coca leaf in the country of origin. Think of 
it. It is estimated to cost about $32 million to reduce demand in the 
United States 1 percent by treatment on demand.
  If instead we try to reduce demand 1 percent in the United States by 
eradication of the coca leaf in Latin America, it will cost over $700 
million. Do the math. That is 1 percent for a 1 percent reduction.
  In our country, there are about 5\1/2\ million substance abusers. 
About 2 million of them receive treatment, and 3\1/2\ million do not. 
Why are we not spending the money, which is 23 times more effective, on 
treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, rather than 
sending all of this money, to the tune of $2 billion, and it will grow 
next year, for a policy that has been ineffective?
  I am very respectful of President Pastrana and his good intentions 
and hard work and, again, in recognition of the fine work that my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, have done 
on this bill, but this part of the bill must be debated more fully and 
the Andean Initiative must be reduced.
  What does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) spend the 
money on? He spends it on tuberculosis. Few diseases are as devastating 
and widespread as TB. TB kills 2 million people each year and is only 
second to AIDS as the biggest infectious killer of adults in the world.
  Although there is a very cost-effective cure for this disease, only 
one in five who are sick receive adequate treatment. The good news is 
that effective treatment does exist. It is called DOTS, the Directly-
Observed Treatment Short course, and it is effective. It costs between 
$20 to $100 to save a life.
  According to the international TB experts, a worldwide investment of 
$1 billion is needed to make DOTS available to all of those ill with 
TB, and an appropriate U.S. share would be $200 million. The money 
would go to the foreign operations bill, to increase its funding for 
polio eradication.
  While the bill has $25 million in it, Rotary International, which has 
been a leader in the eradication of polio, says we need a minimum of 
$30 million for that eradication. We are in a race to reach every last 
child with polio. We can do it.
  We need the resources to do so. It seems to me that is money much 
better spent than in the unknown, slow-to-come, trickling-through-the-
pipeline humanitarian or economic assistance that was promised to 
Colombia but where they have seen more on the military side and hardly 
anything on the humanitarian and economic side.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to follow the leadership of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and all the other makers in 
this amendment. I have failed in the subcommittee and in the full 
committee, but I am more hopeful on the floor of the House that if we 
want to reduce demand of drugs in the United States, we will do it in a 
cost-effective way.
  If the burden of proof of this is, have we helped the Colombian 
people and reduced drugs in the U.S., we have failed on both counts. 
Support the McGovern amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, lest our friends on the other side of the aisle forget 
that the Plan Colombia concept was a Clinton administration proposal to 
help save Colombia from becoming a failed narco-state on the Clinton 
watch, we need to stay the course. We have not even delivered most of 
the equipment we promised to Plan Colombia, the helicopters that were 
provided for. In fact, they just started arriving this month. So how 
can we attest to the fact that this is a failure? It has not even 
started in full. Let us be fair and accurate in this debate.
  With what we in the Congress previously gave to the Colombian 
National Police ahead of Plan Colombia, their antidrug units are 
already about to totally eliminate opium this year, the source of more 
than 70 percent of the heroin coming to the United States. We also 
eradicated 30,000 hectares of coca in southern Colombia with Plan 
Colombia, all since mid-December of 2000, far ahead of schedule.
  All the above was accomplished in the year 2000 by the anti-narcotics 
police without one credible allegation of human rights abuse against 
its antidrug units. In April, 2000, the Institute for Defense Analysis, 
the IDA, reports that our efforts with the anti-narcotics police in 
Colombia, both in eradication as well as hitting labs and breaking up 
major trafficking organizations, have produced the lowest purity and 
the highest prices here for cocaine since early 1985, the lowest purity 
and the highest prices since 1985.
  This low purity and high prices for cocaine in 15 years here at home 
means less and less young people are going to become addicted to 
cocaine, and they will not require the expensive treatment and 
incarceration in our Nation.
  So I repeat, Mr. Chairman, less and less American kids are going to 
be addicted to cocaine because of what we

[[Page 14305]]

are doing under Plan Colombia today, despite the uninformed critics, 
who offer no real workable alternatives.
  So let us stay the course. Fighting drugs at their source is still 
the best and most cost-effective way, before they arrive on our 
shorelines, destroying our young people, increasing crime in our 
communities, and producing even more costs in treatment and 
incarceration.
  Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to defeat the McGovern amendment 
and make certain that we are not going to surrender in this war on 
drugs.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McGovern, Hoekstra, Pelosi, 
Morella, Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if I might have the attention of the House, this is an 
important debate because I think the American people are trying to 
understand just where the tension is between those of us who are 
interested in maternal-child health and immunization and the opponents 
of the bill.
  First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that just a couple of days 
ago the White House had Youth Day on Saturday, opening up the White 
House to thousands of youth who came to the United States Capitol, 
including Boy Scouts, who many of us see walking throughout the 
Capitol, who are here for the Jamboree to be held in Virginia.
  I mention that because we in America are interested in promoting 
healthy children. Therefore, we have emphasized in preventative health 
millions of dollars to immunize our children. With that in mind, this 
is what this legislation is about. It is the capability worldwide to 
ensure that there are healthy children and healthy mothers, to ensure 
that there is prenatal care as it relates to nutrition, and to ensure 
that there is immunization.
  Let me juxtapose those needs of saving lives of children, of 
providing the nutritional needs through the foreign operations bill, to 
what this amendment does. This amendment takes only $100 million out of 
a $2 billion pot.
  This does not label those of us who support this amendment as 
antidrug enforcement or not understanding the drug issue. What we do 
understand is that America has been fighting drugs in Mexico and in 
Colombia and places throughout the world without a lot of success. We 
realize that we have not placed as much emphasis on treatment and 
bringing down the desire.
  This is all about supply. I heard a good friend and colleague mention 
that we are trying to take money out of police operations and other 
operations as it relates to drug enforcement. That is absolutely a 
misinterpretation of our amendment. All we are doing is taking $100 
million, which may be taken out of the foreign military aspect of this 
drug effort, out of a $2 billion line item.
  So, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize what we have been able to 
accomplish with assistance on the idea of child nutrition.
  If a child is not killed by measles, it may cause blindness, 
malnutrition, deafness or pneumonia. It is possible to save millions of 
children per year just by increasing immunization rates from 75 percent 
to 90 percent and by assuring access to essential nutrients, such as 
vitamin A, which increase resistance to disease and infection.
  In developing nations we are finding that children are dying of the 
normal childhood diseases which here in America children do get but 
they survive because of immunization. Annually, immunizations avert 2 
million childhood deaths from measles, neonatal tetanus, and whooping 
coughs, which if we travel to the developing nations we will find those 
diseases devastating to children.
  The success of these programs in the world's poorest regions is even 
more striking when one considers that the vaccination rate in the 
United States only reached 78 percent, 78 percent in 1998. 
Unfortunately, immunization rates are not improving everywhere. 
Coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has decreased. Thirty percent of 
children still do not receive their routine vaccinations, and 30 
million infants; and measle infection rates have improved in the last 
10 years, but there are still 30 million cases of measles.
  We must reduce hunger and malnutrition, which contributes to over 
one-half of the childhood deaths throughout the world. We can do so 
through these child and maternal health programs. Almost 150 million 
children are malnourished. We have watched the stories in Sudan, in 
Ethiopia, in other war-torn countries.
  I believe the most important aspect of this debate is for us not to 
be considering that we are killing the drug enforcement program in 
parts around the world, including Colombia. That is not the case. We 
are asking for a small, minute number of dollars to be able to save 
millions and millions of children.
  I believe this is a fight worthy of its name. I am delighted to be on 
this amendment. I have an amendment that I had intended to offer, but I 
believe this debate is so important that we need to focus on the 
juxtaposing of what we are standing for here today, saving lives, as 
opposed to the depleting of a $2 billion pot.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I ask support for 
this amendment. I will consider whether or not I will withdraw my 
amendment that will come subsequently. This is an important issue.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Hoekstra-
Pelosi-Morella-Jackson-Lee global health 
amendment to H.R. 2506, the fiscal year 2002 Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill.
  I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), for taking the lead in bringing this important amendment to 
the House floor.
  What the amendment does is it shifts $100 million from military aid, 
and this is the intent, to Colombia to the Child Survival and Health 
Programs Fund. It would add $50 million for child survival and maternal 
health programs that improve maternal and child health and nutrition, 
reduce infant and child mortality, and support polio eradication 
programs.
  Additionally, this amendment would add $50 million for infectious 
disease, and that is specifically for international tuberculosis 
programs. While TB overall is on the decline in this country, it 
continues unabated globally. An estimated 8 million people worldwide 
develop active TB each year. There are 2 million TB-related deaths 
worldwide each year, and TB causes more deaths among women worldwide 
than all cases of maternal mortality combined.
  TB is the leading cause of death among people who are HIV-infected, 
accounting for one-third of AIDS deaths worldwide. The global TB 
epidemic could impact declines that have been made in the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to control TB in the United States 
until we control it internationally. According to experts, an 
additional $1 billion is needed to adequately address this killer. The 
United States must take a leadership role in supporting and 
substantially increasing spending programs to eliminate the spread of 
TB worldwide. Passage of this amendment would translate into $120 
million for international TB eradication efforts for fiscal year 2002.
  Equally as important is increased funding for the child survival and 
maternal health programs. Each year, more than 10 million children die 
before reaching their fifth birthday due to preventable infectious 
diseases such as pneumonia, measles, and diarrhea.

                              {time}  1515

  Nearly 500,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes each year; and 
every minute around the world 380 women become pregnant, 110 women 
experience pregnancy-related complications, and one woman dies.
  Mr. Chairman, the $100 million this amendment seeks to shift is 
offset strictly by military aid to the Colombian Armed Forces. I want 
to emphasize the fact that it does not, despite what we have heard, it 
does not touch any police aid, which would be $152 million, and it 
certainly does not touch

[[Page 14306]]

any of the $146 million for social and economic investment in Colombia. 
Neither does it affect the remaining $277 million of the military 
economic or development aid for Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, or Venezuela 
that is contained within the $676 million Andean Counterdrug 
Initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should pass by voice vote on its merits 
alone. However, if there is a recorded vote, I urge passage of the 
McGovern-Hoekstra - Pelosi - Morella - Jackson- 
Lee global health amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, much is in dispute about this whole issue of what to do 
in Colombia, but I do not think anyone can dispute that there is no 
visible evidence that the human rights situation in Colombia has 
improved since Congress approved last year's mostly military aid 
package, and I think that should indicate to us that we ought to think 
about what we are doing.
  With the indulgence of the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), I had an opportunity to visit 
Colombia about 4 months ago with a number of Members of this body, and 
we had an opportunity to talk with a number of different people in the 
government in Bogota, but then also visited as much as we could in the 
short period of time on the front lines of the areas in the Colombian 
civil war, particularly in Putumayo Province, and a couple of other 
provinces in the south of the country.
  Now, I believe that President Pastrana and the defense minister are 
genuinely looking for an acceptable way to end this long conflict. Some 
elements of the military certainly are in collaboration with the right-
wing paramilitaries, and I suspect doing so in defiance of President 
Pastrana. I really do not believe that he is in any way encouraging 
them. In fact, the tensions are clearly obvious within the military in 
Colombia, from what I could see of the visit. The Department of Defense 
has discharged whole units where there is evidence of collaboration; 
and that, of course, is part of the tension.
  But I think that our heavy use of military aid to the suspect 
Colombian military drives the United States' policy into the pattern of 
the El Salvador example from a decade and more ago, a period of time 
when year after year we were spending on an average of $400 million or 
more year to the Salvadoran military, which was directly involved in 
the worst civil and human rights abuses in El Salvador, including the 
infamous killing of Catholic nuns, who, of course, were in sympathy 
with the plight of the Salvadoran people.
  Now, in my view, the Salvadoran example provides some example for the 
sides in Colombia to use. Ten years ago, the two sides in the civil war 
in El Salvador realized that they were simply killing the very best 
young people from both sides and that it was disastrous for everyone 
there, and so they sat down together to create a new future for El 
Salvador. And a version of that, it seems to me, is the way that this 
craziness in Colombia has got to end.
  I think the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra) provides a message. It would send a message that the purely 
military solution, in this case in Colombia, is a dead-end solution for 
Colombia and that it is really time to try something else.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, suggested, or pointed out, that this message is a blunt 
message; and it is, because it cuts $100 from the $676 million assigned 
for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. But the administration can take 
that money from the military side, from the military side in Colombia, 
not from the civil police, not from economic aid there or in the other 
nations of Ecuador and Peru and Brazil, if that is where it is 
otherwise intended to go.
  There must be a better way to do this. It is time to try something 
else than the failing effort to impose a purely military solution on 
the long-standing, nearly 30-year civil war that is going on in 
Colombia. Therefore, with a slight bit of ambivalence, I started here 
ambivalently, therefore I am supporting and commending the gentlemen 
from Massachusetts and Michigan for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, but I 
do want to salute the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 
his work on behalf of Mr. Moakley's long work in support of human 
rights in El Salvador and in support of human rights in Colombia; but I 
reluctantly oppose this amendment.
  Recently, I accompanied the Waukegan Police Department on a raid of a 
crack house. There we found the crack addicts in the basement, but then 
I found that this was actually a home with three little bitty babies in 
it and a 12-year-old smoking crack cocaine. We cannot surrender the 
drug war. We need to make sure that we protect those who cannot protect 
themselves.
  But there are two purposes of the drug war. The first purpose of a 
U.S. drug war is to reduce the narcotics flow into the United States, 
and on that we have not done well. But there is a second purpose; and 
that second purpose, Mr. Chairman, is to prevent narcogovernments from 
taking power. We saw it once already in our history when the government 
of Panama fell and a narcogovernment took control there.
  Manuel Noriega turned the Immigration Ministry in Panama into an 
enormous drug lab. And two things happen once a narcogovernment takes 
control: first, economies of scale; and, secondly, research and 
development. The research and development in the narcotics industry 
created crack cocaine, a $5 single hit, that was an enormous boost to 
the illegal drug industry. And we cannot let that happen in Colombia.
  The United States has an important and positive role to play in 
supporting civil society in Colombia. Colombia, our neighbor, is in the 
middle of a nationwide crisis which threatens the entire region, and 
they have asked for our help. So the question is not should we become 
engaged, but how we should become engaged and to what end. Had this 
amendment redirected funds to support civil society in Colombia, 
especially judicial reform, I would have strongly supported it. 
However, simply pulling support from Colombia and its fight against 
drugs and its fight against narcoterrorism is not the solution.
  I believe it is vitally important to support Colombian institutions 
that are working in an effective fashion to bring criminals to justice, 
whether these criminals wear the uniform of rebels who profit from drug 
trafficking or are right-wing paramilitaries who fill their war chests 
with cash culled from the same dirty source. I would even mention that 
some of these lawbreakers wear the Colombian uniform of the armed 
services and support illegal activities of paramilitary groups that are 
responsible for most human rights violations in Colombia.
  But I would note that all aid under this bill passes through the 
Leahy amendment, vetting people to ensure respect for human rights. 
There are institutions in Colombia that do a truly exceptional job 
fighting injustices engulfing the country; and among them is the 
attorney general, known as the Fiscalia, and the Colombian National 
Police. Most of the recent high-level captures of paramilitary leaders 
and rebel chieftains are the result of the dedicated work of the 
attorney general's office, where hundreds of prosecutors are working 
against tremendous odds to transform the written word of Colombia's 
laws into real-life consequences for criminals.
  For instance, it is the attorney general's office that has done the 
painstaking investigations that have resulted in arrest warrants for 
top paramilitary leaders recently. They hit at the heart of the 
paramilitary structure, their drug profits; and they need our help. For 
their part, the leadership of the Colombian National Police has 
literally turned an institution around

[[Page 14307]]

over the past decade, from one stained by human rights violations into 
a professional force. They have done what so far the Colombian military 
has not, sending a clear and pointed message that rank-and-file human 
rights violators will not be tolerated.
  Since 1994, when General Jose Serrano took over, over 11,000 officers 
have been dismissed for crimes that vary from corruption to 
extrajudicial execution. In their place are officers who know their 
first duty is to obey the laws themselves before they bring criminals 
to justice. General Gilibert continues to uphold this tradition and 
needs our support to continue to enforce the law, particularly in 
regards to human rights.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not surrender Colombia to drug lords of the 
right or the left. Defeat in this instance of civil society would mean 
at least 10 percent of Colombia would attempt to move to the United 
States. I would hope in the future we could work together in a 
bipartisan fashion to craft an aid package that supports the Democrat 
center, civil society, prosecutors, police officers, judges to create a 
Democrat forum in Colombia where we could win the war against the 
tyranny of the right or left.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out one thing. First 
of all, this bill contains $152 million of police aid. There is $72 
million in police aid from last year that is still in the pipeline. 
Nobody here is advocating that we surrender. What we are saying is send 
a signal to the military that we want them to sever ties with the 
paramilitary. That is what this is about.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make clear a couple of 
points here. First of all, we are not abandoning Colombia. This foreign 
aid package still includes $299 million in aid for Colombia for 
alternative development, the police, and judicial reform. It includes 
another $276 million in economic and security assistance for the other 
countries in the Andean region. It does not affect any of the military 
aid that will be coming before us in the defense appropriations bill.
  We are emphasizing the funding in our amendment that supports peace, 
development and an end to poverty that leads to drug cultivation. We 
are eliminating funding that further militarizes the conflict. That is 
the purpose of our amendment. We are eliminating the aid for a strategy 
in southern Colombia that has failed in every country where it has been 
tried and which is opposed by all 13 mayors of Putumayo and all six 
governors of southern states of Colombia.
  What we are trying to do is send a strong, clear signal at last that 
the Colombian military must cut its ties to the paramilitaries. My 
concern, and the concern of a lot of us who are supporting this 
amendment, has been that we talk the talk when it comes to human rights 
but we do not walk the walk. We put in language in our Colombia aid 
package, conditionality language on human rights; and yet when the 
Colombian military does not abide by those guidelines, we simply waive 
those guidelines. That is the wrong signal to send.
  I do not know how continuing to support a military, continuing to 
send a signal that we are going to turn a blind eye to human rights 
violations does anything to deal effectively with the drug problem in 
our country or deal with illegal growth of coca plants in Colombia, or 
deal with strengthening civilian institutions. The fact of the matter 
is, continuing to support the Colombian military without insisting they 
abide by human rights criteria, I think sends the wrong signal and it 
adds instability, not stability, to the region.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
support of the McGovern amendment to shift the $100 million from aid to 
Colombia's military to global health programs.
  Since Plan Colombia began last year, the human rights situation has 
worsened. There are reports of atrocities both by right-wing 
paramilitary groups and left-wing guerrillas.

                              {time}  1530

  The AUC paramilitary group has gone on a bloody rampage across 
Colombia, massacring hundreds of civilians.
  In the Naya River Valley and other places throughout Colombia, the 
military has failed to take sufficient steps to prevent paramilitary 
massacres, despite ample public warnings about the attacks.
  Our own State Department has documented the ongoing links between the 
Colombia military and the paramilitaries. According to the State 
Department, impunity for military personnel who collaborate with 
members of paramilitary groups is all too common.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a great opportunity on the floor of the House. 
We have an opportunity to cut $100 million out of $2 billion, but $100 
million which will, on the one hand, curb human rights abuses and, on 
the other hand, take that $100 million and spend it on maternal health 
and on polio and on tuberculosis control.
  When we look at what the world has done in the last 20 years when we 
have the resources, it is clear that $100 million can be spent very, 
very well. In one state in India a couple years ago because of 
government and public health authorities involvement in a tuberculosis 
pilot project, they reduced the death rate by 94 percent from 
tuberculosis in that one state in India.
  Polio was eradicated in the Western Hemisphere in 1991. The last case 
was in Peru because of government health authorities and NGOs and 
others making that commitment. Since then we have almost eradicated 
polio around the world and should have eradicated it by 2005.
  In one day in 1999, in the country of India, where NGOs from around 
the world and public health authorities from around the world and the 
government of India concentrated on vaccinations that day and 
immunized, in one day in India in December, 1999, 134 million children.
  The point, Mr. Chairman, is when we use these public health resources 
well, we can make a big difference. The McGovern amendment does that. 
It is a small but important step in our efforts to eradicate infectious 
disease, to curb human rights abuses and to make this world a more 
healthy place.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite numbers of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
for allowing me to work with him on this amendment.
  Regrettably, I come to the floor to talk about this issue on an 
appropriations bill. This discussion would be much better if we were 
going through an authorization process, but this is the only place we 
can talk about a very critical issue.
  I think there is a great degree of uncertainty of how this program is 
working. We know that on this appropriations bill there is significant 
legislation that will further militarize this situation. I think we 
need to be nervous about that. That is why I looked favorably on this 
amendment when it was proposed to me and why I chose to co-sponsor it.
  In the last few months, I have had the opportunity to travel to 
Africa. Investing in health care around the world is an important 
investment. We were in Lagos, Nigeria. We had the opportunity to 
witness the effects of polio and recognize that polio is still a 
disease that faces way too many children around the world. Investing in 
child survival and health programs is a good investment.
  In contrast to that, I think there is a sincere concern about our 
efforts in the drug war. As I listen to the debate today, I hear terms 
such as we have to reduce the drug flow, narco-governments, surrender 
to drug lords. I sometimes wonder if we are willing to sacrifice all 
U.S. values in this fight on drugs.

[[Page 14308]]

  We know that in certain cases, and we will be talking about one of 
those later on today in another amendment that I will be proposing, 
when we tried to work out some protections that would embody basic 
human values and basic U.S. values and rights that we cherish in this 
country, we are not willing to extend those basic rights to the people 
in South America. We are willing to do other legislation in this 
appropriations bill but carrying basic rights that we treasure in this 
country and that we afford to our own citizens, we are not willing to 
extend to our colleagues south of the border.
  Are we willing to sacrifice all decency and basic human rights so 
that we can benefit here in the U.S. while others suffer in other parts 
of the world? I am not sure that is the direction that we want to go.
  The U.S. values that we cherish here are the same values that we 
should share and export to other parts of the world. We need in this 
bill, since it is the only vehicle that we will have an opportunity to 
express our values on and our feelings and opinions, we need to use 
this bill to say we are going to defend U.S. values and U.S. rights in 
this country and we are going to ensure that those values and those 
rights are extended into other countries where we are engaged and where 
we are invested.
  The greatest export that we have around the world is not dollars, but 
it is a vision of freedom and it is a vision that says freedom and 
human rights are a basic right that people around the planet should 
share. We are the model. That model should not change when we leave our 
borders.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe) will be recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make some observations 
on the amendment and the speakers that we have had.
  I want to remind my colleagues what the issue really is here. We are 
not talking about whether or not we should be putting more money into 
HIV/AIDS and child survival fund. We recognize the importance of doing 
that. We have money that is going into those funds. We are increasing 
the amount for tuberculosis rapidly. We believe, in fact, that we are 
increasing it as rapidly as we can be. Some might argue that it is 
faster than the absorption. We are not even sure exactly how those 
program dollars are going to get spent, but the need is tremendous.
  We are facing a pandemic in this world in HIV/AIDS unlike anything 
that any of us in our lifetimes have experienced, unlike any kind of 
plague that has beset this world in the last several hundred years. We 
need to be focused on that. We need to understand that it is a global 
issue. It is not just one here in the United States. It is not just one 
in Africa. We are now seeing it in Haiti and the Caribbean. We are 
seeing it in South Asia. We are seeing it in the Central Asian 
republics. We are seeing it in the Caucasuses and we are beginning to 
see it in Southern China.
  This epidemic is spreading around the world, and we need to apply the 
proper resources to it. Mr. Chairman, our bill does do that. We make 
every attempt to get money into the international trust fund as well as 
money into our bilateral programs.
  Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again where we are with this trust fund, 
a trust fund which, I might add, has not yet been established, a trust 
fund that under the umbrella of the United Nations would provide 
funding for programs around the world, but we still do not know how the 
governance of that trust fund will be done.
  Nonetheless, we have $100 million in our bill for that. Last Friday, 
this House approved a supplemental appropriation which is now on the 
desk of the President for $100 million; the Labor-HHS bill will have 
another $100 million. That is $300 million in 1 year from this country 
alone towards the trust fund.
  I realize that one can always argue that more is needed, but we have 
to balance our bill with the requirements of our other national 
security requirements, including those in South America, the need to 
make sure that the needs of the battle against drugs in Latin America 
continues, as well as the economic assistance in those countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues when they consider this amendment 
that they realize that we have a balance in this bill, and I would hope 
that my colleagues would consider it carefully and that they would 
reject this amendment.


Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective 
                             John M. Gibson

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the Chair's announcement of earlier today, 
the Committee will now observe a moment of silence in memory of Officer 
Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.
  Will all present in the Chamber please rise for a moment of silence.
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for appreciating the work of the 
officers here and around the world.
  I speak on behalf of the McGovern-Hoekstra-Pelosi-Morella amendment 
that adds $50 million to infectious disease programs to combat 
tuberculosis and $50 million to the Child Survival and Maternal Health 
Program.
  This money will be taken from the Andean Counterdrug Initiative that 
would provide $100 million in additional U.S. funding for Plan 
Colombia. The current administration asked for a 1-year $1 billion 
military aid package to continue funding Plan Colombia and other 
antidrug initiatives in surrounding countries.
  While I respect that initiative, I prefer to support this global 
health amendment because I believe that additional funding for the 
Colombian military will only draw the United States further into 
Colombia's brutal 4-decade old civil war.
  Furthermore, I cannot in good conscience support funding for a 
military in Colombia that has close connections to paramilitaries 
responsible for some 70 percent of the most severe human rights 
violations in the world. Seventy-one percent of the 319,000 people 
internally displaced last year were driven from their homes by 
paramilitaries, according to the Colombian President's office. The $1.3 
billion aid package that we sent Colombia last year has not improved 
the Colombian military human rights record. Hardly any high ranking 
military officials implicated in connection to paramilitaries have been 
dismissed since the United States aid began to be implemented last 
August.
  Mr. Chairman, as reported in last Thursday's issue of The New York 
Times, 40 percent of Africans with AIDS have tuberculosis, which is the 
leading killer of people with AIDS. Tuberculosis kills 2 million people 
each year, and is on the rise globally. Tuberculosis is the greatest 
killer of people with HIV-AIDS and young women worldwide. Tuberculosis 
treatment in the form of directly observed treatment, DOTS, is one of 
the most cost-effective treatments available today.
  And to combat high infant mortality rates, a small investment in 
programs such as measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and 
polio will greatly impact many children's lives.
  We can save billions of dollars in the future if polio and other 
preventable diseases are no longer a threat to children, and countries 
no longer need to vaccinate their children. The change in children's 
health worldwide is priceless. The funding needed to achieve this goal 
is invaluable by comparison.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support of this amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to reduce funding for the Andean 
Initiative by $100 million. During the consideration of Plan Colombia, 
I had some serious concerns regarding the manner in which the $1.3 
billion would be distributed. I believed that the concentration of 
those funds on military rather than

[[Page 14309]]

on economic and social assistance was a grave miscalculation. The 
assistance provided to the Colombian military has been used to support 
and intensify the long tradition of human rights abuses in Colombia in 
my opinion. Plan Colombia has bloodied the hands of this Congress.
  I believe that this reduction of $100 million should be taken from 
the account directed to the Colombian military to send a message that 
these abuses of basic human rights will not be tolerated any longer. I 
cannot stand idly by while this body attempts to make the same mistake 
once again. Though I believe that the Andean Initiative takes steps 
toward a broader regional strategy and addresses the shortcomings of 
Plan Colombia, the President's request for the distribution of this 
account is incredibly deficient.
  The most glaring deficiency is the lack of support for the country of 
Ecuador. We are talking about a country that has struggled for years 
with high inflation, a high rate of unemployment and a low per capita 
income. We are talking about a country that provides the United States 
a forward operating location at the Manta Air base to conduct drug 
surveillance missions free of charge.
  Under the administration of President Noboa, Ecuador has done nothing 
but demonstrate acts of loyalty and friendship toward the United 
States. How do we repay them? By providing only $39 million, $39 
million when Peru and Bolivia are receiving well over $100 million 
each. This is not providing support for a friend in need. This is a 
slap in a friend's face.
  Ecuador is dealing with the daunting task of keeping the coca 
production beyond its borders. With the increasing activity by 
Colombian paramilitaries in the Putumayo region, this is becoming more 
and more difficult every day.
  If the Colombian military and paramilitaries are successful in 
driving the guerillas out of southern Colombia, the problem will not be 
solved. The guerillas will simply move elsewhere to resume their 
business. This funding will not allow Ecuador to secure its borders or 
resist the movement of the guerillas into the Sucumbios region of 
Ecuador.
  Just last month, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia crossed 
the Rio Putumayo into Ecuador and set up roadblocks on a main highway. 
This is the beginning of the terror for Ecuador. We can take steps in 
this Chamber to nip this in the bud.
  Ecuador once shared a 367-mile border with Colombia. It now today 
shares a 367-mile border with rebel forces. Something must be done 
before this situation gets out of hand. No Member wants to be down on 
this floor next year voting for an aid package called Plan Ecuador.
  I sincerely believe that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) are committed to improving 
the situation in Ecuador. As this bill goes to conference, I would like 
to offer my assistance to ensure that the underfunding of Ecuador be 
addressed and rectified.
  I also note that this money that will be redirected to child survival 
and maternal health as well as combating the spread of infectious 
disease. With so much suffering in this world today, why must we 
contribute to more of it? Let us take this opportunity to promote the 
welfare of both Colombia, the Andean region and global health entirely.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Hoekstra-
Pelosi-Morella-Jackson-Lee amendment which adds $50 million to the 
infectious diseases account to combat tuberculosis and $50 million to 
the child survival and maternal health account. The offset comes from a 
$100 million cut in funding for the Colombian military.
  As a relatively new Member of this august body, the most important 
parliamentary body in the entire world, what has struck me is the 
capacity of the United States for relatively small amounts of money, 
relative to the amount of money that we have and the amount of money 
that we spend, to do good in the world and to end the suffering of 
millions of people. That is what this amendment allows us to do.
  I had the experience of going to Colombia with one of the sponsors of 
this amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts. One of the things 
that we did was go to Barrios Kennedy, a place for displaced people, 
people who have been displaced by the multi-decade war that we are 
helping to fuel in Colombia. When we went to this crowded community and 
we met with families there, it was so sad because many of the families 
would put forward their children who were so sick and who were getting 
no help from the government, who were not getting the kind of help they 
needed or wanted from the United States. When they saw Members of the 
United States House of Representatives, they thought, can you help us? 
They showed us their health care bills that they could not pay. They 
held up their sick children. They were pleading for help.
  This amendment gives us the opportunity to do two things for those 
people: one, to help their children with their health care needs; and, 
two, to end the continued problem of displacement.
  How do we do that? Cutting funds from the Colombian military makes 
sense. This is a military that has repeatedly been implicated in the 
brutalization and murder of the very people that it is supposed to 
protect. Last year, there was an average of at least one massacre a day 
in Colombia, leaving thousands murdered and millions displaced. They 
flock to cities like Bogota where we met with some of them.
  While many of the attacks were carried out by guerillas and 
paramilitary, these illegal armed groups operate with impunity from the 
military. In fact, they are often aided in their efforts by the 
Colombian armed forces personnel.
  This amendment sends two clear messages: one, that we care about the 
children and the poor and the sick in this world, that we want to 
eradicate polio, that we want to get rid of tuberculosis; and, two, we 
send an important message to the Colombian military that we will not 
tolerate nor support the kinds of human rights violations that continue 
to devastate the people of Colombia that we say we are there to help.
  I urge all my colleagues to join in strong support of this well-
thought-out amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment, reducing 
the amount of military assistance for Colombia and increasing funding 
for child survival maternal health, tuberculosis and malaria. 
Regardless of whether you support the huge U.S. investment in arming 
and training the Colombian military and police, the facts are clear. 
The acceleration of military activity in southern Colombia as a result 
of Plan Colombia funding has led to less government control, more 
violence, and no reduction in drug cultivation processing or 
transshipment. As a result of these and other developments, President 
Pastrana is now considering signing a law which would provide the 
Colombian military with extraordinary power and exemptions from 
judicial review.
  During debate on Plan Colombia last year, Members were assured that 
alternative economic development was as much a priority as military and 
police aid. We were also told that our European allies would compensate 
on the economic assistance side for the imbalance in our own program.
  What actually happened? A massive fumigation campaign commenced last 
December in southern Colombia before any alternative economic 
development programs were in place. By last March, no alternative crop 
assistance had been delivered to communities which had agreed to 
voluntary eradication. Today, as we speak, assistance is being 
delivered in only two of the 29 communities that have signed pacts. In 
fact, only 1,800 of the 29,000 people in the affected area are actually 
receiving assistance today. Military assistance programs have proceeded 
rapidly, while economic assistance from Europe never

[[Page 14310]]

materialized, and United States assistance has been slow in arriving. 
We are adept at wielding the stick of Plan Colombia, but the carrot is 
nowhere to be found.
  The McGovern amendment would reduce military assistance to give 
alternative development programs more time to be implemented. We owe 
the poorest of Colombia's poor who have been terrorized by the ongoing 
conflict the opportunity to eradicate their illegal crops voluntarily. 
And when they agree, we must have the capacity to deliver on our 
promises immediately. That is not the case today.
  Congress provided over $1 billion for Plan Colombia, of which only 
about half has been spent. The majority of the military equipment 
funded in that package has not even been delivered to Colombia. 
Spending this $100 million on infectious diseases is good policy and 
will not slow our progress in the war on drugs in Colombia. In fact, it 
will actually help, by demonstrating that our policy is balanced. It 
will also increase the likelihood that the alternative development 
pacts will be sustainable over time.
  The examples of successful voluntary eradication programs in Bolivia 
and Peru show that manual/voluntary eradication is the most effective 
and sustainable method of achieving long-term change. In order to bring 
that about, poor farmers must receive some actual benefits and gain 
confidence in their government. This has not yet happened in southern 
Colombia. The McGovern amendment will help solidify these alternative 
programs by slowing the pace of military assistance. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment really is not about allocation of child 
survival and health programs funding. Because if you just take a moment 
to look at the history here, we have $1.4 billion, nearly $1.5 billion 
allocated this year. Some 4 years ago, it was half the amount. It took 
a Republican Congress to increase this program, and it is an important 
program, and it is a targeted program which will aid in child survival 
worldwide.
  But that is not the debate here. The debate is to really declare war 
on Plan Colombia. Some of the same opponents, Mr. Chairman, that we had 
toward giving any assistance to the Colombian military are the same 
opponents that we have here today.
  We have heard that this is a purely military solution. Mr. Chairman, 
we have not had the military involved in Colombia really until this 
Plan Colombia came about. The Clinton administration blocked all of the 
military assistance to Colombia. Time and time again the Congress 
appropriated funds for helicopters. What do we need helicopters and 
transport vehicles to get to the Colombian military for? To get to the 
violence and get to the drugs. It does not take rocket science to 
figure this out. The drugs, the heroin, the cocaine are in the hills 
and distant lands in Colombia; and you need a way to get there.
  Just a few minutes ago we dedicated a moment of silence to two 
Capitol police officers to whom as Members we will always be indebted 
because they sacrificed their lives to protect us. Do you know how many 
Colombian police have died to date? Over 5,000. There will be no moment 
of silence for those 5,000 Colombian police.
  We have been to Colombia, many times. The Speaker helped develop this 
program. The administration for years blocked military assistance, and 
we got a huge increase in the production of heroin. From zero in 1993 
to 70 percent of all the heroin coming into the United States is now 
coming in from Colombia because they blocked the military from stopping 
it.
  Yes, there is violence out on the right side. You hear them talk 
about the military and how they are committing crimes. They did not 
tell you about the left wing, the FARC. They did not tell you about the 
ELN who cut people's throats, who use people in the most abusive ways 
you can ever imagine in human rights violations; and the terror is 
equally divided on both sides.

                              {time}  1600

  But they do not tell you that in order to stop the violence, to even 
get the police there without being slaughtered in Colombia, that you 
need some way to get them there. The key to that is our military 
assistance, the military, which we are training three battalions, 
providing helicopters and assistance to get them there. They encircle 
an area, and the police come in, arrest the terrorists and drug 
dealers, all of whom are financing the terrorism that has killed 35,000 
people.
  Do you want to care about human rights? Then allow Plan Colombia to 
at least go forward for 1 year. The aid is not even there. The 
helicopters that we begged and pleaded with the Congress and this 
administration to send there 3 and 4 years ago, are still not there. 
The last time I was there, they had four helicopters that were 
operating part of the time, and one was being cannibalized for parts. 
Now, how do you run an effective anti-illegal narcotics campaign like 
that?
  Over one-half of the package is for assistance. If the assistance is 
not there, then get after the Department of State to get the assistance 
for alternative crop development and other programs to help people. But 
you will not build roads, you will not build schools, you will not save 
people's lives in Colombia until you have a comprehensive plan to make 
it all work.
  So do not pull the guts out of the plan. Do not destroy a well-
balanced plan that has protections against human rights abuses, that 
has a targeted approach and balance between a small amount of military 
delivering troops who are trained to an area to protect police.
  You have heard about sacrifice of U.S. values. Well, the U.S. values 
our freedom.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, sacrifice of U.S. values, I heard that. 
Freedom and human rights. Well, there will not be freedom in Colombia 
while they are killing each other.
  It is in the United States' interests, it is in our interests as a 
neighbor not to let our friends continue killing our friends, just as 
it was in any other country in South America or around the world where 
we sent our assistance. But, in this case, there are no troops 
involved, only training and assistance and close supervision.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the points 
the gentleman made that we are trying to take the guts out of this 
package. Let me remind the gentleman that $152 million in police aid is 
in this package; $72 million in police aid is in the pipeline, and an 
estimated $80 million in military aid.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you can take that police 
aid and dump it in the Potomac River, because the police will never be 
effective unless they are protected to go in there. You will have 
another 5,000 police lose their lives in Colombia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if I am the last speaker, let me just say: this 
amendment is the equivalent of burning down a house because one of the 
rooms is messy and it needs cleaning. In our Child Survival Account in 
this bill, we are spending $1.387 billion on child survival, maternal 
health, vulnerable children, HIV-AIDS, other infectious diseases, 
reproductive health and voluntary family planning and a grant to 
UNICEF.
  Included in this very, very important expenditure of $1.3 billion is 
five primary childhood killers: a focus on diarrhea, acute respiratory 
infections, malnutrition, malaria, directed primarily at children, and 
vaccine-preventible diseases. We are also looking at contaminated 
water. We are working to improve maternal health to protect the outcome 
of pregnancy, neonatal and young infants, to save the lives of the 
mothers by improving maternal nutrition, promoting birth preparedness, 
improving safe delivery and postpartum

[[Page 14311]]

care, and managing and treating life-threatening complications of 
pregnancy and childhood.
  I keep hearing about values. This committee is already weighing in at 
$1.3 billion, and we believe that we can work to continue to support 
the war on childhood diseases.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, why do I say they are just burning down the whole 
house? The author of this amendment a few minutes or hours ago said 
that this amendment does not direct a cut towards military. Now, I 
understand that they are angry at the military, but this amendment does 
not stop there. It is not earmarked. Therefore, it does go after human 
rights; it does go after judicial reform. It goes after all the good 
parts of Plan Colombia, which I think they would support.
  But I want to address why is their military involved. Maybe it would 
be better to send down the Boy Scouts. Maybe we could send AmeriCorps 
in there. Maybe we could send the Peace Corps. Maybe we could send my 
church Sunday school group down there, and they could interface with 
these drug dealers and say, you really do not want to kill people, do 
you? Maybe that would work better. But I think not.
  Let me read to you a part of the Andean counter-drug initiative 
report. It talks about Bolivia's 5-year plan to eliminate illegal coca 
cultivation. Why do we have seven countries involved in this? Just keep 
in mind that the drug dealers and drug problems are kind of like fire 
ants in neighborhoods. You treat fire ants in your yard, they go to 
your neighbor's yard. And drugs work the same way.
  This talks about the eradication operation in the Yungas Mountains. 
It says coca is located in remote areas that are well guarded by 
resistance and militant coca growers, making it difficult, dangerous 
and costly to remove. The international narcotics elimination plans to 
go in there with aircraft, C-130Bs, and supply personnel.
  It talks about one road where there are violent ambushes and attacks 
from coca growers and traffickers. It talks about this one road in the 
Yungas being the world's most dangerous road, that aside from tricky 
hairpin turns, the rocky and gutted road is seldom wider than 11 feet, 
necessitating its closure by soldiers to allow one-way traffic during 
various times of the day.
  Eradicating coca is very, very dangerous business, and that is why 
you have paramilitary in there. I wish there was another way to fight 
drugs, but the money is too great.
  Think about what we are faced with here in the United States of 
America. This is a product that if you work for the drug dealer, you do 
not have business cards, you do not advertise, you do not have 
brochures; and yet this insidious product is so bad that it can be 
obtained nearly on every school yard in the United States of America. I 
would challenge my 434 colleagues, if you do not believe me, go ask 
schools, particularly high schools in your districts, to the kids, can 
you get illegal drugs by the end of the day? And at most high school 
seniors' classes, about half the hands go up and say yes, they can.
  This is a threat to society, not just in America, but all over the 
world. That is why you have to get tough with it. That is why you have 
to use the military.
  But, again, Mr. Chairman, very, very importantly, this amendment does 
not stop at military. This cuts into judicial training; it cuts into 
efforts to assist displaced people and other human rights violations. 
This is a reckless and sloppy amendment, and it should be voted down. I 
would hope that the author of it would just withdraw it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of maintaining our commitment 
to the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. While I support the 
language on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and direct aid 
allocation, I am disappointed that aid to Armenia is somewhat less than 
the fiscal year 2001 level of $90 million. Nonetheless, I am hopeful 
that the Senate and the conferees will correct this oversight in the 
coming weeks.
  The United States has a long history of extending a helping hand to 
those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a 
disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country. It is 
this caring that stands as a hallmark of the United States around the 
world and shows the world our true character as a Nation.
  Armenia alone among the New Independent States faces the unique 
challenge of developing its economy in the face of devastating 
blockades. The dual Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades have cut off 
Armenia's traditional trade routes and severely limited Armenia's 
access to the outside world.
  As long as Armenia suffers from blockades on its east and west 
borders, continued and robust U.S. assistance to Armenia is necessary.
  It is alarming that aid to Armenia has been decreased by 8 percent, 
while the administration has increased aid to Azerbaijan by 46 percent. 
Why are we rewarding a government that blockades its neighbor and was 
recently cited among the most corrupt nations in the world? Reducing 
aid to Armenia, while increasing aid to Azerbaijan, would send the 
wrong message about American priorities in the region.
  Mr. Chairman, Azerbaijan continues to violate section 907 of the 
Freedom Support Act, a U.S. law enacted with bipartisan support in 
Congress and with the support of the Bush administration in 1992 in 
response to Azerbaijan's blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
  It is vital that the fiscal year 2002 foreign operations 
appropriations bill maintains section 907 of the Freedom Support Act 
without any weakening amendments or additional exemption being carved 
out. The reasonable and clear condition for lifting section 907 has not 
been met; and given the sensitive, ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh peace 
negotiations, section 907 must remain in place.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not reward the Azerbaijani government, which is 
in violation of U.S. law. That same government, Mr. Chairman, has 
consistently been cited by our own State Department for its grim human 
rights efforts, as well as its flagrant violation of the most basic 
principles of democracy, free and fair elections.
  We must apply a consistent set of conditions on foreign assistance 
recipients regarding their commitment to democratic principles, 
standards of international conduct, economic reform, and respect for 
human rights.
  According to the State Department's 2000 Country Report on Human 
Rights Practices in Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, who assumed presidential 
powers after the overthrow of his democratically elected predecessor in 
1993, was reelected in October of 1998 in an election marred by serious 
irregularities, violations of election law and lack of transparency in 
vote counting at the district and national levels.
  President Aliyev and his supporters continue to dominate the 
government and multiparty 125-member parliament. There were numerous 
serious flaws in the elections held in 2000. Serious irregularities 
included disqualifications of candidates, a flawed appeals process, 
ballot box stuffing, manipulated turnout results, premarked ballots, 
severe restrictions on domestic nonpartisan observers, and a completely 
flawed vote-counting process.
  The constitution, which laudably establishes a system based on a 
division of powers among the presidency, legislature and the judiciary, 
unfortunately has been undermined by a judiciary which does not 
function independently of the executive branch and has proven itself 
corrupt and inefficient.
  Severe disparities of income have emerged that contribute to 
patronage and corruption. In contrast, Mr. Chairman, the report by the 
State Department on Armenia says the following: ``The Armenian 
government demonstrated the strength of its constitutional system 
following the tragic events of October of 1999. In the wake of the 
assassination of the Prime Minister and other top leaders, Armenia 
followed constitutional procedures and continued the normal business of 
government. Exchanges and training and partnership programs provide 
opportunities for current leaders and the next

[[Page 14312]]

generation of Armenians to learn about the U.S. society and 
institutions firsthand and to forge personal ties with individual 
Americans and U.S. institutions. Armenia continues efforts to improve 
its business climate, increase investment and create jobs. The 
government is implementing final measures necessary for entry into the 
World Trade Organization.''
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the government has demonstrated a willingness 
to cooperate with the U.S. in preventing weapons of mass destruction, 
proliferation, and in fighting international terrorism. We must 
continue the pressure on both Turkey and Azerbaijan and increase our 
support to Armenia.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this time, if I may, or some of it 
at least, to talk about the amendment that has been offered to us by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  This amendment would shift $100 million dollars of U.S. aid from the 
Colombian military to maternal health and child survival programs, as 
well as a fund to fight tuberculosis. Over the past year, we must be 
aware that the situation in Colombia has deteriorated. Since August of 
2000, when our government began delivering the new aid package, up to 
this moment, there has been a severe escalation of human rights 
violations in Colombia.

                              {time}  1615

  The number of massacres by paramilitary and guerilla forces in the 
first 4 months of this year is nearly double the number in the first 4 
months of the year 2000. Despite an increase in U.S. aid, the military 
rarely acted to protect innocent civilians, and there are numerous 
instances of collaboration between the Colombia military and right-wing 
paramilitary groups.
  A disturbing example of this took place in the City of 
Barrancabermeja. On July 6 of this year, a group of heavily armed 
paramilitary reportedly tried to assassinate trade union leader 
Hernando Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez, however, narrowly escaped after 
being warned by friends. The case in this particular city, the case of 
Mr. Hernandez, is one of the lucky ones. In the first 45 days of this 
year, 145 people have been killed in this small city, Barrancabermeja.
  These killings take place in spite of the fact that this is one of 
the most militarized cities in all of Colombia. The Colombian Army's 
Fifth Brigade maintains a military presence, and that includes the 
U.S.-funded 61st Advanced Riverine Battalion. These units have made 
absolutely no serious efforts to restrain the paramilitaries from 
committing these atrocities.
  Mr. Chairman, U.S. funding of the Colombian military has led to more 
human rights abuses, an increased number of political killings while, 
at the same time, not at all reducing drug use or violence in our own 
country. This amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) takes money away from a failing program and shifts it to 
important and grossly underfunded global health initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Green), my Republican friend and colleague, to express at this point in 
the debate on this bill our bipartisan appreciation for the leadership 
of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the 
ranking member, for the substantial increase they commit in this budget 
to basic education.
  Basic education in particular is about girls' education, because they 
are the ones most likely to be held out of school. The data shows 
tremendous return for the investment made in this area for each year 
past fourth grade: a 10 percent reduction in family size, a 10 percent 
reduction in infant and maternal mortality, and 15 to 20 percent 
increases in wages. This increase is precisely in line with the 
leadership of President Bush who has said recently, ``Literacy and 
learning are the foundation of democracy and development. I am 
directing the Secretary of State and Administrator of the Agency of 
International Development to develop an initiative to improve basic 
education and teacher training in Africa.''
  Under the leadership of the President, the G-8 communique issued just 
this past weekend said, ``Education, in particular, universal primary 
education and equal access to education at all levels for girls, must 
be given high priority in our development programs.''
  Former Secretary Treasury Larry Summers has said, ``Educating girls 
quite possibly yields a higher rate of return than any other investment 
available in the developing world.'' Present Secretary of the Treasury 
Paul O'Neil said in a recent op-ed in The New York Times, ``Education 
is inextricably linked to improving living standards.''
  Perhaps the most eloquent quote I have heard regarding the imperative 
of girls' education was issued by the chairman of the board of a 
community school in Bamako, Mali. This gentleman said, ``Bringing girls 
education is like bringing light into a dark room.''
  That is why I am so proud of the work of the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). I had a 
chance to see with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) the effects 
of this funding and work on expanding girls' education in Africa.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a 
true leader in advancing the cause of basic education around the world.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, I know 
the day is long, but I think it is important for us to show 
appreciation, so I commend both the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the ranking member for their tremendous commitment here.
  What we are doing is not just about education and education reform; 
it goes much beyond that. As the gentleman from North Dakota has 
alluded to, we know that an educated child who becomes an educated 
parent is truly the key to solving many of the health care challenges 
in the developing world. We know that an educated community breeds 
democracy. We know that as expectations rise, as people learn about 
what is taking place beyond the border, those forms of tyranny and 
government control that are in many places of the world cannot survive. 
They will fall to democracy. Of course, education, as we all know, 
fosters economic development.
  So what we have done and what we are doing today is truly a wonderful 
thing. I do want to show my personal appreciation and on behalf of many 
of the villages that the gentleman and I visited together, we thank our 
colleagues.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond very briefly to my good 
colleagues with appreciation for their important work in this area. It 
has been a privilege for me and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), 
for us to feel we have had some part in making sure that young girls 
around the world will get educated so they can play an important role 
in their community and raise their families and raise their communities 
and hopefully lead to a more peaceful world. I thank the gentleman from 
North Dakota and the gentleman from Wisconsin for their important work.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my 
colleagues in offering an amendment to this bill that will permit the 
United States Agency for International Development to provide valuable 
support for global child and maternal health programs and to combat 
global infectious diseases.
  This amendment will provide $50 million additional funding for Child 
and maternal health programs and $50 million additional funding for the 
USAID's valuable infectious disease program. We are not asking for new 
funding, but merely funds from the State Department's Andean 
Counterdrug initiative.

[[Page 14313]]

  We know firsthand that the health and survival of a child is directly 
linked to the health of his or her mother. Infectious diseases continue 
to take a toll on the developing world. Ten million children will die 
before their fifth birthday this year due to preventable diseases, such 
as diarrhea, pneumonia and measles. In addition, infectious diseases, 
such as tuberculosis and malaria, take the lives of millions of people 
living with HIV/AIDS. All of these deaths are preventable and by 
strengthening the basic health and nutrition services in developing 
countries, we can make a difference.
  We must recognize that the U.S. federal budget allocation to foreign 
aid has hit a record low, and is now less as a proportion of our 
national income than in any other industrialized nation. Foreign aid is 
not only one percent of our federal budget.
  In September, we will mark the ten-year anniversary of the 1990 World 
Summit for Children. At that summit, the U.S. joined with over 70 other 
nations in committing to the reduction of child and maternal deaths. 
Substantial progress has been made since 1990, but many goals have not 
yet been met. We need to redouble our efforts to expand programs that 
can sharply reduce the millions of preventable deaths.
  Despite the good work of many organizations and individuals 
worldwide, each year more than ten million children die before reaching 
their fifth birthday due to preventable infectious diseases, such as 
pneumonia, measles, and diarrhea. This is equivalent to every child 
living in the eastern half of the United States. While diarrhea remains 
one of the leading causes of death in the developing world, at present 
one million childhood deaths are averted every year due to diarrheal 
prevention and appropriate treatment programs.
  Clean water and sanitation prevent infections, and oral rehydration 
therapy (a simple salt sugar mixture taken by mouth, which costs only 
pennies and was developed through U.S. research efforts overseas) has 
been proven to be among the most effective public health interventions 
ever developed.
  Global immunization coverage has soared from less than 10 percent of 
the world's children in the 1970s to almost 75 percent today. Annually, 
immunizations avert two million childhood deaths from measles, neonatal 
tetanus, and whooping cough. The success of these programs in the 
world's poorest regions is even more striking when one considers that 
the vaccination rate in the United States only reached 78 percent in 
1998.
  Unfortunately, immunization rates are not improving everywhere. 
Coverage in sub-Saharan Africa has decreased. 30 percent of children 
still do not receive their routine vaccinations--30 million infants. 
Measles immunization rates have improved in the past ten years but 
there are still 30 million cases of measles every year.
  If a child is not killed by measles, it may cause blindness, 
malnutrition, deafness or pneumonia. It is possible to save millions of 
children per year just by increasing immunization rates from 75 percent 
to 90 percent, and by assuring access to essential nutrients such as 
Vitamin A, which increases resistance to disease and infection. Vitamin 
A supplementation is protective and will protect a child from the most 
serious consequences of measles, such as blindness and death, and costs 
only four cents per year per child. Deficiencies of both iron and 
iodine are among the most harmful types of malnutrition with regard to 
cognition. Iodine deficiency disorder is the leading preventable cause 
of mental retardation in children and it renders children listless, 
inattentive and uninterested in learning.
  We must reduce hunger and malnutrition, which contribute to over one-
half of childhood deaths around the world. We can do so through these 
Child and Maternal Health programs. As estimated 150 million children 
are malnourished, which puts them at even greater risk for infections. 
Protecting children from disease and malnutrition increases their 
ability to learn and thrive. The issue of hunger and nutrition was so 
important to my predecessor, Mickey Leland, that along with Congressmen 
Tony Hall and Ben Gilman, he founded the House Select Committee on 
Hunger in 1983. The bi-partisan non-profit Congressional Hunger Center 
grew out of this effort in 1993 and fights national and global hunger. 
It is important that we in Congress continue these efforts.
  According to the United Nations, approximately 828 million people are 
chronically undernourished in the world today. Approximately 300 
million are children. UNICEF reports that 32 percent of the worlds' 
children under five years of age, about 193 million, have stunted 
growth, which is the key indicator for undernutrition.
  Weak health and poor nutrition among school age children diminish 
their cognitive development either through physiological changes or by 
reducing their ability to participate in the learning experience, or 
both. The extra demand on school age children to perform chores, for 
example, or walk long distances to school, creates a need for energy 
that is much greater than that of younger children. Available data 
indicate high levels of protein energy malnutrition and short-term 
hunger among school age children, and deficiencies of critical 
nutrients are pervasive.
  Poor nutrition and health among school children contribute to the 
inefficiency of the educational system. Children with diminished 
cognitive abilities and sensory impairments perform less well and are 
more likely to repeat grades or drop out of school. The irregular 
school attendance of malnourished and unhealthy children is one of the 
key factors in poor performance. Even temporary hunger, common in 
children who are not being fed before going to school, can have an 
adverse effect on learning.
  For those of you who worry that their home districts will not support 
such additional aid, I offer that polls consistently show that 
Americans support putting a high priority on addressing world hunger 
and poverty. In a recent survey by the Program on International Policy 
Attitudes at the University of Maryland, 87 percent polled support 
foreign food and medical assistance. Only 20 percent surveyed supports 
cuts in efforts to reduce hunger. 62 percent said that combating world 
hunger should be a very important goal for the United States. 76 
percent positively rated giving child survival programs more money. 
Only about one fourth positively viewed giving military aid to 
countries friendly to the United States.
  U.S. food aid alleviates poverty and promotes economic growth in 
recipient countries. As incomes in developing countries rise, 
consumption patterns change, and food and other imports of US goods and 
services can increase. Hence, supporting child nutrition programs is an 
effort that we can and must all support.
  This amendment will benefit families in many other important ways. 
Nearly 500,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes each year. Every 
minute, around the world, 380 women become pregnant, 110 women 
experience pregnancy-related complications, 1 woman dies. Each year, an 
additional 15 million women suffer pregnancy-related health problems 
that can be permanently debilitating, and over 4 million newborns die 
from poorly managed pregnancies and deliveries.
  Ninety five percent of maternal deaths occur in the developing world. 
In some sub-Saharan African countries, the risk jumps still further: 
one in every 14 girls entering adolescence will die from maternal 
causes before completing her child-bearing years--compared to 1 in 
1,800 girls in developing countries.
  According to the World Health Organization, maternal health is the 
largest disparity between the developed and developing countries. While 
infant mortality (death to infants less than one year), for example, is 
almost 7 times higher in the developing world than in the developed, 
maternal mortality is on average 18 times higher. Beyond the 
consequences for women, the health of their children is also put at 
risk. Children are much more likely to die within two years of a 
maternal death. The chances of death are 10 times greater for the 
newborn and 3 times greater for children 1 to 5 years.
  Reducing maternal deaths is to be an effective investment in healthy 
families--and therefore in sustainable development--around the world. 
These deaths can be averted through services that include skilled 
attendants at birth with necessary equipment and supplies, community 
education on safe motherhood, improvement of rural and urban health 
care facilities. Most of these interventions are low-tech and low cost.
  Maternal deaths affect women in their most productive years, and as a 
result the impact reverberates through their families, their 
communities, and the societies in which they live. The diminished 
potential productivity of the women who die is $7.5 billion annually 
and $8 billion for the newborns who do not survive.
  Ninety-nine percent of maternal deaths can be prevented with improved 
pregnancy care, nutrition, immediate postnatal care as well as 
appropriate treatment for the complications of incomplete abortions. 
The WHO Mother-Baby program has identified a package of health 
interventions that, for a cost of $1-3 per mother, can save the lives 
of countless women and will begin to do so immediately upon 
implementation.
  U.S. funding for maternal health programs has remained level at $50 
million for the past 3 years. While other global health and development 
programs have received increased attention, women continue to die 
needlessly of preventable causes.
  Through this amendment, we also seek additional funding to prevent 
infectious diseases.

[[Page 14314]]

Almost 2 million people die each year from tuberculosis (TB). It is 
estimated that one-third of the world's population is infected with 
tuberculosis, although it lies dormant in most people. Deadlier and 
more resistant forms of TB have emerged and have spread to Europe and 
the U.S., re-introducing the possibility of TB becoming a global 
killer. Moreover, since HIV/AIDS reduces one's resistance to infectious 
diseases, TB is easily transmitted to an infected individual. It is 
regarded as the most common HIV-related opportunistic infection in 
developing countries.
  Many advances have been made to reduce the prevalence of these 
diseases by the USAID, in collaboration with other international 
agencies. For example, the World Health Organization's Roll Back 
Malaria campaign had decreased the death rate from malaria by 97 
percent in some countries. WHO has also started a ``directly observed 
treatment strategy,'' or DOTS, to fight tuberculosis. Under this 
strategy, patients are given second-line drugs when they become 
resistant to first-line drugs.
  Similarly, tuberculosis (TB) has re-emerged on the world stage in 
deadlier and more resistant forms. With the appearance of multi-drug 
resistant TB, and its spread to Europe and the U.S., we face the 
possibility that this could again become a leading killer of the rich 
as well as the poor.
  Infectious diseases account for 8 percent of all deaths in the 
richest 20 percent of the world and 56 percent in the poorest 20 
percent. This poorest fifth of the world's population is seven times 
more likely to die as a result of infectious diseases, accounting for 
56 percent of deaths within this population segment. Children are 
particularly susceptible to infectious diseases, which tend to be 
exacerbated by malnutrition, and all-too common condition in developing 
countries.
  Finally, this amendment does not seek to cut any economic assistance 
for the Andean region, assistance for Peru or Bolivia, or funding for 
the Colombian National Police. It only seeks to cut some military aid 
to Colombia, aid that does not help the Colombian people, as will these 
valuable heath programs.
  The human rights situation in Colombia has deteriorated since 
Congress approved last year's aid package. The Colombian military 
continues to collaborate with right-wing paramilitaries that commit 
over 70 percent of human rights abuses, such as the paramilitary 
massacres of civilians that have nearly doubled in 2001 compared to 
last year.
  The U.S. is engaged in a costly military endeavor with no clear exit 
strategy. The high level of military aid threatens to draw the U.S. 
further into Colombia's civil war. The amendment leaves intact $152 
million in police aid, and estimated $80 million in the Defense 
Appropriations bill, $30 million in expected drawdowns and IMET, and 
$158 million in military aid in the pipeline from FY 2001. Security 
assistance accounts for 71 percent of expected U.S. aid to Colombia 
this year.
  Military aid escalates the conflict and weakens the fragile peace 
process by emboldening those who hope to solve the conflict on the 
battlefield and undermining government and civilian leaders seeking a 
peaceful resolution to the conflict.
  President Bush himself said this Tuesday that ``A world where some 
live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less 
than $2 a day, is neither just, nor stable.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will be postponed.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise, Mr. Chairman, to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Specifically, I would like to discuss with him the excellent effort 
Bolivia has made on the war on drugs. We have heard a lot of talk about 
the nonsuccesses with some of our drug programs in South America and 
Central America, but the success story in Bolivia is unparalleled.
  As the distinguished chairman knows, as a part of a cooperative 
effort with the United States and other nations of the Andean region, 
in 1997, Bolivia instituted its 5-year antidrug plan, the so-called 
``Dignity Plan.'' When the plan was initiated, Bolivia was the second 
major producer of coca in the world. There were 45,800 hectares of coca 
plants in Bolivia. But in the 3 years the plan has been in existence, 
the Bolivian government has conducted more than 16,900 drug 
interdiction operations. It has destroyed more than 4,000 cocaine labs; 
it has arrested some 14,400 individuals implicated in narco-
trafficking; it has seized more than 50,000 kilos of cocaine. From 1997 
to August 2000, 43 tons of drugs have been seized in Bolivia, including 
1.4 million tons of liquid substances and 1 ton of solid chemical 
substances.
  In short, Bolivia has been a full partner to the United States in its 
war on drugs. It has focused both on eradication and interdiction, even 
though the effort has caused severe problems for the Bolivian economy 
and for the Bolivian people. Therefore, I hope the chairman will do all 
he can to see that Bolivia is fully funded in fiscal year 2002. It is 
critical that Bolivia be provided the necessary resources to sustain 
its progress and not to become a victim of its success. It must have 
the ability to make the necessary investments to enable its economy to 
handle the effects of illegal drug traffic.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan), the former chairman of this subcommittee, for bringing 
this matter to our attention. No one has been more involved in helping 
to bring this problem in Bolivia to a conclusion, or to the successful 
plan that we have today. I want to thank him for bringing this to our 
attention.
  I agree completely with what he has said here today. Bolivia does 
deserve our support and I intend to do all I can to be helpful with 
this country and I know that I can count on the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) for his full support in this effort.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman certainly can.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 26 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and amendment No. 
27 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Lee

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 26 offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 240, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)

[[Page 14315]]


     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--240

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Delahunt
     Hastings (WA)
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     Scarborough
     Spence

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. HOLDEN, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. ROSS and Mr. BERRY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 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 the remaining 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 27 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) 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 CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 249, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--249

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski

[[Page 14316]]


     Keller
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Delahunt
     Hastings (WA)
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     Scarborough
     Spence

                              {time}  1659

  Mr. DICKS and Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, due to official business in my 
District, I respectfully request a leave of absence for part of the day 
today, Tuesday, July 24, 2001. As a result of my absence, I missed 
recorded votes earlier today. Had I been present to vote I would have 
voted as follows on the following amendments to H.R. 2506, the fiscal 
year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill: ``Aye'' on rollcall 
No. 260, the Visclosky amendment; ``no'' on rollcall No. 261, the Paul 
amendment; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 262, the Lee amendment; and ``aye'' 
on rollcall No. 263, the McGovern amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and for that purpose I would 
yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding to me, and I thank him for his 
leadership on this bill along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  Mr. Chairman, after the tragic war in Bosnia, there are many children 
who have lost their parents, been deserted, and have been left to fend 
for themselves. These are children who need and deserve a stable, safe 
environment where they can grow up and enjoy the support of a loving 
family. I strongly believe that we should support and work to help 
these children.
  We must direct USAID to work with the Bosnian government to address 
the special needs of children at risk, especially orphans. These funds 
would be designed to support the Bosnian government to set up systems, 
mechanisms and/or institutions to, first, identify urgently homeless 
children and provide for their immediate care and protection; two, 
pursue reunification with other family members if possible; three, 
establish foster care and/or adoption arrangements; and, four, where 
appropriate, establish procedures that permit legitimate international 
adoption.
  Like the Pearl S. Buck Initiative after the Korean War, we must work 
to establish an institutional structure to help our governments work in 
a cooperative manner for the good and well-being of the children.
  Between now and conference, I hope that we will work together with 
the administrator at USAID in order to assess the scope of the problem 
of orphaned children of Bosnia. I strongly urge that this matter be 
considered in conference in order to ensure that USAID addresses the 
problem and work towards finding a solution. I urge USAID and other 
appropriate organizations such as UNICEF to address this really 
horrible stressful condition of many, many orphaned children in Bosnia. 
I also would like to compliment the work of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) and his wife, Beverly, in working to help these children.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York for her comments and for bringing this matter 
to our attention and to say that I am in complete agreement with what 
she has said. I believe that Congress has to work with USAID to help 
assess the problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina and work to develop a 
solution.
  I also just want to say that our full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his wife, Beverly, as was noted, 
have been working on this issue for many years. They have met with 
heads of state. They have met with other high officials in Bosnia and 
elsewhere in the region in attempts to get infants eligible for 
adoption, and I think they have had some very notable success. I will 
continue to work very closely with Chairman Young and his wife on this 
matter as well and work with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) and other Members who have this interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2506) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________