[Pages H5961-H6025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

{time} 0905

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the
chair.

[[Page H5962]]

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative
day of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the amendment by the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had been disposed of, and the bill was open for
amendment from page 13, line 10, through page 13, line 15.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

transition initiatives

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

micro and small enterprise development program account

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

development credit program account

(including transfer of funds)

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

payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

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

operating expenses of the agency for international development

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

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

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

Other Bilateral Economic Assistance

economic support fund

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

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Filner

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
12, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment earmarks crucial funding in this bill for
the Kurdish Human Rights Watch, a nonpolitical, nonprofit Kurdish-
American service organization. For a decade and a half, this group has
been working in Northern Iraq providing critical assistance to victims
of torture and ethnic cleansing, rebuilding villages, teaching
grassroots democracy building, monitoring human rights, and providing
training on civil society.
Here is what the Kurdish Human Rights Watch does everyday. First,
through community-based programs, it supports the urgent needs of Anfal
victims, the internally displaced refugees and other victims of ethnic
cleansing, torture and human rights abuses in Northern Iraq. A special
emphasis is placed on helping women cope with grief of family loss and
income. Outreach workers help each family conduct an assessment of
their family's health and prevention plans. Counseling is provided
alongside concentrated extensive case management for problems such as
generating income, family reunification, and other survival issues.
Secondly, they assist in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the
destroyed infrastructure by years and years of war. The villagers most
affected were women, children, and the elderly. With this aid, new
wells will be drilled and pipes for drinking water supplied to the
villages. The organization's engineers will help in the reconstruction
of roads and houses.
Lastly, the Kurdish Human Rights Watch provides training focusing on
coalition building and the importance of human rights, including civil
society skills taught in workshops and community building experiences.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide critical funding for an
organization that enables individuals, families, and communities to
develop healthy lives and to become economically self-sufficient.
With these funds, Kurdish Human Rights Watch will develop the
building

[[Page H5963]]

blocks for a free Iraq, a free Kurdish people and a nation where human
rights and freedom are respected and guaranteed to all.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I just want to switch microphones so I
can be closer to the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). I ask
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), I beg the gentleman, I
entreat the gentleman not to insist on his point of order. This is a
technicality by our rules.
There are lots of precedents for this kind of earmark and amendment
in the appropriations bills. I would hope that the suffering, the
killing of a people in a very shaky part of the world would be aided by
this Congress at this moment, and I ask the gentleman not to insist on
his point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment, because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
earmark and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, again, the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) is insisting on a technical rule of the
House. The gentleman knows and we all know that these rules are waived
in dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of occasions throughout our
appropriations bills. We are trying to help a suffering people here. I
would just hope the gentleman would not insist on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wish
to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I understand the technicality of the point of
order. I just wondered if the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) had
any objection substantively or if it was just on the point of order.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), do I have any objection? Do I have any opposition to the
substance did the gentlewoman say? No, I do not think so. I think that
we cannot respond to everyone's request to violate the rules of the
House. There have been ample opportunity for him to appear before our
committee and for the committee to make these decisions.

announcement by the chairman

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

international fund for ireland

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

assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

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

assistance for the independent states of the former soviet union

(a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapters 11 and 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the
Independent States of the former Soviet Union and for related
programs, $740,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2002: Provided, That the provisions of such chapters
shall apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph: Provided
further, That such sums as may be necessary may be
transferred to the Export-Import Bank of the United States
for the cost of any financing under the Export-Import Bank
Act of 1945 for activities for the Independent States:
Provided further, That of the funds made available for the
Southern Caucasus region, 15 percent should be used for
confidence-building measures and other activities in
furtherance of the peaceful resolution of the regional
conflicts, especially those in the vicinity of Abkhazia and
Nagorno-Karabagh.
(b) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less
than 12.5 percent should be made available for assistance for
Georgia.
(c) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less
than 12.5 percent should be made available for assistance for
Armenia.

[[Page H5964]]

(d) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply
to--
(1) activities to support democracy or assistance under
title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public
Law 104-201;
(2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development
Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421);
(3) any activity carried out by a member of the United
States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his
or her official capacity;
(4) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee, or other
assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);
(5) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act
of 1945; or
(6) humanitarian assistance.
(e) Not more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated
under this heading may be made available for assistance for
any country in the region. Activities authorized under title
V (nonproliferation and disarmament programs and activities)
of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not be counted against the
25 percent limitation.
(f)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that
are allocated for assistance for the Government of the
Russian Federation, 50 percent shall be withheld from
obligation until the President determines and certifies in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations that the
Government of the Russian Federation has terminated
implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical
expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to
develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research
facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
(A) assistance to combat infectious diseases and child
survival activities; and
(B) activities authorized under title V (Nonproliferation
and Disarmament Programs and Activities) of the FREEDOM
Support Act.
(g) None of the funds appropriated under this heading may
be made available for assistance for the Government of the
Russian Federation until the Secretary of State certifies to
the Committees on Appropriations that the Russian Federation
is in compliance with article V of the Treaty on Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe regarding forces deployed in the flank
zone in and around Chechnya.
(h) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less
than $45,000,000 should be made available, in addition to
funds otherwise available for such purposes, for assistance
for child survival, environmental health, and to combat
infectious diseases, and for related activities.

Independent Agency

peace corps

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

Department of State

international narcotics control and law enforcement

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

migration and refugee assistance

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

united states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund

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

nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs

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

Department of the Treasury

International Affairs Technical Assistance

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

debt restructuring

For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying loans and loan
guarantees, as the President may determine, for which funds
have been appropriated or otherwise made available for
programs within the International Affairs Budget Function
150, including the cost of selling, reducing, or canceling
amounts owed to the United States as a result of concessional
loans made to eligible countries, pursuant to parts IV and V
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of modifying
concessional credit agreements with least developed
countries, as authorized under section 411 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended, and concessional loans, guarantees and credit
agreements, as authorized under section 572 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1989 (Public Law 100-461), $82,400,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That of this
amount, not less than $13,000,000 shall be made available to
carry out the provisions of part V of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961: Provided further, That funds appropriated or
otherwise made available under this heading in this Act or
under prior appropriations acts for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs may be used by the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the Heavily Indebted Poor
Country (HIPC) Trust Fund administered by the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development amounts for the
benefit of countries that are eligible for debt reduction
pursuant to title V of H.R. 3425 as enacted into law by
section 1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-113: Provided further,
That amounts paid to the HIPC Trust Fund may be used only to
fund debt reduction under the enhanced HIPC initiative by--
(1) the Inter-American Development Bank;
(2) the African Development Bank; and
(3) the Central American Bank for Economic Integration:
Provided further, That funds may not be paid to the HIPC
Trust Fund for the benefit of any country that is credibly
reported to be engaged in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights or in
military or civil conflict that undermines its ability to
develop and implement measures to alleviate poverty and to
devote adequate human and financial resources to that end:
Provided further, That 15 days prior to any agreement by the
United States to make payments to the HIPC Trust Fund for the
benefit of any country other than Bolivia and Mozambique, the
Secretary

[[Page H5965]]

of the Treasury shall submit a reprogramming request under
the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That prior to the payment
of any amount to the HIPC Trust Fund to fund debt reduction
by an international financial institution, the Secretary of
the Treasury shall provide to the Committees on
Appropriations, Banking and Financial Services, and
International Relations of the House of Representatives, and
the Committees on Appropriations, Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, and Foreign Relations of the Senate--
(1) a written commitment by the institution that it will
make no new market-rate loans to the HIPC member country
beneficiary for a period of 30 months and no new concessional
loans to the HIPC member country for a period of 9 months;
and
(2) full documentation of any commitment by the HIPC member
country to redirect its domestic budgetary resources from
international debt repayments to private or public programs
to alleviate poverty and promote economic growth that are
additional to those previously available for such purposes
prior to participation in the enhanced HIPC Initiative:

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

TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

international military education and training

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

foreign military financing program

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

peacekeeping operations

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

TITLE IV--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

funds appropriated to the president

international financial institutions

global environment facility

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

contribution to the international development association

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

[[Page H5966]]

countries eligible for debt reduction under the enhanced HIPC
Initiative.

contribution to the multilateral investment guarantee agency

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

{time} 0915

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous
consent to reach ahead in order to consider this amendment en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Royce:

H.R. 4811

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

[[Page H5967]]

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

limitation on callable capital

The United States Governor of the Multilateral Investment
Guarantee Agency may subscribe without fiscal year limitation
for the callable capital portion of the United States share
of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed $24,500,000.

Contribution to the Inter-American Investment Corporation

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

contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment
fund

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

CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND

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

contribution to the african development bank

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

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

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

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

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

{time} 0930

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

Point of Order

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on July 12, 2000,
House Report 106-729.

[[Page H5968]]

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

limitation on callable capital subscriptions

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

contribution to the african development fund

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

contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development

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

limitation on callable capital subscriptions

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

contribution to the international fund for agricultural development

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

International Organizations and Programs

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

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

obligations during last month of availability

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

prohibition of bilateral funding for international financial
institutions

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

limitation on residence expenses

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

limitation on expenses

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

limitation on representational allowances

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

prohibition on financing nuclear goods

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

prohibition against direct funding for certain countries

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

military coups

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

transfers between accounts

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

deobligation/reobligation authority

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

availability of funds

Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation after the
expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so
provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for
the purposes of chapters 1, 8, 11, and 12 of part I, section
667, and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as amended, and funds provided under the heading
``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'',
shall remain available until expended if such funds are
initially obligated before the expiration of their respective
periods of availability contained in this Act: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, any funds made available for the purposes of chapter 1
of

[[Page H5969]]

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

limitation on assistance to countries in default

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

commerce and trade

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

surplus commodities

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

notification requirements

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

limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and
programs

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

independent states of the former soviet union

Sec. 517. (a) None of the funds appropriated under the
heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a
government of an Independent State of the former Soviet
Union--
(1) unless that government is making progress in
implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market
principles, private ownership, respect for commercial
contracts, and equitable treatment of foreign private
investment; and
(2) if that government applies or transfers United States
assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or
seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or
ventures.
Assistance may be furnished without regard to this subsection
if the President determines that to do so is in the national
interest.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union'' shall be made available for any state to enhance its
military capability: Provided, That this restriction does not
apply to demilitarization, demining or nonproliferation
programs.
(c) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for
the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' for the
Russian Federation and Ukraine shall be subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
(d) Funds made available in this Act for assistance for the
Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be
subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to
environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
(e) Funds appropriated in this or prior appropriations Acts
that are or have been made available for an Enterprise Fund
in the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union may be
deposited by such Fund in interest-bearing accounts prior to
the disbursement of such funds by the Fund for program
purposes. The Fund may retain for such program purposes any
interest earned on such deposits without returning such
interest to the Treasury of the United States and without
further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made available
for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the minimum rate
necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities.
(f ) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts,
or making grants, with funds appropriated in this Act or
prior appropriations Acts under the headings ``Assistance

[[Page H5970]]

for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union''
and ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union'', for projects or activities that have as one
of their primary purposes the fostering of private sector
development, the Coordinator for United States Assistance to
the New Independent States and the implementing agency shall
encourage the participation of and give significant weight to
contractors and grantees who propose investing a significant
amount of their own resources (including volunteer services
and in-kind contributions) in such projects and activities.

prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization

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

export financing transfer authorities

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

special notification requirements

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

definition of program, project, and activity

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

child survival and disease prevention activities

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

prohibition against indirect funding to certain countries

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

NOTIFICATION ON EXCESS DEFENSE EQUIPMENT

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

AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT

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

democracy in china

Sec. 526. Notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries, funds appropriated
by this Act for ``Economic Support Fund'' may be made
available to provide general support and grants for
nongovernmental organizations located outside the People's
Republic of China that have as their primary purpose
fostering democracy in that country, and for activities of
nongovernmental organizations located outside the People's
Republic of China to foster democracy in that country:
Provided, That none of the funds made available for
activities to foster democracy in the People's Republic of
China may be made available for assistance to the government
of that country, except that funds appropriated by this Act
under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' that are made
available for the National Endowment for Democracy or its
grantees may be made available for activities to foster
democracy in that country notwithstanding this proviso and
any other provision of law: Provided further, That funds
appropriated by this or any prior Acts making appropriations
for foreign operations, export financing, and related
programs, that are provided to the National Endowment for
Democracy shall be provided in a manner that is consistent
with the last sentence of section 503(a) of the National
Endowment for Democracy Act and Comptroller General Decisions
No. B-203681 of June 6, 1985, and No. B-248111 of September
9, 1992, and the National Endowment for Democracy shall be
deemed ``the awarding agency'' for purposes of implementing
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122 as dated June
1, 1998, or any successor circular: Provided further, That
funds made available pursuant to the authority of this
section shall be subject to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the
provisions of chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, not to exceed $1,000,000 may be made available
to nongovernmental organizations located outside the People's
Republic of China to support activities which preserve
cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and
environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in that
country: Provided further, That the final proviso in section
526 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by
section 1000(a)(2) of Public Law 106-113) is amended by
striking ``Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human
Rights'' and inserting ``Jamestown Foundation''.

PROHIBITION ON BILATERAL ASSISTANCE TO TERRORIST COUNTRIES

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

[[Page H5971]]

report on implementation of supplemental appropriations

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

COMPETITIVE INSURANCE

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

STINGERS IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION

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

DEBT-FOR-DEVELOPMENT

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

SEPARATE ACCOUNTS

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

compensation for united states executive directors to international
financial institutions

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

compliance with united nations sanctions against iraq

Sec. 534. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available pursuant to this Act to carry out the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (including title IV of chapter 2 of
part I, relating to the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation) or the Arms Export Control Act may be used to
provide assistance to any country that is not in compliance
with the United Nations Security Council sanctions against
Iraq unless the President determines and so certifies to the
Congress that--
(1) such assistance is in the national interest of the
United States;
(2) such assistance will directly benefit the needy people
in that country; or
(3) the assistance to be provided will be humanitarian
assistance for foreign nationals who have fled Iraq and
Kuwait.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Payne

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

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

[[Page H5972]]

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

Point of Order

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

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

Sec. 535. (a) Unless expressly provided to the contrary,
provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions
contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations
for foreign operations, export financing, and related
programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities
authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the
Inter-American Foundation Act or the African Development
Foundation Act. The agency shall promptly report to the
Committees on Appropriations whenever it is conducting
activities or is proposing to conduct activities in a country
for which assistance is prohibited.
(b) Unless expressly provided to the contrary, limitations
on the availability of funds for ``International
Organizations and Programs'' in this or any other Act,
including prior appropriations Acts, shall not be construed
to be applicable to the International Fund for Agricultural
Development.

impact on jobs in the united states

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

[[Page H5973]]

funding prohibition for serbia

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

special authorities

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

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

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

administration of justice activities

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

eligibility for assistance

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

earmarks

Sec. 542. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act which are
earmarked may be reprogrammed for other programs within the
same account notwithstanding the earmark if compliance with
the earmark is made impossible by operation of any provision
of this or any other Act or, with respect to a country with
which the United States has an agreement providing the United
States with base rights or base access in that country, if
the President determines that the recipient for which funds
are earmarked has significantly reduced its military or
economic cooperation with the United States since the
enactment of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1991; however, before
exercising the authority of this subsection with regard to a
base rights or base access country which has significantly
reduced its military or economic cooperation with the United
States, the President shall consult with, and shall provide a
written policy justification to the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided, That any such reprogramming shall
be subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That
assistance that is reprogrammed pursuant to this subsection
shall be made available under the same terms and conditions
as originally provided.
(b) In addition to the authority contained in subsection
(a), the original period of availability of funds
appropriated by this Act and administered by the Agency for
International Development that are earmarked for particular
programs or activities by this or any other Act shall be
extended for an additional fiscal year if the Administrator
of such agency determines and reports promptly to the
Committees on Appropriations that the termination of
assistance to a country or a significant change in
circumstances makes it unlikely that such earmarked funds can
be obligated during the original period of availability:
Provided, That such earmarked funds that are continued
available for an additional fiscal year shall be obligated
only for the purpose of such earmark.

ceilings and earmarks

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

{time} 0945

Point of Order

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language appearing in the bill beginning with ``earmarks'' on page 80,
line 22, through the end of page 80, line 24 on the ground that it
violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
The rule I have referenced prohibits provisions changing existing law
on general appropriations bills.
This language clearly is legislative and would override existing and
future

[[Page H5974]]

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

prohibition on publicity or propaganda

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

purchase of american-made equipment and products

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

prohibition of payments to united nations members

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

consulting services

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

private voluntary organizations--documentation

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

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

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

withholding of assistance for parking fines owed by foreign countries

Sec. 550. (a) In General.--Of the funds made available for
a foreign country under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, an amount equivalent to 110 percent of the total
unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties owed to
the District of Columbia by such country as of the date of
the enactment of this Act shall be withheld from obligation
for such country until the Secretary of State certifies and
reports in writing to the appropriate congressional
committees that such fines and penalties are fully paid to
the government of the District of Columbia.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.

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

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

war crimes tribunals drawdown

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

[[Page H5975]]

be construed as an endorsement or precedent for the
establishment of any standing or permanent international
criminal tribunal or court: Provided further, That funds made
available for tribunals other than Yugoslavia or Rwanda shall
be made available subject to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

landmines

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

restrictions concerning the palestinian authority

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

prohibition of payment of certain expenses

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

special debt relief for the poorest

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

authority to engage in debt buybacks or sales

Sec. 557. (a) Loans Eligible for Sale, Reduction, or
Cancellation.--
(1) Authority to sell, reduce, or cancel certain loans.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
may, in accordance with this section, sell to any eligible
purchaser any concessional loan or portion thereof made
before January 1, 1995, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, to the government of any eligible country as
defined in section 702(6) of that Act or on receipt of
payment from an eligible purchaser, reduce or cancel such
loan or portion thereof, only for the purpose of
facilitating--
(A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or
debt-for-nature swaps; or
(B) a debt buyback by an eligible country of its own
qualified debt, only if the eligible country uses an
additional amount of the local currency of the eligible
country, equal to not less than 40 percent of the price paid
for such debt by such eligible country, or the difference
between the price paid for such debt and the face value of
such debt, to support activities that link conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources with local community
development, and child survival and other child development,
in a manner consistent with sections 707 through 710 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale, reduction, or
cancellation would not contravene any term or condition of
any prior agreement relating to such loan.
(2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President shall, in accordance with
this section, establish the terms and conditions under which
loans may be sold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this
section.
(3) Administration.--The Facility, as defined in section
702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall notify
the administrator of the agency primarily responsible for
administering part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of
purchasers that the President has determined to be eligible,
and shall direct such agency to carry out the sale,
reduction, or cancellation of a loan pursuant to this
section. Such agency shall make an adjustment in its accounts
to reflect the sale, reduction, or cancellation.
(4) Limitation.--The authorities of this subsection shall
be available only to the extent that appropriations for the
cost of the modification, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made in advance.
(b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The proceeds from the sale,
reduction, or cancellation of any loan sold, reduced, or
canceled pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the
United States Government account or accounts established for
the repayment of such loan.
(c) Eligible Purchasers.--A loan may be sold pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans
satisfactory to the President for using the loan for the
purpose of engaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-
development swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.
(d) Debtor Consultations.--Before the sale to any eligible
purchaser, or any reduction or cancellation pursuant to this
section, of any loan made to an eligible country, the
President should consult with the country concerning the
amount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceled and their
uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps,
or debt-for-nature swaps.
(e) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by
subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds
appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt
Restructuring''.

assistance for haiti

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

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Conyers

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

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

[[Page H5976]]

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
12, 2000, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here to see so many Haiti experts
on the floor including, my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Payne) and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), both of
whom I have traveled there with many times.
I propose that we strike the language because it creates a double
standard against Haiti and it, further, is premature.
What the language does that I am objecting to is ask that the
Committee on Appropriations get a report from the Secretary of State to
say that Haiti has held free and fair elections to seat a new
parliament and, secondly, that the Office of National Drug Policy
should determine that the Government of Haiti is fully cooperating with
the United States to interdict drug traffic through Haiti.
Now, let us take the second one first. Nobody in the Caribbean
cooperates with the U.S. drug interdiction policy interfering with
transshipments of drugs that go on throughout the Caribbean more than
Haiti. It gives our Government total full operating license. And, in
addition, I have heard our Coast Guard say that they have total
cooperation.
Further, the Haitian Government has no navy, so they are anxious to
have the continued support of the U.S.
Now, with the idea of holding up appropriations until the Secretary
of State declares free elections, just a couple of things we need to
understand. This is a double standard that does not apply to anybody
else. And we have had far more seriously defective elections than
Haiti.
Haiti had a great election. We admitted it. I was an international
observer. It was reported in the paper. Record turn out. Record
registration. Nonviolence at the election. There was only one problem.
There was a disagreement about the counting methodology after the
election.
Now, how does that qualify for considering fraud? There was an honest
disagreement of the counting process which our own State Department,
the White House says can be resolved and is in the process of being
resolved.
So lighten up. Let us give Haiti a chance. There is absolutely no
reason for us to do that.
Now, the other reason is that we are sending in Federal observers for
U.S. elections 200 years after this country. They have to come into
Flint, Michigan, and many places throughout the country to protect the
voters and their right to vote and to make sure that there is no fraud.
So we do not want to apply the standards of the U.S. to our country.
Furthermore, Peru had elections that closed out international
observers. Those of us who went as international observers were able to
see with our own eyes the fairness and the appropriateness of the
election.
So let us let the Haitian Government, the election commission of
Haiti, do its job before we start issuing these extremely punitive
activities.
Now, remember what we did for Peru was prospective. After they had a
not-so-good election, we said in the future they have got to do this
and that. So please, to the chairman of this committee and the
subcommittee chairman, let us give them a break.
Our Government is in the process of negotiating as we speak. A U.S.
delegation is on the way to Haiti, I think they left last night, to
work it out with the Government; and here we are calling the shots as
if we know what is going to go down.
Let us give Haiti, the newest developing democratic nation in the
western hemisphere, a small chance by striking this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, while I fully concur with the concerns voiced by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and we want to do all we can to
assist those in need in Haiti and promote democracy in that country,
regrettably there are serious concerns about democratic institutions in
Haiti today and our Nation needs to uphold those principles.
For these reasons, I will oppose the amendment. But our committee
will continue to monitor events, as we have with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in the past, of what is going on in Haiti to see
what we can do to strengthen democratic institutions in that country.
Democracy is an important and paramount interest to all of us, and we
would like to see Haiti move in the right direction. But I urge our
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, all I am suggesting, we are in agreement we want to
move Haiti forward, but we should not be acting punitively before the
election results are resolved. That is all I am saying is let us wait.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for his
courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I support what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) is setting out to do. I want to follow up on what the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations
said, these are principles we want to uphold. And surely we do. But it
seems unfair for us to single out Haiti.
If they want to write this to apply to every country, that is one
thing, but it really seems kind of unfair to single out Haiti in this
report. So holding the principles, we should apply them consistently.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I obviously heard this debate and ran over here. I very
much am opposed to the amendment. There is no pretense democracy
anymore in Haiti. It is not a democratic country.
I have recently had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Manus, who was the
head of the election committee there. He was chased out of the country
under threat of death under assassination by mob violence, a most
brutal and terrifying prospect. And certainly he has come to our
country seeking asylum as a result.
There is no judicial department that is working there. There is no
real legislative branch. We are stuck with a situation in Haiti where
we have committed billions of dollars and made the situation worse
because we have backed the wrong people.
It is a tragic situation. To make it worse by adding more American
taxpayers' dollars to the situation to promote a non-democratic form of
government in a friendly neighboring country to me is an unconscionable
act, and I surely hope we are not going to do that.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and
I have been to Haiti together. We know there is no military in Haiti.
At our insistence, they have only a national police force and no navy.
We have met with the President of Haiti. The government is working as
well as they can. The election will bring the parliament back to
action.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the election has been, by
all observation, a total sham. The OAS has come back and said this is
not even a pretense of democracy. There is no transparency.
The final blow for me, and I have been giving them the benefit of the
doubt for a long time, as the gentleman knows, hoping against hope that
things will get better, but when I spoke with Mr. Manus, that was the
end of it. It is over.

[[Page H5977]]

{time} 1000

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

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

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

restrictions on voluntary contributions to united nations agencies

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

haiti

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

limitation on assistance to the palestinian authority

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

limitation on assistance to security forces

Sec. 563. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that
such unit has committed gross violations of human rights,
unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees
on Appropriations that the government of such

[[Page H5978]]

country is taking effective measures to bring the responsible
members of the security forces unit to justice: Provided,
That nothing in this section shall be construed to withhold
funds made available by this Act from any unit of the
security forces of a foreign country not credibly alleged to
be involved in gross violations of human rights: Provided
further, That in the event that funds are withheld from any
unit pursuant to this section, the Secretary of State shall
promptly inform the foreign government of the basis for such
action and shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist
the foreign government in taking effective measures to bring
the responsible members of the security forces to justice.

restrictions on assistance to countries providing sanctuary to indicted
war criminals

Sec. 564. (a) Bilateral Assistance.--None of the funds made
available by this or any prior Act making appropriations for
foreign operations, export financing and related programs,
may be provided for any country, entity or municipality
described in subsection (e).
(b) Multilateral Assistance.--
(1) Prohibition.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
instruct the United States executive directors of the
international financial institutions to work in opposition
to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of
any financial or technical assistance or grants of any kind
to any country or entity described in subsection (e).
(2) Notification.--Not less than 15 days before any vote in
an international financial institution regarding the
extension of financial or technical assistance or grants to
any country or entity described in subsection (e), the
Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, shall provide to the Committee on Appropriations
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services of the House of Representatives a written
justification for the proposed assistance, including an
explanation of the United States position regarding any such
vote, as well as a description of the location of the
proposed assistance by municipality, its purpose, and its
intended beneficiaries.
(3) Definition.--The term ``international financial
institution'' includes the International Monetary Fund, the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the
International Development Association, the International
Finance Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guaranty
Agency, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a)
and (b) shall not apply to the provision of--
(A) humanitarian assistance;
(B) democratization assistance;
(C) assistance for cross border physical infrastructure
projects involving activities in both a sanctioned country,
entity, or municipality and a nonsanctioned contiguous
country, entity, or municipality, if the project is primarily
located in and primarily benefits the nonsanctioned country,
entity, or municipality and if the portion of the project
located in the sanctioned country, entity, or municipality is
necessary only to complete the project;
(D) small-scale assistance projects or activities requested
by United States Armed Forces that promote good relations
between such forces and the officials and citizens of the
areas in the United States SFOR sector of Bosnia;
(E) implementation of the Brcko Arbitral Decision;
(F) lending by the international financial institutions to
a country or entity to support common monetary and fiscal
policies at the national level as contemplated by the Dayton
Agreement;
(G) direct lending to a non-sanctioned entity, or lending
passed on by the national government to a non-sanctioned
entity; or
(H) assistance to the International Police Task Force for
the training of a civilian police force.
(2) Notification.--Every 60 days the Secretary of State,
in consultation with the Administrator of the Agency for
International Development, shall publish in the Federal
Register and/or in a comparable publicly accessible document
or Internet site, a listing and justification of any
assistance that is obligated within that period of time for
any country, entity, or municipality described in subsection
(e), including a description of the purpose of the
assistance, project and its location, by municipality.
(d) Further Limitations.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)--
(1) no assistance may be made available by this Act, or any
prior Act making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing and related programs, in any country,
entity, or municipality described in subsection (e), for a
program, project, or activity in which a publicly indicted
war criminal is known to have any financial or material
interest; and
(2) no assistance (other than emergency foods or medical
assistance or demining assistance) may be made available by
this Act, or any prior Act making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing and related programs for any
program, project, or activity in a community within any
country, entity or municipality described in subsection (e)
if competent authorities within that community are not
complying with the provisions of article IX and annex 4,
article II, paragraph 8 of the Dayton Agreement relating to
war crimes and the Tribunal.
(e) Sanctioned Country, Entity, or Municipality.--A
sanctioned country, entity, or municipality described in this
section is one whose competent authorities have failed, as
determined by the Secretary of State, to take necessary and
significant steps to apprehend and transfer to the Tribunal
all persons who have been publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
(f ) Special Rule.--Subject to subsection (d), subsections
(a) and (b) shall not apply to the provision of assistance to
an entity that is not a sanctioned entity, notwithstanding
that such entity may be within a sanctioned country, if the
Secretary of State determines and so reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that providing
assistance to that entity would promote peace and
internationally recognized human rights by encouraging that
entity to cooperate fully with the Tribunal.
(g) Current Record of War Criminals and Sanctioned
Countries, Entities, and Municipalities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall establish and
maintain a current record of the location, including the
municipality, if known, of publicly indicted war criminals
and a current record of sanctioned countries, entities, and
municipalities.
(2) Information of the dci and the secretary of defense.--
The Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of
Defense should collect and provide to the Secretary of State
information concerning the location, including the
municipality, of publicly indicted war criminals.
(3) Information of the tribunal.--The Secretary of State
shall request that the Tribunal and other international
organizations and governments provide the Secretary of State
information concerning the location, including the
municipality, of publicly indicted war criminals and
concerning country, entity and municipality authorities known
to have obstructed the work of the Tribunal.
(4) Report.--Beginning 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and not later than September 1 each
year thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report
in classified and unclassified form to the appropriate
congressional committees on the location, including the
municipality, if known, of publicly indicted war criminals,
on country, entity and municipality authorities known to have
obstructed the work of the Tribunal, and on sanctioned
countries, entities, and municipalities.
(5) Information to congress.--Upon the request of the
chairman or ranking minority member of any of the appropriate
congressional committees, the Secretary of State shall make
available to that committee the information recorded under
paragraph (1) in a report submitted to the committee in
classified and unclassified form.
(h) Waiver.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State may waive the
application of subsection (a) or subsection (b) with respect
to specified bilateral programs or international financial
institution projects or programs in a sanctioned country,
entity, or municipality upon providing a written
determination to the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives that
such assistance directly supports the implementation of the
Dayton Agreement and its Annexes, which include the
obligation to apprehend and transfer indicted war criminals
to the Tribunal.
(2) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date of any
written determination under paragraph (1) the Secretary of
State shall submit a report to the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives
regarding the status of efforts to secure the voluntary
surrender or apprehension and transfer of persons indicted by
the Tribunal, in accordance with the Dayton Agreement, and
outlining obstacles to achieving this goal.
(3) Assistance programs and projects affected.--Any waiver
made pursuant to this subsection shall be effective only with
respect to a specified bilateral program or multilateral
assistance project or program identified in the determination
of the Secretary of State to Congress.
(i) Termination of Sanctions.--The sanctions imposed
pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) with respect to a country
or entity shall cease to apply only if the Secretary of State
determines and certifies to Congress that the authorities of
that country, entity, or municipality have apprehended and
transferred to the Tribunal all persons who have been
publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
( j) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) Country.--The term ``country'' means Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia.
(2) Entity.--The term ``entity'' refers to the Federation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, and the
Republika Srpska.
(3) Dayton agreement.--The term ``Dayton Agreement'' means
the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, together with annexes relating thereto, done at
Dayton, November 10 through 16, 1995.

[[Page H5979]]

(4) Tribunal.--The term ``Tribunal'' means the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
(k) Role of Human Rights Organizations and Government
Agencies.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary of
State, the Administrator of the Agency for International
Development, and the executive directors of the international
financial institutions shall consult with representatives of
human rights organizations and all government agencies with
relevant information to help prevent publicly indicted war
criminals from benefiting from any financial or technical
assistance or grants provided to any country or entity
described in subsection (e).

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

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

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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

AID TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

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

assistance for the middle east

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

enterprise fund restrictions

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

cambodia

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

FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING REPORT

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

korean peninsula energy development organization

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

African Development Foundation

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

[[Page H5980]]

Foundation shall provide a report to the Committees on
Appropriations in advance of exercising such waiver
authority.

PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

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

iraq opposition

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

agency for international development budget justification

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

kyoto protocol

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

west bank and gaza program

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

INDONESIA

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

man and the biosphere

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

consultations on arms sales to taiwan

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

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

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

restrictions on assistance to governments destabilizing sierra leone

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

Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Payne

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

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

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

[[Page H5981]]

Point of Order

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

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the reason for the confusion was that last
night we requested that this particular amendment be withdrawn and that
the previous resolution asking for UNITA to have any country doing
business with them withdrawn. So this amendment we would ask to be
withdrawn. That is why the confusion came about. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I would ask that that amendment be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to withdrawing the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne)?
Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments made in order to this
section of the bill?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the
chairman for all he has done to support basic education programs for
children and for his work to improve the lives of families in
developing countries, a topic of concern we both share.
My interest in international basic education stems from my conviction
which I know the gentleman shares that education is the key to
development. Providing basic education in developing nations advances
hope for children, advances hope for families, advances hope for
communities, and advances hope for the countries we are trying to help.
It also produces clear results. A baby who is born to a mother with
just 4 years of education is twice as likely to survive as a baby with
an utterly uneducated mother. Every additional year of schooling beyond
grade four that a child receives leads to a 10 to 20 percent increase
in wages. At a national level, increases in literacy of 20 to 30
percent have led to increases in a country's gross domestic product of
8 to 16 percent.
While we have made progress, there is a long way to go. There are 113
million children who will never go to school. Two-thirds of these are
little girls. Another 150 million on top of 113 million who do not go
at all will drop out before they get to the fifth grade. The vast
majority of these dropouts are little girls. To address this problem, I
believe we need to continue and expand our financial commitment to
international basic education. Over the last several years, funding for
basic education for children has been set at a cap of $98 million. Now,
this year, thanks to the gentleman's leadership, the committee lifted
the cap on the funding and increased funding by $5 million to $103
million from the child survival account. The gentleman recommended an
additional $15 million be provided from the economic support fund.
Mr. Chairman, I would like this debate to reflect the gentleman from
Alabama's thoughts on the record about the commitment to children's
education.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
remarks. I look forward to working with him to support basic education
for children. Naturally, I am supportive of that and I know the
gentleman as well is supportive.
Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, I hope that as we
continue the appropriations process the conferees would consider even
increasing additional funds for basic education. Increasing the amount
would bring us closer to our historic levels of funding for basic
education. In the 1980s, now more than 10 years ago, U.S. support for
education reached as much as $180 million. Five years ago, funding for
basic education for children was $142 million. We are still well short
of that, even with this important increase the gentleman has advanced.
I believe that funding will have to be increased further to meet the
commitment that our country has made at the World Education Forum in
Dakar, Senegal, to get every child in school by the year 2015. Today
with more than 113 million out of school, another 150 million dropping
out before grade five, it shows that we have to step up this commitment
to meet this important goal. Following the Dakar meeting of world
leaders, it is particularly important that this Congress show that it
is part of the program, part of this international commitment. I look
forward to working with the gentleman to make sure this happens.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

voluntary separation incentives

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

working capital fund

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

Point of Order

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
language

[[Page H5982]]

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

{time} 1015

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, and recognizing the
request of the distinguished chairman of the committee, I have some
concerns about this motion.
As the gentleman knows, no funds would be appropriated to establish
the Working Capital Fund, but the creation of the fund would result in
overall savings to the Federal Government. In several overseas
locations other agencies have requested USAID to provide various types
of administrative support to other agencies, because USAID can provide
the support at the lowest cost to the Federal Government. So I hope
that the gentleman is aware that this language in the bill is a savings
for the Federal Government.
Without a Working Capital Fund, USAID has difficulty becoming a
service provider, because we cannot separately account for funds
received from other agencies and cannot carry the funds from one year
to the next. The fund would also enable an agency to use rebates from
prompt payment. This would be an incentive for greater use of credit
cards and again save money.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not yield when discussing a point
of order.
The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds the provision directly
amends existing law. Such provision constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and
the provision of the bill is stricken.
Without objection, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) may
extend his remarks at this point in the record.
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Rule I have referenced prohibits
changes to law on general appropriations bills. This language amends
the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize the establishment of a working
capital fund for the Agency for International Development.
The Administration, which evidently wants this provision, should have
approached the Committee with legislative jurisdiction, the Committee
on International Relations. Instead, the Administration engaged another
Committee that lacks jurisdiction to amend the Foreign Assistance Act.
This is an unfortunate attitude and practice that we have seen from
time to time in this and other Administrations and I regret that we
have to consume the time of the Appropriations Committee on this sort
of matter in this way.
The Administration has not submitted a draft bill to our Committee,
nor have they engaged our International Relations Committee in any
meaningful way.
I do understand that the Committee on Foreign Relations in the other
body has reviewed similar legislation on a working capital fund for the
Agency for International Development and our Committee on International
Relations would be happy to work with the other body and the
Administration from here on out and see if this provision is
meritorious.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully insist on my point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

contributions to united nations population fund

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

authorization for population planning

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

[[Page H5983]]

provision of not more than $15,000,000, in the aggregate, to
all foreign private, nongovernmental, or multilateral
organizations with respect to which such authority is
exercised.
(4) Additional requirements.--Upon exercising the authority
provided in paragraph (1), the President shall report in
writing to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Greenwood

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of Wednesday, July 12,
2000, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a Member
opposed each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to share one-
half the time allotted to my amendment with the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York will control 15 minutes,
and may yield time to other Members.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 30
minutes in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey will control 30 minutes
in opposition to the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Greenwood-Lowey amendment, for the following reasons. Family planning
reduces abortion, it is just that simple. People who go to receive
advice on family planning oftentimes go first because they believe that
they may be pregnant, and if you say that you may not offer abortion
services, you are cutting a substantial amount out of the value of
family planning because of the opportunity that people seek to get that
advice.
Secondly, this particular provision in the bill prohibits even
advocating for a change in the law. Indeed, the way it is written it
even prohibits advocating a change in the law to outlaw abortion.
Anybody who lobbies their own government in order to affect abortion no
longer qualifies for assistance under the bill.
Third and last, this provision is an absolute prohibition on family
planning, and it has a waiver, and this year the waiver was acceptable
to me because the President would exercise that waiver. But
particularly for pro-choice Republicans, of whom I am one and my
colleague from Pennsylvania is another, we do not know who will be
President next year, and if our candidate for President is the
President next year, which is my desire, I have no assurance that he
will exercise the waiver.
So let me repeat that to pro-choice Republicans: We have no guarantee
that this waiver, which we were willing to accept last year as a
compromise, will in fact be exercised should it be the Republican
candidate for President elected. Accordingly, the law would stand, and
the law is no money for family planning, because the groups in question
cannot make the certification. We are voting today on Greenwood to
restore family planning. It is that important, that simple, and that
clear.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which would
strike the global gag rule from this bill. This anti-democratic policy
forces NGOs in the developing world to sacrifice their right to free
speech in order to participate in our family planning programs. While
restricting foreign NGOs in this way may only offend our democratic
sensibilities, if we tried to do this at home, it would be absolutely
unconstitutional.
Section 587 of this bill severely damages our international family
planning programs. The demand for these programs is much larger than
our limited funds can meet, and section 587 imposes an arbitrary cap on
family planning which is $156 million below the President's request.
Very simply, our family planning programs save lives. 600,000 women
die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often preventible.
More than 150 million married women in the developing world want
contraceptives, but have no access it them. Increasing access to family
planning will save the lives of women and children and it will reduce
the incidence of abortion worldwide. Striking this section will reduce
the number of abortions performed each day. If you support this
objective, you should support this amendment.
We need to consider the global gag rule within the overall context of
U.S. foreign policy. What values do we want to export along with our
foreign assistance? The gag rule says to our NGO partners abroad that
we do not need to care about their rights, that freedom of speech, the
very foundation of the American democracy, matters here, but it does
not matter abroad, that our commitment to free speech and freedom of
association, fixtures of our Constitution, end at our own borders. Is
this the kind of message that we want to send?
Make no mistake, the United States is being watched. Each day Members
on both sides of the aisle condemn violations of human rights abroad.
Each day we debate whether the United States should associate at all
with foreign regimes who refuse to embrace Democratic ideals. Our
neighbors around the world look to us as the definitive authority on
democracy.
The words of the director of a family planning organization that
receives our funding sums up the severe damage that we do to our own
credibility by incorporating an anti-democratic policy such as the gag
rule into our foreign assistance program:

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

Mr. Chairman, if the oppression of ideas with which some do not agree
and the use of economic power to crush dissent are ideals one thinks
the United States should export, then vote against this amendment. But
if believes, as I do, that the strength of our country lies in our
unwavering commitment to democracy at home and abroad, then join us in
voting yes to strike the global gag rule.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 3\1/2\
minutes.
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this is clearly going to be an abortion
debate. Others can try to turn it into recycling the old phrase about
the gag rule, but this fundamentally an abortion debate, and whether
those of us who strongly believe that abortion is taking the life of
innocent children should have to pay, and in this question it is not
for abortions in our country, but abortions overseas, whether we are
going to export this doctrine of death.
I have worked hard in this Congress to fight against child abuse, to
fight against domestic violence, to work for creative ways to stop
violence in our schools. But it is hard to take a message to our young
people that it is wrong to kill other young people, it is wrong to beat
children, but if the child is in the womb, you can burn their skin off,
you can cut them off, you can take the baby as they are coming out and
hit them with a blunt object. Now, that is another form of violence.

[[Page H5984]]

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that since 1973
it has been against the law to use one dime of these funds for
abortions overseas, that the Helms amendment of 1973 prohibits the
expenditure of any of these funds for abortion?
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am aware that we have
directly banned abortion funding, but the question and what we have
tried to address and what this language tries to address is fungible
funding.
The argument of many of us is that in an organization that on the one
hand does abortions, and on the other hand does family planning, which
I as an individual do not oppose and believe many of these countries do
in fact need family planning, that does not take life once life has
begun, that these funds, even though they are claimed to be privately
raised, are in fact fungible.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
that is fine. Let us keep the debate honest and talk about fungibility.
Let us not use language that implies that these funds can be directly
used for abortion.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I do believe and what my point is is that
these funds can be used directly for abortion, because the money is
commingled, and while there is a bookkeeping process, the fact is that
the actual dollars that are used on abortion are fungible and can be
used to commit these heinous acts, and that while we may have
differences about the bookkeeping, the fact is that this argument is
often used when we get into voucher debates by the other side, that to
give aid to a private school is promoting religion because those
dollars then are fungible and can be used back and forth.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that the Republicans
use fungible money when we advocate vouchers, but it is not fungible
when we deal with the abortion argument.
The second question on the gag rule, this is not a question of
freedom of speech. This is a question of whether taxpayers' dollars can
be used to fund certain types of speech, particularly in countries
where they may oppose even family planning in addition to abortion.
For example, in one of the more celebrated cases in the Philippines,
where they had laws on what type of population methods could be
allowed, we used American taxpayer dollars to try to change laws that
at least half of the Americans in a deeply split general public do not
favor. Why in the world would it be exporting our beliefs of freedom
and democracy to use American taxpayer dollars to undermine democracy
in other countries where they have concluded, like in Ireland or the
Philippines or whatever the case may be, that certain laws on abortion
and population control are wrong?
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
our colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood)
concerning the gag rule and other restrictions on family planning in
this bill. Not only do family planning programs help millions by
allowing poor women to space the birth of their children, it also saves
lives and it is key to sound and sustainable development.
The most distressing aspect of the family planning language in this
bill concerns the limits on free speech on organizations that provide
much needed technical assistance to the poorest of the poor throughout
the developing world. It is my conviction that freedom of speech is a
fundamental American value that should be respected, not only in our
own Nation, but overseas as well. Freedom of speech is an essential
ingredient for democracy to thrive and it is critical to the success of
sustainable development efforts promoted by our own Nation.

{time} 1030

It is a principle that we wish to advocate throughout the developing
world as an embodiment of the genius of the American Democratic
experience.
Accordingly, limiting eligibility for U.S. development and
humanitarian assistance by requiring foreign nongovernmental
organizations to forgo their right to use their own funds to address,
within legal and democratic processes, any issue affecting the citizens
of their own country is abhorrent to the principles of American
democracy and of those rights and privileges bestowed upon our people
by our Constitution.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the
Greenwood amendment that incorporates the principles of American
democracy and ensures that foreign nongovernmental organizations and
multilateral organizations shall not be subject to requirements
relating to the use of non-U.S. Government funds for advocacy and
lobbying activities, other than those that apply to U.S.
nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance under the Act.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Greenwood amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday this House voted 416 to 1 to defend the
Vatican from a vicious campaign of anti-Catholic bigotry by major pro-
abortion organizations.
The list of groups who seek the Vatican's ouster from the U.N., which
includes the International Planned Parenthood Federation based in
London, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Pathfinder, to
name a few, reads like a Who's Who list of groups lavishly subsidized
by U.S. taxpayers.
Many of these groups, Mr. Chairman, aggressively promote abortion on
demand in foreign countries. Members will recall that about 100
countries around the world protect the lives of their unborn children
from the violence of abortion. If only the family planners would stick
with family planning alone, we would not be here arguing this issue
today.
I think we should make no mistake about it, this debate is about fat
subsidies to the abortion industry. This debate is about how Congress
dispenses grant money. This is grant money, I say to my colleagues.
There is no entitlement spending involved here. This is grant money.
This is discretionary funds.
We have an obligation and a duty, I would respectfully submit, to put
conditions on if we feel that it is warranted, and many of us,
hopefully the majority of us, will feel that it is indeed warranted.
Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children. Earlier one of
my colleagues talked about human rights. The most fundamental of all
human rights is the right to life, to be free from violence. Chemical
poisoning a child with a lethal injection or dismembering an unborn
child by ripping his or her arms off the body, which is commonplace in
abortion, is anything but benign and compassionate. It is violence
against children. It is a gross violation of human rights. That is what
this is about today.
Members will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Mexico City policy is
named after a U.N. Population Conference held in Mexico City in 1984.
It was there that President Reagan announced that he would no longer
contribute to organizations that perform or promote abortions. In its
most effective and purest form, in place during the Reagan and Bush
years, we generously supported family planning but withheld funds from
organizations that promote or perform abortions.
The language in this bill is not the full Mexico City policy. I wish
it were. The language in this bill is a compromise, and it is current
law. From the pro-life perspective, this legislation is far from
perfect. Although it begins by incorporating the pro-life Mexico City
policy that was in force for 9 years under Presidents Reagan and Bush,
it then gives the President the right to waive these conditions for
some recipients. If the President chooses to exercise the waiver, up to
$15 million in U.S. population assistance can go to foreign
organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.

[[Page H5985]]

The good news is that the remaining $370 million of our population
assistance must either go to sovereign countries or NGOs that practice
genuine family planning and not abortion.
Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers do not want their money going to
groups that advertise themselves as family planners but in fact are
performers and promoters of abortion around the world. Let us not
forget, just a month ago there was a Los Angeles Times poll. It found
that among all the women in the United States, when asked the question
about abortion, 61 percent, of all women said that abortion was murder.
We hope through this legislation to put a very modest but necessary
wall of separation between abortion and family planning, and restrict
most U.S. funding of the abortion industry overseas.
Another part of the compromise, Mr. Chairman, transfers $12.5 million
to high-impact child survival programs if the President authorizes
money for the abortion groups. This provision will have a direct impact
on saving children's lives. It will be spent on immunizations for polio
and diphtheria, oral rehydration therapy for children at risk of death
from diarrhea, and other easily preventable and treatable diseases that
currently kill hundreds of thousands of children annually in developing
countries.
In other words, this is a moderate, reasonable compromise in which
each side gets something but each side also has to give something up.
Frankly, some of us on the pro-life side had seriously considered
offering the original Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy. I certainly
wanted to do it. I've done so each year since the mid-sixties. But the
fact that this is current law--a sustainable compromise--we felt on
balance was the best way to proceed. Again, this is a compromise.
This moderate amendment, Mr. Chairman, is already in the bill offered
by the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). So everyone
understands the process, the effect of the Greenwood amendment would be
to allow unlimited funding of international abortionists and the
abortion lobbyists.
Indeed, the amendment would not only strike the pro-life
restrictions, it would eliminate the $385 million cap on U.S. spending
for population assistance. This means that the administration could use
any amount it wanted from the $1.3 billion development assistance
account for taxpayer subsidies to the international abortion industry.
Mr. Chairman, advocates of international abortion rights have once
again dredged up the tired old argument that the Mexico City policy is
a gag rule that violates free speech. But even if U.S. constitutional
provisions applied to foreign organizations doing business on foreign
soil, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that they do not, the fact of
the matter is free speech would not give these organizations a right to
Federal dollars.
Organizations that represent the United States in foreign countries
are analogous to our ambassadors. They are our people on the ground.
They are surrogates for U.S. foreign policy. Their advocacy in these
countries on issues closely related to the U.S. programs they
administer, as well as to their other activities, such as the actual
performance of abortions, is highly relevant to whether they can
effectively administer these programs.
The United States, I would submit, has no obligation to administer
these programs through agents who fundamentally disagree with this
goal. For the same reason that we would not hire casino lobbyists to
run international anti-gambling campaigns, or a distillery to run an
anti-alcohol campaign, it makes no sense to hire abortionists or
abortion lobbyists to run programs that they claim are aimed at
reducing abortions.
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying supporters of the
Greenwood amendment argue that our family planning grantees should be
allowed to perform and promote abortion so long as their abortion-
related activities are carried out with ``their own money'' rather than
U.S. grant money.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bookkeeping trick. It ignores the fact that
money is indeed fungible, and that when we subsidize an organization we
inevitably enrich and empower all of its activities, as well as
enhancing the domestic and international prestige of the organization
by giving an official U.S. seal of approval.
Let me be clear on the important point: The Mexico City policy does
not weaken international family planning programs. On the contrary, it
strengthens them by ensuring that U.S. funds are directed to those
groups that provide family planning but do not perform or promote
abortion.
I urge a strong ``no'' on the Greenwood amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished ranking
member of this committee and a fighter for human rights and freedom
around the world.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me, and for her great leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood-Lowey
amendment. I call upon our colleagues to vote for the motion to strike
the restrictions in the bill because they erect barriers to the
promotion of civil society abroad, the enhancement of women's
participation in the political process, and the credibility of the U.S.
in the international arena.
International family planning enables women and families throughout
the world to make key choices affecting the quality of their lives and
their future. Each year 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes,
more than one woman every minute every day. So I support the move to
strike those restrictions.
Mr. Chairman, I want to use the rest of my time to say what is not
stricken in the bill, because I think it is very important for Members
to know that what is still in the bill, which is law, states ``Provided
further that none of the funds made available under this heading may be
used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family
planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion, and
that in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations,
funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects
which offer, either directly or through referral to or information
about, access to a broad range of family planning methods and services,
and that any such voluntary family planning shall meet the following
requirements:''
It goes on to reiterate that no Federal dollars may ever be used for
the performance of abortion abroad. These prohibitions are still
contained in the bill. The motion to strike is strictly about the gag
rule which, as I mentioned, erects barriers to women's full
participation in the political process and the promotion of civil
society abroad.
I offer that language because we have had questions about how far
this strike was. It certainly does not strike the basic law. I urge our
colleagues to support this very important amendment.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make simply three points. First of all, under
no circumstances can American dollars be used to fund abortions abroad,
period. No matter what anyone implies on this floor, that is the law of
the United States of America and it cannot happen.
However, I am stunned that representatives in this democracy would
stand up on the floor and advocate that our policy be to force citizens
of another country to break their own laws. That is simply unheard of
and unconscionable.
If in another country abortion is legal and referral to people who
can do abortions is legal, then we should not force native citizens of
that country not to be allowed to say to a woman who comes in where
they can go to get an abortion if it is a legal medical procedure in
their country and they have a right to it.
Why would we in a free society want to force, as a consequence of
American aid, citizens in other countries to abrogate their own laws?
Have we no respect?

[[Page H5986]]

When I think of the worry on the floor of this House over the
sovereignty issue when we get into trade matters, will the World Trade
Organization impose its views on our laws, and the answer to that is
no, we do not allow that, we do not allow international agreements to
impose themselves in a way that contradicts our domestic law, yet that
is exactly what this provision in this bill would do in terms of
following U.S. money with a requirement for citizens in other countries
to literally abrogate their law.
Let me tell Members why we really have to strike this provision. If a
woman comes in and she is already pregnant and she wants a termination,
and I am the health person, do Members really want me to say, ``I
cannot say that word, so you will have to leave and go someplace else
to talk to other people?'' No. We want to be able to say to that woman,
look, maybe she does not have to have an abortion. Maybe she could
carry this pregnancy because we can help her after that not to get
pregnant again.
Because that is what we are trying to do: We are trying to teach
family planning services. We are trying to give women the power to
control their reproductive capabilities responsibly.
If she then says, ``No, I absolutely have to for a lot of reasons: I
have 10 children, we cannot afford it,'' whatever it is, ``and if I
cannot get it here, I will go to the back alley,'' do Members not think
it is better for us to say, well, she can legally get a safe, clean
abortion, and then come back and we will help her? Through the power of
knowledge in a free society, we will help her prevent this and she will
never again get in this position where she faces an unwanted pregnancy.
Contraceptives are the right answer to abortion. I urge a ``yes''
vote on the motion to strike.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds to
respond briefly.
The plain text and the implementation by the Clinton administration
and by the Reagan-Bush administrations proves that the Mexico City
Policy has nothing whatsoever to do with counseling for abortions. That
is not on the table, it is not being considered. As much as I would
rather it be the case, it is not part of this amendment.
Secondly, the Mexico City Policy does provide for abortions for rape,
incest, or life of the mother with their own funds.
Finally, the Policy reflects our intent that every effort to treat a
woman suffering from an incomplete abortion be done and is fully
authorized by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

{time} 1045

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

[[Page H5987]]

There few items are enough, to enable women in rural or emergency
situations to deliver their babies in safe and sterile conditions.
These kits cost just $1.25, but their value is priceless. In some
cases, these simple tools mean the difference between life and death.
The language in this bill says that a non-governmental organization
that receives US AID family planning funds cannot use it own funds to
provide legal abortion services or to lobby for or against abortions.
This language restricts the use of a foreign NGO's own funds.
In America, this language is unconstitutional.
Around the world, it's unconscionable.
The Gag Rule is enough to make you gag.
It cripples foreign NGO's ability to practice democracy in their own
countries.
It cripples NGO's in countries like El Salvador, where abortion is
illegal even if a woman will die as a result of the pregnancy.
The Gag Rule bars NGO's from even writing a letter to legislators
supporting changes in laws to save women's lives.
Many opponents of international family planning like to refer to
China's one child policy as a reason not to support programs in China.
But with the Gag Rule, not only will women and families not get the
contraception and resources they need to plan their families, but NGO's
will be silenced from lobbying their own government to change abortion
laws.
International family planning is about the rights of women and men to
decide freely the size of their families whether it be in India,
Ecuador or China.
The United States has always been dedicated to exporting the very
best of our country, from our ideas of freedom and democracy to
products that help make life better.
Unfortunately, this bill exports one of the worst, if not the worst,
of our country--our internal politics.
There is a terrible irony in all this. In the name of preventing
abortion, this policy actually works to increases abortions.
Last year alone, with the Gag Rule in place, thousands of young women
lacking information to prevent or postpone pregnancy underwent
dangerous and often fatal abortions.
However, with US family planning funds at the President request, 2.2
million abortions can be prevented.
We can't afford to stifle the international debate on family planning
by tying the hands of NGO's with an anti-women Gag Rule.
It forces NGO's to choose between their democratic rights to organize
and determine what is best in their own countries and desperately
needed resources of US family planning dollars.
This is not a choice we should be forcing on the poorest of nations
who are often the ones with struggling democracies. Let's support this
women of the world and provide the resources for them to make informed
decisions, instead of exporting unconstitutional policies.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and strike the onerous, anti-
democratic Gag Rule.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, rigid ideological dogmatic rhetoric always turns logic
on its head and always brutalizes the truth.
Let me describe reality outside of the realm of such dogmatic
rhetoric. In March of this year, I traveled to India and to Bangladesh,
and in those countries, I visited family planning clinics; and let me
tell my colleagues what I saw.
We went to India, New Delhi, to one of the most terrifyingly brutal
areas of poverty I have ever witnessed, down dirty roads filled with
dung, poor children with their hands out, starvation, disease, flies
everywhere, into a little brick clinic. In that clinic I saw
impoverished Indian women on their knees getting a lecture about how to
use family planning services.
Sometimes women in this neighborhood come to this clinic in search of
an abortion. Why do they do that? They are not pregnant because of
irresponsible sexual conduct. They are pregnant by their husbands, and
they are there sometimes desperate for an abortion because they have
already more children than they can feed, and they tire of watching
their children starve to death.
Abortion is not their first choice; it is their last choice. In my
vision, when those women, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
Johnson) said, come in such desperate straits to that clinic, I want
American dollars, small amounts of American dollars to be used there to
say to that woman, you have had several abortions, there is a better
way. We have family planning services available to you, so you need not
again become pregnant when you cannot feed the children at your breast
as it is, and your body suffers from hemorrhaging because you have had
too many pregnancies too closely spaced together.
The impact of the language that we are trying to strike is to make
this situation worse, because the President will exercise the waive,
and $12.5 million that could have been spent for family planning to
prevent the 1,600 women from dying every hour, to prevent the millions
of children from starving around the world, to prevent the millions of
abortions that happen for lack of these services. Some of that money
will be cut, and women in places like India and Bangladesh and around
the world will not get these services, and some of them will die. Many
of them will have abortions, and many of them will give birth to
children who will starve to death. That is the result of what is
happening on the floor today.
It is unconscionable, and it happens every time Members of Congress
try to impose their own personal religious beliefs on the women of the
world. It is wrong, and it is un-American; and it should not stand.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
that would allow up to $1.3 billion to subsidize international abortion
clinics, and it would also undermine foreign countries' laws on
abortion.
Congress has repeatedly banned the use of funds, taxpayer dollars to
pay for abortions within our own borders, except when the life of the
mother is endangered or in cases of rape and incest.
Money is fungible. Any organization that is involved in international
family planning efforts and performs abortions and lobbies to increase
legal access to abortion on demand should not receive taxpayer dollars.
To these organizations, abortion is a form of birth control. Mr.
Chairman, abortion is not a method of birth control. Once a baby is
conceived, instead of asking taxpayers to fund an abortion, we should
focus our efforts on making sure that the child survives.
At the Beijing +5 conference held last month, the international
community made a clear statement that abortion on demand is not a
universal goal. The United States should not be funding efforts to
change the abortion laws in other countries.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), a distinguished leader on women's health.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I have been appalled time and time again
by the audacity of antichoice legislators to restrict women's
reproductive options in the United States and worldwide. This annual
right of, quote, ``we will show the women who is boss,'' end quote,
legislation has allowed millions of women to die in the Third World.
Mr. Chairman, we stand here every year; and we say 600,000 women die
every year, and nobody bats an eyelash. Do not tell me that a poll of
people in the United States would approve of that. If the question
asked on that poll is would you like the international family planning
law of the United States to allow 600,000 women to die, we would get a
far different answer.
The problem is that the harshest lesson that people learn about us is
that we will allow them to die. Nothing else that we do in foreign aid,
nothing else purposefully allows women to die.
The truth of the matter is we will never hear a word here about the
woman herself, because mothers do not matter. The children that she
leaves motherless at home, they do not matter. The fact that there are
unsanitary conditions in which they live do not matter. What matters is
the policy and beliefs of some Members of this House, and I urge my
colleagues to vote yes on the motion to strike.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley).

[[Page H5988]]

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Greenwood motion to strike section 587, relating to the global gag rule
and limiting vital U.S. assistance for voluntary international family
planning.
I am a firm believer in voluntary international family planning. Let
me make this clear. International family planning prevents abortions. I
do not think anyone can dispute that.
The global gag rule is dangerous because it prevents U.S. funds from
reaching critical health care providers in developing nations and
dictates how these NGOs can spend funds from other donors besides the
U.S. government. We have every right to decide policy for U.S. funds,
but not for other nations and private donors. In fact, no U.S. dollars
can be used to perform abortions overseas.
Mr. Chairman, I support this prohibition. It is up to the governments
and citizens in these nations to decide their own policies. In Malawi,
in sub-Saharan Africa, which I recently visited, I witnessed how
villagers from miles around used one central health care facility for
all of their needs. These people have no options.
If the U.S. fails to fund them, they cannot use the hospital down the
road. This is literally one-stop health care shopping with no
alternatives. If it is not funded, women will have no access to
contraception or any other health care and neither will their families.
Mr. Chairman, I am also opposed to the global gag rule because it is
patently undemocratic. If such restrictions were placed on NGOs here,
they would be a clear violation of the first amendment.
How can we claim to export democracy when we export limitations on
free speech? Mr. Chairman, this is no compromise. This is legislation
placed into an appropriations measure, despite the Republican
leadership's claim that they would accept no controversial riders.
Mr. Chairman, I think the number of Members on the floor today
clearly demonstrates the controversy surrounding this issue. And to
call it a compromise when it took holding vital U.N. funding hostage,
placing U.S. national security at risk to get the administration to let
it in is disingenuous, misleading and downright preposterous.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Greenwood
amendment.

{time} 1100

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and any
amendment that would strike the agreed-upon language in section 587 of
the Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
Last fall, for the first time during his term, the President signed
legislation to restrict the use of United States taxpayer dollars to
groups that perform or promote abortions overseas. This version of the
so-called ``Mexico City policy'' allowed no more than $15 million of
United States population assistance funds to go to foreign
organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.
This amendment proposed today would strip that language that the
President signed into law last year and allow almost unlimited United
States taxpayer subsidies of the international abortion industry.
Now, I know my colleagues on the other side are fond of saying that
no United States dollar goes to that purpose, but as we all know, that
is an accounting maneuver. This is just another attempt by the pro-
abortion side, I believe, to promote their agenda and to create,
furthermore, gridlock over this contentious issue of funding for
international abortion-related organizations.
The language that this amendment seeks to strike was agreed upon by
both sides last year to resolve a stalemate. Unfortunately, the pro-
abortiion side is unwilling to accept anything other than a total
victory for the international abortion industry.
What my colleagues will not acknowledge is that section 587 does not
weaken international family planning programs. Rather, it strengthens
them by ensuring that United States funds are directed to those groups
that provide family planning but not to those who perform abortions or
promote abortion as a form of birth control.
Furthermore, it would restrict funding to those organizations that
seek to overturn the pro-life laws of more than 100 countries overseas,
clearly something that the vast majority of United States taxpayers do
not want to see their taxpayer funds being used for.
Abortion is not birth control, and the taxpayers should not be forced
to pay for it.
This is a bad amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote
against it and any other amendment that threatens the language now
included in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
It has been said that some of the people on this side of this
argument are motivated primarily by religious arguments. As a physician
who has personally witnessed an abortion, I do not know how anybody
could support abortion after actually seeing one with their eyes. I do
not think this is a religious debate. It is certainly a moral debate.
It is certainly a debate about what is the appropriate use of United
States taxpayer dollars when one considers that millions of Americans
feel very strongly that abortion is murder, that this is a very, very
reasonable policy for us to have in the bill, and that it is very
inappropriate for it to be overturned.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, striking this language would be a victory
for women and children and democracy around the world.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), a fighter for democracy.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first, let me just thank the gentlewoman from
New York for yielding me this time and for her strong leadership on
behalf of the families throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment today to
strike the global gag rule which denies United States family planning
assistance to any overseas organization that uses its own non-United
States funds to provide abortion services or reproductive choice
advocacy.
Approximately 600,000 women die each year from preventable
complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. Complications are
the leading cause of death and disability among women between the ages
of 15 to 49 in developing countries.
Now, most of these women are poor, and many have infectious diseases
such as HIV or AIDS and are struggling just to survive day by day.
Now, this amendment does not require United States foreign aid funds
to be used for abortions. Women throughout the world should have
fundamental access to health care and family planning services and
health education.
Support for this amendment means saving lives, promoting women's and
children's health. To do less is fundamentally undemocratic and morally
wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 5 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has the right to close
debate.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
which would undermine the values in human rights in other countries.
Our current law is designed to prevent taxpayer funds from being used
to undermine the values of foreign families by subsidizing
organizations which work to undermine pro-life laws that are already in
place. This proposed amendment would change this good law.
As legislators, we have the tremendous responsibility of being in
charge of other people's money. The dollars we spend do not belong to
us. They are the result of hard work of people throughout this land.
How we spend these dollars is a decision which is entrusted to us with
the effects reaching all around the globe.

[[Page H5989]]

Mr. Chairman, Americans value human life, and how we spend our
dollars reflects these values. We work to end violence and bring peace
throughout the world and promote women's health. Yet, without the
foreign family value protections that are in our current law, we would
be asking the United States taxpayer to subsidize organizations from
the international abortion industry.
Organizations who actively lobby to overturn laws that protect the
unborn in other countries do not deserve the subsidies of the United
States taxpayers. We support life and health, not death and
destruction.
Laws which recognize the sanctity of human life and restrict
abortions are currently in place in approximately 100 countries
throughout the world.
If this amendment passes, laws that protect unborn children in
countries like the Philippines, Nepal, Ghana could be in jeopardy
because organizations which promote abortion abroad and lobby to change
pro-life laws will be receiving funding from United States taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, abortion is already a hotly debated topic at home.
There is certainly no agreement here. But with no agreement here at
home, how can we use taxpayer dollars to try to change laws about
abortion in other lands. This makes no sense.
This is not about poor people doing family planning. This is about
giving taxpayer dollars to men and women in suits and skirts who are
lobbying to change laws that reflect the values of other countries.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support our current
law, which honors the values of foreign families and their governments.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been a fighter for
women's rights around the world.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise, Mr. Chairman, in strong support of the motion to
strike this gag rule from this bill, because congressional support for
reproductive health services in developing countries becomes more
important every day.
Voluntary family planning services increase child survival, promote
safe motherhood, and give women around the globe the help they need to
control their lives. Without international family planning, women in
developing nations face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and
more despair.
Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the same people who deny women the
choice of an abortion also seek to eliminate support for family
planning programs. These are the programs that reduce the need for
abortion. These same people would not allow organizations that
participate in family planning programs to use their very own funds to
provide information and services to women around the globe.
Give women around the world the help they need and vote for the
Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the anti-
Mexico City policy amendment and in support of the rights of United
States citizens to refuse to subsidize the taking of lives of millions
of unborn children throughout the world.
This amendment has nothing to do with the intended purposes of the
international family planning. It has everything to do with promoting
United States taxpayer-funded abortions.
Mr. Chairman, last November, President Clinton accepted a compromised
version of the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy, which followed the
precedent that taxpayers' funds should not be used to pay for abortion
services.
The compromise capped population assistance at $385 million and
allowed $15 million to be used for abortion services or given to
agencies that conducted abortion services. This year's Foreign
Operations appropriations bill contains the same language that was
agreed to last year. More importantly, it reinforces our overseas
population assistance efforts to the original intent, to teach
individuals the concept of responsible family planning so we could
reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unplanned
pregnancies.
This compromise is not perfect. It does not honor our long-standing
tradition of not forcing United States taxpayers to subsidize abortion
services for others when they have a moral or religious objection to
it. It did, however, move us back in that direction. Now some Members
want to undo the compromise that took 7 years of an administration to
achieve.
Some of us would like to see all funding for foreign abortion
services zeroed out. I am strongly pro-life and believe that every life
deserves protection. I do not believe the taxpayers should ever be
forced to pay for abortion services. But I am now here today to offer
such an amendment because we believe we should honor the spirit of the
compromise we reached last year.
Mr. Chairman, not only would this amendment strike the compromise of
population assistance, but it would strike the transfer of $12.5
million to further child survivor programs should the administration
choose to fund abortion services.
I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, who understands that respecting our
constitution here and abroad is an important obligation of Americans.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me urge an enthusiastic
vote for the Greenwood-Lowey amendment. Let me agree with the
distinguished gentleman from California who has indicated that we do
not know what will happen after this Presidential election if the
present candidate for the Republican nomination is elected as it
relates to pro-choice at all, the opportunity to choose.
But the most important issue we have here today is that the language
that this amendment seeks to strike would prohibit family planning, I
remind my colleagues what I have said, family planning for poor women
around the world, simply the opportunity to be educated about their own
body.
I, too, joined the President in going to Bangladesh and India and
Pakistan. What an enormous experience to see a family planning clinic
that was not destructive or devastating, but was uplifting and
educating women and men and families, and it was uniting families, and
it was getting men to respect women and women to respect men and to
work as mothers and fathers to provide the best for children that they
have.
How can we here in the United States Congress deny that very real
opportunity that each and every one of us have? We have a right to
choose here. Allow those who are neighbors who are fighting for
democracy to do the very same thing.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I intend to put a question to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) if I might have his attention.
There is not a dime in this bill that will go for an abortion. But we
have heard from the other side that money is fungible and so that the
money that otherwise might be freed up could be seen for abortion.
The United States allocates more or close to $1 billion every year in
economic aid to Israel. Abortion is legal in Israel, and, in some
cases, the government of Israel will fund poor women abortions.
How can the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) support money for
economic aid to Israel if he really believes the fungibility argument?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

{time} 1115

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me just say there is at
least, hopefully, only one government per country, whereas there is a
myriad of NGOs--a large number of NGOs, NGOs that are trying to lobby
governments to topple pro-life laws. That is what we are talking about.
Way back in 1984 we accepted a compromise to fund countries, again,
because there is only one government per country.

[[Page H5990]]

But when we talk about a nongovernmental organization, if this
nongovernmental organization does not take the money, another will step
up to the plate and procure the grant.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the
gentleman if it is fungible in the case of Israel?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I
do not think so.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, today, of course, we are considering H.R.
4811, the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations appropriations bill, and
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment at hand.
This bill includes language carried over from last year's bill, as
has already been discussed. This language was a carefully crafted
compromise which limits the amount of funding that can be distributed
to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.
This amount was capped at $15 million. Of course, that is $15 million
more than we would like to have seen; however, the agreement prevented
hundreds of millions of dollars more from going into the abortion
industry.
The compromise also transfers $12.5 million to child survival
programs if the President approves any U.S. subsidies for foreign
abortion providers or promoters. This transfer would have the direct
tangible effect of saving the lives of children around the world
through immunization and oral rehydration therapy. These measures would
prevent or treat diseases that currently take the lives of hundreds of
thousands of innocent children every year.
The proposed amendment would strike this language and allow up to
$1.3 billion in U.S. funds to flow freely to the international abortion
industry. This is of great concern to me personally, and I believe that
it should not be allowed. Economic development and health care are how
to help families in other countries, not the funding of groups that
have performed abortions in the name of birth control.
I sincerely request my colleagues to join with me today in opposing
this amendment and reaffirming the Mexico City policy compromise that
we agreed to and passed into law last year. The language currently in
the bill will save the lives of countless children around the world,
both born and unborn.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), one of my colleagues who was also on that
trip to India and saw the abject conditions that these men, women, and
families are living in.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member, I have to admit that I
really did not understand until I got here how dramatically what we do
here affects, for better or for worse, in the most intimate ways, the
lives of men and women and children every single day in all parts of
the globe.
We are the only superpower in this world, and our capacity right now
to do good in the face of starvation and disease and poverty is so
great that it makes me weep with frustration that we are doing so
little. But I am truly overwhelmed by the audacity that we would use
our great power to require the clinics like we saw, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), to certify
that they will not, with their own non-U.S. dollars, conduct any
activity related to abortions so that they can control their own
families and take care of the children that they have.
It is on behalf of those men and women and children that I urge
support for the motion to strike.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a woman who has been fighting
for equal opportunity, democracy in the United States and around the
world, and who understands the importance of striking this
antidemocratic amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I ask Members to stand back for a moment from the gag rule. Seldom
have so many violations of cardinal American principles, which enjoy
overwhelming support and respect in our own country, been embodied in
one law.
Look at what is at stake here: free speech, female and family sexual
autonomy, baseline protection of pregnant women and the most vulnerable
children, reduction of abortions around the world. It is impossible to
believe that any American would force on foreigners what no Member
could or would do in our own country.
The direct effect between suppression of speech and its effects is
not always apparent. We must not allow this cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-
your-face gag rule to reap what it will sow in maternal and infant
deaths, high-risk and unintentional pregnancies, escalated and
unnecessary rates of abortion.
Support American principles, vote for the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary who truly understands that we cannot do unto others what we
would not do unto our own NGOs at home.
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill would place an international gag
rule on organizations that use their own non-U.S. supplied funds to
provide abortion services, or even to refer people or to mention
abortion services.
The American people support family planning and realize that it is
necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. Nearly 600,000
women a year die of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and
more than 150 million married women in the developing world want
contraceptives but have no access to them. International family
planning efforts have been remarkably successful and have saved women's
lives, improved women's health, and reduced poverty.
It is shocking that proponents of the so-called Mexico industry
restrictions claim that these family planning programs increase the
number of abortions when, in fact, it is clear that these efforts have
prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies. The Mexico City
restrictions are pernicious, unnecessary, and harmful. They would
severely limit family planning efforts and result in more unwanted
pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions. They are
a clear restriction on free speech which we would never tolerate in
this country. Why should America export restrictions on free speech?
Mr. Chairman, this bill would place an international gag rule on
organizations that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion
services. This policy is clearly unacceptable, and is not supported by
the President or by the American people. Last year, in a repugnant
effort that held UN dues payments hostage to family planning
restrictions, we were forced into an unworkable compromise. We cannot
allow this to happen again. We must remain strong and oppose the global
gag rule that threatens women's lives.
The American people support family planning and realize that it is
necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. According to the
World Health Organization, nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes
related to pregnancy and childbirth, and more than 150 million married
women in the developing world want contraceptives, but have no access
to them.
International family planning efforts have been remarkably successful
and have saved women's lives improved women's health, and helped reduce
poverty. I am shocked that proponents of these so-called ``Mexico
City'' restrictions claim that our family planning programs, increase
the number of abortions, when, in fact, studies show that these efforts
have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies.
There is no need to impose this type of gag rule on organizations
that use their own money to further their objectives and to make
women's lives safer. The ``Mexico City'' restrictions are pernicious,
unnecessary, and harmful. They severely limit family planning efforts
and result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women,
and more abortions. They are a clear restriction on free speech. What
an American export. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Thank you.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if the only
remaining speaker will be the gentleman from

[[Page H5991]]

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

{time} 1130

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, as she
knows, we have established these boundaries on these amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) would
renew her request, the gentleman may reserve the right to object for a
brief colloquy.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not strike the last word.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 5 minutes. What can I do, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman renews her unanimous consent request to
add 5 additional minutes to both sides, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) reserves the right to object and is recognized under his
reservation.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to request the extension of the time
so that I can yield time to the distinguished Democratic leader for the
5 minutes so he can speak to the issues that we have been speaking to
this morning, and I respectfully request the cooperation of the
chairman in that regard.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi)?

[[Page H5992]]

There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Five additional minutes will be added to each side of
the debate. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) will control 5
additional minutes, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will
control 5 additional minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the distinguished leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I thank
the chairman for allowing this additional debate to go on.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-Greenwood
amendment. The inadequate funding and restrictions on our international
family planning assistance in this bill should be rejected. And that is
only one of the many glaring flaws in this bill that I hope we can
correct this afternoon.
As we heard so eloquently last night, the funding in this bill for
debt relief is clearly inexcusable. With the funding provided in this
bill, governments in developing nations will continue to stagger under
huge loads of debt. Millions of people in Africa, South America,
Central America will be deprived of much needed education, health care
and development. These governments will have to repay loans before
addressing the fundamental need of their people.
Another outrageous shortcoming in this bill is the cut in funding
requested to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.
People in America, our constituents, are just in many cases beginning
to learn of the tragedy of AIDS in Africa and around the world. This is
a crisis that has affected us and people around the world for many
years now. But in African nations it reaches alarming proportions.
I led a delegation that some of my colleagues accompanied me on in
December to Nigeria and Zimbabwe and South Africa. It is one thing to
intellectualize and theorize about this problem. It is quite another
thing to confront dying humanity by the thousands and thousands.
Twenty-two million people in Africa are infected with HIV/AIDS. Many,
many more thousands are infected each week, each month.
This issue, in my opinion, is the moral imperative of our time. How
much longer will we go on and say it does not matter, it does not
concern me that 22 million people are probably going to die?
I can theorize about it. But when I confront it head on, as we did in
a village in Zimbabwe where everyone we met was infected with HIV/AIDS,
it is a different matter.
There has never in the history of the world been a threat to life
like this. If an Army were raging through Africa killing millions of
people, we would be mounting armies to go to Africa to save lives. We
say we are concerned with life.
This is the issue of life in our world today. I beg the Members to
vote for these amendments, to move our world in the right direction to
provide the assistance and the aid that people are crying out for.
Finally, I will say we met the head doctor of the largest hospital in
Johannesburg. He is a pediatrician. He said that half the children that
are born in the hospital right now are infected with HIV/AIDS and will
die within the next year; and we cannot even provide, he said, the
medication that we know we can provide that costs about $8 to make sure
that the children of HIV-infected AIDS patients will be free of AIDS.
And it is 70 percent effective. Eight dollars. Eight dollars to make
sure that a child who will be born will not die.
This is the moral issue of our time. I pray that this House and all
of our great Representatives will stand and deliver on the moral issue,
the most important moral issue we will ever face. Vote for these
amendments.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief and just say that the eloquence
of the minority leader and his comments are something that many of us
agree with. But he was speaking to the issue of AIDS not the pending
pro-abortion amendment.
HIV/AIDS certainly is a devastating scourge on the planet. To date it
has claimed the lives of millions of victims and we must find a cure.
When Mr. Gephardt talked about the $8 for medicine it's worth pointing
out that I raised the issue myself at the Committee on International
Relations over a year ago. Thankfully, some of the drug companies have
offered to provide certain AIDS drugs at cost to foreign governments
and NGOs in an effort to mitigate the transference of AIDS to newborns.
Since then I have requested our Agency for International Development to
make money available to purchase those kinds of drugs to ensure HIV-
free babies.
Mr. Gephardt really spoke to amendments that will follow this,
although he did make a passive reference to the pending legislation.
Mr. Chairman, let me just also say that this vote is not about family
planning, it is about abortion promotion and the performance of
abortion. Our hope is to continue the wall of separation between the
taking of human life by abortion and the prevention of human life. And
that policy, which was in effect for 9 years during the Reagan-Bush
years worked extremely well. During those years--and now--the United
States was and continues to be the largest donor to family planning
programs in the world. As a matter of fact, no one even comes close.
The current policy is both pro-family planning and pro-life.
Because many of us believe that the most elemental of all human
rights is the right to life, that babies should not be subjected to the
violence of abortion, to dismemberment, to chemical poisoning and other
methods of battering. The ugly face of abortion, the cruelty of the
methods is often masked and sanitized by the advocates of abortion.
They do not want to talk about what is done to the baby to procure
``fetal demise.'' It is too ugly. I believe, however, that we need to
face the brutal truth of what abortion does to a baby. And the wounds
it inflicts on the mother. It is violence against children.
I urge a no vote, a no vote on the pending amendment by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the minority leader and the gentlewoman
from California's (Ms. Pelosi) request for additional time, I will tell
my colleague that I removed my objections because I know the minority
leader is busy, especially in his new role running for vice president,
and I want to accommodate him every way we can. But I would encourage
the gentlewoman to restrain if she possibly can from asking for
unanimous consent requests, because Members have schedules and I would
appreciate very much her not asking for unanimous consent requests for
extended time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding from a previous
ruling of the parliamentarian that that was in order, or else I would
have informed my colleague in advance of the request. But I did not
think it was an extraordinary request. But I hear what he is saying,
and I appreciate that. I will do my best.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentlewoman for her comments.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to vote no on all three amendments
coming up and remind them that last year I think it was a near
unanimous vote for the bill which included this exact same language and
which the President signed into law. So I would urge a no vote on all
three amendments.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
I oppose Section 587 of this bill for two reasons. The first is that
this language belongs in an authorizing bill and not an appropriations
bill. This is a very complex and controversial issue. The attention
that this issue requires can only be properly

[[Page H5993]]

addressed by the International Relations Committee. The second reason I
oppose this language is because I believe that it is bad policy.
Our foreign assistance dollars are used to help people in developing
countries. One of the greatest challenges facing these countries is
quality of health care. Family planning services are the fundamental
services that are directly needed by women and children. Further, these
services provide the basis from which to address infectious diseases,
especially HIV/AIDS. Without family planning services, you cannot
effectively address the overall health needs of people in the
developing world. It is as simple as that.
The restrictions in Section 587 further inhibit an already over-
challenged program. USAID has not even begun to meet the increasing
demand for family planning services. Bureaucracy coupled with
historically low funding effectively cripple this program. Safeguards
have been in place and enforced for over two decades to be sure that
U.S. law is followed by international organizations. If we want to
improve the health care provided with U.S. funds to people in
developing countries, we must begin to facilitate the delivery of these
services instead of making it more difficult.
I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this amendment
and encourage our colleagues support it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Lowey
amendment to strike Section 587 from H.R. 4811.
Section 587, known as the ``global gag rule'' or the Mexico City
language, is not just anti-family planning, it is anti-democracy and
anti-free speech. Section 587 denies U.S. family planning assistance to
any organization operating overseas that uses its own non-U.S. funds to
provide abortion services or engage in advocacy related to abortion.
Voluntary family planning prevents maternal and child deaths,
unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and HIV-AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases. Time and again, studies have shown that
access to international family planning programs is one of the most
effective means of reducing abortions. Additionally, in many
communities, the local family planning provider is the only source of
primary health care for the entire family.
These important programs should not be burdened by restrictions that
would be illegal if imposed in the United States. More than illegal,
they would be unconstitutional. Why would we want to undermine the
right of foreign NGOs to freedom of speech and the right to participate
in their countries' democratic processes? That's what Section 587
demands.
Why would we want to erect barriers to the development of democracy
in these countries, the promotion of civil society, and the enhancement
of women's participation in the political and economic mainstream?
That's what Section 587 demands.
And why would we want to undermine the international credibility of
the United States' commitment to promote women's health and women's
participation in democracy abroad? That's what Section 587 demands.
Section 587 is an extremist position. I urge my colleagues to strike
it from this bill. Support the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood
Amendment, which will strike Section 587 of this foreign aid spending
bill.
Today, we have a chance to help developing nations around the world
by correcting an egregious error in U.S. foreign policy: the global gag
rule.
The gag rule is a shameful policy that punishes developing nations
for doing precisely what we consistently encourage them to do:
strengthen their democratic institutions by promoting and protecting
freedom of speech.
The gag rule forbids U.S. foreign assistance from going to
organizations that use their own, non-U.S. funds to lobby their
government on reproductive issues.
The promotion of free speech is a principal goal of U.S. foreign
policy and essential to the development of democratic forms of
government. The United States--which prides itself on its protection of
basic human rights, like freedom of speech--should not restrict these
rights in other nations.
I hear all the time--and wholeheartedly agree--that opening up trade
with China will lead to greater freedoms to speak in that country,
which in turn will promote democracy.
But when it comes to family planning, we suddenly want to stifle
voices within developing nations. We want to limit their right to speak
out. We force them to relinquish their right to free speech in order to
participate in U.S.-supported family planning programs. We force on
these NGOs restrictions that would be unconstitutional were they
imposed on U.S. organizations.
Mr. Chairman, intentional family planning programs worldwide save the
lives of mothers and children, profoundly benefit women's social and
economic situations, and dramatically reduce the incidence of abortion.
The global gag rule on international family planning stifles the
ability of these programs to operate, placing the lives of mothers and
their children at stake.
These misguided restrictions were included as part of the FY 2000
Consolidated Appropriations bill and they are again included in Section
587 of the bill we are considering today.
If we do not remove this provision, we will defund organizations that
help reduce the number of abortions worldwide. These organizations
provide voluntary, preventative family planning services. They help
prevent a number of serious global problems, including: mother and
infant mortality, unemployment, illiteracy and Third World debt.
According to the U.S. Agency for International Development, every day
approximately 1,600 women die of complications stemming from pregnancy
and childbirth. That is about 600,000 women dying each year from
pregnancy-related causes. And complications from pregnancy and
childbirth are the leading cause of death and disability for women in
developing countries aged 15 to 49.
Studies show family planning and reproductive health services can
help prevent one in four of those needless deaths. And, in addition to
preventing maternal deaths, family planning can reduce the millions of
long-term illnesses and disabilities that result each year from
pregnancy-related complications.
Family planning also helps women space births, which is critical to
improving the health of their children. Just by increasing the time
between births or the age of first motherhood, family planning can
reduce infant and child mortality by up to 25 percent.
Mr. Chairman, we need to repeal the global gag rule. Let's pass this
amendment, and let's put an end to this annual debate.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which
would strike the global gag rule from this bill.
This anti-democratic policy forces NGOs in the developing world to
sacrifice their right to free speech in order to participate in our
family planning programs. And while restricting foreign NGOs in this
way may only offend our democratic sensibilities, if we tried to do
this at home it would be absolutely unconstitutional.
Section 587 of the bill, severally damages our international family
planning programs. The demand for these programs is much larger than
our limited funds can meet, and Section 587 imposes an arbitrary cap on
family planning, which is $156 million below the President's request.
Very simply, our family planning programs save lives. Six hundred
thousand women die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often
preventable. More than 150 million married women in the developing
world want contraceptives, but have no access to them. Increasing
access to family planning will save the lives of women and children,
and it will reduce the incidence of abortion worldwide. Striking this
section will reduce the number of abortions performed each day--if you
support this objective, you should support this amendment.
We need to consider the global gag rule within the overall context of
U.S. foreign policy. What values do we want to export along with our
foreign assistance?
The gag rule says to our NGO partners abroad that we don't care about
their rights. That freedom of speech, the very foundation of American
democracy, matters here, but it doesn't matter abroad. That our
commitment to free speech and freedom of association, fixtures of our
Constitution, end at our own borders. Is this the kind of message we
want to send?
Make no mistake: the United States is being watched. Each day,
members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle condemn violations
of human rights abroad. Each day we debate whether the United States
should associate at all with foreign regimes who refuse to embrace
democratic ideals. Our neighbors around the world look to us as the
definitive authority on democracy.
I think the words of the director of a family planning organization
that receives our funding sums up the severe damage we do to our own
credibility by incorporating an anti-democratic policy such as the gag
rule into our foreign assistance program.
``We believe this requirement is profoundly anti-democratic and does
a disservice to the legacy of the United States' fight for democracy,''
the director wrote. ``Democracy is nourished and strengthened by open
debate and freedom of expression; shackling the discussion of ideas
impoverishes such public debate and, in doing so, weakens democracy . .
. We are now in the difficult position of having to choose between
needed funding for a historic project on the one hand, and essential
democratic participation on the other. Either way, there is a cost to
women's reproductive health and to democracy.''
If the suppression of ideas with which some don't agree, and the use
of economic power to crush dissent--are ideals you think the United
States should export, then vote against this

[[Page H5994]]

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 396]

AYES--206

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

NOES--221

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

NOT VOTING--8

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

{time} 1203

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

Announcement by the Chairman

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

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Waters

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

[[Page H5995]]

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

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 397]

AYES--216

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

NOES--211

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

NOT VOTING--8

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

{time} 1217

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee)

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

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 398]

AYES--267

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

[[Page H5996]]

Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--156

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

NOT VOTING--11

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

{time} 1225

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

personal explanation

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

american churchwomen in el salvador

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

hipc trust fund conditions

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

procurement and financial management reform

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

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) the
designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)?
Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) as the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
I want to commend the members of the Committee on Appropriations and,
in particular, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for recognizing the important
role that women play in Southeast Europe in the former Soviet Union. I
would also like to note several innovative steps that the Europe and
Eurasia Bureau of AID has taken to ensure that gender issues are
considered in our programming. By gender issues, we mean identifying
and analyzing the problems and possibilities that may affect men and
women differently and using that information to carry out programs
which address the needs and opportunities of both women and men.
For example, at a policy level, gender issues are integrated
throughout the new E&E strategic framework, the policy document which
will shape AIDS work in the region for the next several years. This is
a first step for a USAID regional bureau.
The language includes the following: gender is being integrated into
the Europe and Eurasia programs to ensure that the United States is
promoting equal access and opportunities, equal

[[Page H5997]]

rights and equal protection in its assistance programs.
At a program level, preliminary work on this new approach of
considering the problems of both men and women has already produced
promising results. In central Asia, a recent AID study examined health
costs by gender and found that men and women used health facilities
differently for general care and that the costs are significantly
different. Men go to hospitals and women go to local clinics, since
hospitals are much more expensive than clinics.

{time} 1230

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

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
12, 2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) reserves a
point of order on the amendment of the gentleman from New York.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am rising to offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell). I thank them for cosponsoring this amendment with me.
This amendment addresses a unique and gruesome form of violence
against woman known as honor crimes, in which a woman is maimed or
murdered by a relative, usual male, under the perception that the
family's honor has been offended.
What is most shocking is that these women are attacked by their own
family Members: brothers, fathers, even sons. Most of us are taught to
protect and care for members of our family, not to brutalize them.
While preserving one's family honor is obviously no excuse for
attacking any person, it is even more shocking that many of these honor
crimes are not the result of a so-called dishonorable act, but of a
mere belief or perception that such an act may have occurred.
In countries like Bangladesh, for example, women are attacked with
acid and whipped if they are merely suspected of a moral indiscretion.
In an 11-month period in Pakistan, there were over 675 reported honor
killings.

[[Page H5998]]

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

point of order

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

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

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

[[Page H5999]]

BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

agency for international development

international disaster assistance

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

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

limitation on funds for countries that use children as soldiers

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

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

{time} 1245

They said we had to do this so we would not fear death, and so we
would not try to escape. I still dream about the boy from my village
who I killed. I see him in my dreams, and he is talking to me and
saying I killed him for nothing. And I am crying. Susan was age 16. She
was abducted into the army, by the Lord's Resistance Army. This is what
our children are going through in their respective horror and the
evilness of taking children whose lives should be full of joy and
happiness.
All we are doing is condemning them to a life of misery, if they are
not killed themselves in battle. Their minds are so warped with the
viciousness of what has happened. They are destroyed forever.
It is estimated this year that some 300,000 children under the age of
18 are engaged in armed military conflicts in more than 30 countries.
Sadly, far too many of these wonderful children are forcibly
conscripted through kidnapping or coercion, and the others join because
of economic necessity to avenge the loss of a family member or for
their own personal safety.
There are so many stories of children being abused in this way, and I
do want to acknowledge the leadership of the Members of the
Subcommittee of Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the ranking member, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the other Members of the
committee, now the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) who is
controlling the time, realizing that these are issues that have been
vigorously discussed.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe we must do something about it. The
protocol that was signed last week extends much needed protection for
children. I cannot imagine that parents here in America would not have
their hearts broken and their hearts extended to those victimized
children who are being forced into a vicious war. I believe it is time
for us now to do the strongest of rejection of those who do so, which
would be to address them where it hurts, and that is in the pocketbook.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have done many things on the floor
that I have supported, debt relief, HIV protection; but how can we
stand as our children are conscripted involuntarily or for the basis of
economic necessity?
Mr. Chairman, I rise to extend my strong support for this amendment
that, if approved, could enormously enhance the lives of our children
being cruelly used as soldiers around the world
In short, this amendment would prohibit funding in the bill for
nations that conscript children under the age of 18 or use child
soldiers in armed conflict.
This is a small step that should be taken that this nation has now
see as a priority. It is important to place this within the bill since,
as a nation, we are now on record as prohibiting the inhuman practice
of using children as soldiers.
Last week, I joined President Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Richard

[[Page H6000]]

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

[From the Human Rights Watch]

Stop The Use Of Child Soldiers!

The Voices of Child Soldiers

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

references

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no speakers other than a closing
statement by me, and I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman reserves his
point of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the distinguished ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Africa.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) for offering this very important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen the exploitation of children. We have seen
the exploitation in labor. We have seen the exploitation in sexual
abuse, and we have seen the exploitation of children as relates to
conflicts. In Sierra Leone, children as young as 10 and 12 are given
weapons by the dreaded RUF, a group of brutal rebels who have armed
children, and other conflicts throughout Africa and Latin America.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen children on the front lines, the Lord's
Resistance Movement, as it was mentioned, up in northern Uganda, uses
children as the frontline fighters, so when the government troops
attempt to get the Lord's Resistance Movement, a rebel group, the
children are put in front and the children then are in harm's way, with
the military of Uganda reluctant to fire on the children.
Mr. Chairman, this is really a tactic that is used by these terrible
despots and clan leaders, and so I think that this makes a lot of
sense. We should not have people under the age of 18 in combat. We
believe that the exploitation is unbelievable, that in this modern day
that we can no longer accept what is going on in the world. I believe
that we should support this. I think that it is a right thing to do.
I would hope that the point of order would be waived at this point in
time, because I believe that this amendment by the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) which would prohibit funding in the bill for
Nations that conscript children under the age of 18 or use children
soldiers in armed conflict should pass.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a Member of the
Committee on Appropriations and a fighter for world justice.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have spent a lot of time on this floor in the last
day talking about how at a time of prosperity we should be reaching out
to families, to children around the world, helping them get educated,
providing health care, providing the very basics of life. And then when
we hear the horrors of these children who, in addition to lacking
education and health care, are

[[Page H6001]]

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

Point of Order

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and legislation in
an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2(c) of rule
XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be made in
order if it changes existing law.''
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Texas wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak to the
point of order, and I appreciate several points that the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), has said.
I will offer to work with the chairman as we move toward conference on
this issue.
Let me speak to the point of order as I discuss the opportunity, I
hope, to be able to work with the gentleman, and that is that we are
dealing with an appropriations bill that deals with foreign policy, and
foreign policy that covers a variety of issues. In fact, there is a
child-support provision in here that we obviously attempted to work
with.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is within the confines of
the appropriations bills. It talks about the international policy on
the question of children. It is noted that we have many children that
have been killed and brutalized and sold into slavery. In Sierra Leone
alone, half of the rebel forces are under 18; some of them are 4-years-
old and 5-years-old.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine in the report language and in the
legislation that we do not have within the context of the section that
I have offered, where I have deleted and had this in compliance with
the CBO, it is budget neutral, that this particular amendment, which is
simply a limitation that indicates that no monies can be used if your
country flagrantly and boldly uses babies to go into war that we would
not have that.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that we can work through
conference if the point of order is upheld, Mr. Chairman, to ensure
that babies are not dying, not only because of disease and brutality
but because they are forced to be warriors in war and killing others in
a brutal and horrific fashion.
I think that is the worst act that we as adults can do to our
children, and I would ask that the point of order not be upheld and
that we be able to move forward on this. I thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his sincere effort, and I hope that we will
be able to work together, maybe if the gentleman would stand. I know
that the gentleman's heart is there. We worked together.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on my point of order and
explain the rationale behind my decision to do this. The previous
speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), had a good
underlying cause, but there are 15 or 20 underlying good causes coming
up.
I sort of resent the fact that I am standing here as an appropriator
taking the brunt of a position saying that I oppose what the
gentlewoman wants me to do. I do not oppose. We have a strategy. We
have a rule. We have rules of the House which prohibit this type of
activity. And I am trying to protect the integrity of the process.
I applaud the gentlewoman for her efforts. I applaud her mission. I
support the content of her amendment, but it is violative of the rules;
and I am here to protect the integrity of the process and, therefore,
insist upon my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair has sought advice from the
Parliamentarian and is prepared to rule.
Does the gentlewoman have further advice for the Chair? Please state
the advice.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I have advice.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the
committee and refer the chairman to the underlying bill and its purpose
and only say that I also look forward to working on this as it moves
towards conference with the authorizing committee and to provide
disincentives for this terrible act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan)
makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) proposes to change existing law in
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or
make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.

[[Page H6002]]

The proponent of the limitation assumes the burden of establishing
that any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial
or otherwise required by law.
The proponent in this case has failed to meet the burden.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not
in order.

{time} 1300

Are there further amendments to the bill?

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

prohibition on funds for kosovo protection corps

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

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) reserves a
point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment. It would prohibit
any funds in this bill from going to the Kosovo Protection Corps, an
organization that has always been and continues to be a rogue force in
Kosovo.
In September 1999, the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, was transformed
into a 5,000 member demilitarized civilian organization known as the
Kosovo Protection Corps, KPC. According to U.N. regulations on the
establishment of the KPC, and this is a quote, ``the Kosovo Corps shall
not have any role in law enforcement or the maintenance of law and
order.''
However, according to an unreleased internal United Nations report,
the Kosovo Protection Corps has been using violence, extortion, murder,
and torture. Because this report has not been made public, lawmakers in
the United States who actually set the United States budget for this
mission in Kosovo must rely on the media to provide such crucial
information.
According to press accounts, the report states that the KPC has been
involved in ``criminal activities, killings, torture, illegal policing,
abuse of authority, intimidation, breaches of political neutrality and
hate speech.''
The Washington Post reported that the U.N. report states that several
members of the KPC ``allegedly tortured or killed local citizens and
illegally detained others, illegally attempted to conduct law
enforcement activities, illegally forced local businesses to pay taxes,
and threatened U.N. police who attempted to intervene and stop
wrongdoing.''
An article in the British Guardian newspaper indicates that in
Dragash, two members of the KPC and three others were arrested by U.N.
police in connection with the killing of an ethnic Gorani. It goes on
to say the U.N. report cited ``three charges of ill-treatment and
torture: in Pec, a man was beaten senseless in the KPC's headquarters,
suffering head injuries and severe bruising from a rifle butt. . . . In
Prizren, a man from the Torbesh minority . . . was kidnapped and beaten
up by a KPC member and three other men. And in Prizren KFOR suspended
alleged torturers from the KPC.''
A GAO report on security in the Balkans indicates that the Kosovo
Protection Corps may be adding to unrest and regional instability in
the region. It states that KFOR and the U.N. have detained members from
the KPC ``for carrying unauthorized weapons and engaging in violence
and intimidation against ethnic minorities.''
So the goals of the U.N., as stated in U.N. Resolution 1244 are
actually being impeded by the KPC. These goals include: deterring
renewed hostilities, demilitarizing armed groups, ensuring public
safety and order, and protecting and promoting human rights.
The U.N. itself cited the KPC for threatening U.N. personnel in
efforts to intervene in wrongdoing. So, not only is the KPC responsible
for human rights violations, but the KPC is making it harder for the
U.N. to accomplish peace in Kosovo.
An Amnesty International report issued in February concluded that
after 6 months of peacekeeping efforts in the region, ``human rights
abuses and crimes continue to be committed at an alarming rate,
particularly against members of minority communities.''
According to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2000, ``Ethnic
Albanian refugees returned to a devastated Kosovo almost immediately
after the withdrawal of Serbian and Yugoslav forces, and soon began a
series of revenge attacks against the region's minority populations. A
wave of arson and looting of Serb and Roma homes quickly deteriorated
into harassment and beating of individuals. Most serious was a spate of
abductions and murders of Serbs.''
Finally, International Crisis Group, an internationally renowned
conflict prevention and conflict resolution group based in Washington,
D.C. and Brussels, recently issued a report on the KPC. It states that
``Even the UNMIK's own officials and some KFOR officers admit (though
never in public) that the KPC is, and will probably remain, a military-
style organization.''
These are credible reports from many credible sources that reveal
that the KPC is causing unrest and instability as it continues to
engage in violent and brutal practices. These human rights abuses of
extortion, murder, kidnapping, torture, and intimidation must not
continue.
So why should American tax dollars support an organization which is
actually worsening the situation of ethnic hatred and violence in war-
torn Kosovo? There has been enough violence in the Balkans. Why sustain
this volatile atmosphere by continuing to allow the KPC to run rampant
in Kosovo?
Most of Europe already knows this. That is why almost all NATO
countries do not fund the KPC.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio cannot request unanimous
consent to extend his own time. It is permissible to ask unanimous
consent that both the proponent and an opponent are given an equal
amount of time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that both myself
and the opponent be given 1 extra minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) may proceed for
1 additional minute.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, most of Europe already
knows about the KPC. According to a May 10, 2000 United Nations Status
Report, the United States has pledged about $5 million and Germany has
pledged about $1.5 million. So the United States foots the majority of
the bill for an organization which has failed to benefit society in
Kosovo.
I am asking for a yes vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 30 seconds
remaining.
Does the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) insist upon his point
of order?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska withdraws his point of
order.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman) for 6 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment to this bill of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) would terminate

[[Page H6003]]

funding for the Kosovo Protection Corps, the KPC. I am strongly
opposed to that amendment because it would have the opposite intended
effect of the author's stated goals and, in fact, contribute to greater
instability and to increased human rights abuses in Kosovo, thereby
complicating the mission of our and other NATO peacekeeping troops.
Strongly supported by the United States, the KPC was formed by the
U.N. Administration in Kosovo, the UNMIK. Under this crucial program,
the Kosovo Liberation Army was demilitarized and its former members
encouraged to become part of an emergency assistance and community
service.
Reports of individual members of the KPC, or individuals posing as
KPC members, committing human rights abuses are disturbing and must be
continued to be fully investigated and monitored. Any KPC member found
to have been associated with such activities will be immediately
dismissed and subject to criminal prosecution.
I do agree with KFOR and U.N. officials that there must be a zero
tolerance policy towards offenses committed by those few members of the
KPC or any other individuals in Kosovo who commit criminal offenses or
abuse their position in the KPC. That is why we support the approach of
focusing the relatively small amount of United States assistance to
Kosovo on judicial and police assistance in order to increase stability
in this region that has been torn apart by a decade long conflict.
Denying United States funding for the KPC would not resolve the
problems that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) believes exists in
Kosovo and would more than likely increase those difficulties. It would
have us throw the baby out with the bath water by undercutting a good
program because a few bad individuals may have been involved. We do not
stop paying for our police when we find a bad cop in that force.
Cutting off our assistance to the KPC would jeopardize the
accomplishments of disarming former combatants and moving Kosovo along
the path of peace and reconciliation and would undermine our ability to
influence the development of the KPC. It would increase the risk to our
troops currently positioned in Kosovo and would threaten to extend the
time they need to be deployed there, something we do not want to see
happen.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Gilman) for yielding to me, and I certainly strongly support
his statement.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is imperative that we oppose this
amendment. I believe that this amendment really would wreak havoc in
the region. The State Department, the administration, all people who
have dealt with this situation in Kosovo oppose this.
The Kosovo Protection Corps plays a critical role in Kosovo in many
ways. After the Kosovo Liberation Army formerly gave up its weapons,
the KPC was created as an organization which absorbed former KLA
members into a demilitarized structure. The State Department has
described the KPC as the most important element of a broad program to
provide employment for KLA veterans.
The KPC also carries out critical civilian works projects. NATO
Secretary-General Lord Robertson has praised the KPC for its work
throughout Kosovo, which has included repairing roads, bridges, and
other reconstruction projects.
Let me read his quote. He says, ``I will continue to support the KPC,
to demand from the international community the resources that will
allow it to do this valuable civil job to support General Ceku in the
role he has of being an influential spokesman for peace and
reconciliation.'' This is the NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson.
The Kucinich amendment is based on a supposed unreleased internal
United Nations report of February 29, 2000, which allegedly makes a
variety of accusations against the KPC. When my staff requested a copy
of this report, none was available because it was never released. We
believe that it is difficult to respond anyway to this report, not only
because Members cannot review it for themselves, but because the first
KPC members were inaugurated only 1 month before the report was
supposedly written.
On April 22 of this year, 114 KPC officers and personnel joined 230
local workers and youth groups in cleaning up disease-infested garbage
mounds throughout Pristina, the capital. In another instance, the KPC
intervened on February 4 when French and NATO peacekeepers were not
able to disperse an angry crowd. According to Reuters, ``The situation
finally calmed down with the arrival of the KPC.''
Let me read one other quote, and this is a quote from General Klaus
Reinhardt, commander of Allied Forces in Kosovo, KFOR. He says, ``It is
my firm belief that the formation of the KPC is an essential step to
restoring normalcy to this region.''
So this is an irresponsible amendment. It should be resoundingly
defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I request that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) ask unanimous consent so that I could have a whole minute,
which would be 45 seconds on each side.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be
given an additional 45 seconds.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York very
much for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say there are no white hats in this
operation, and there are neither on the Albanian side nor on the Serb
side when one considers what happens in Kosovska Mitrovica. It is not
easy to turn organizations which have grown up in war into democratic
organization in the pursuit of multiethnic community. But if Kosovo is
ever to be a multiethnic and a multireligious community, then we are
going to have to work with these organizations.
I very much oppose that we adopt the amendment.

{time} 1315

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The unreleased internal United Nations report on the Kosovo
Protection Corps using violence, extortion, murder, and torture has
been widely reported. I am asking all of my colleagues today to take a
stand for the protection of human rights of all citizens in Kosovo.
Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
The KPC has become a brutal paramilitary organization, a fact that
has been confirmed by the U.N. itself, the GAO, and many
nongovernmental organizations. According to this internal U.N. report,
the KPC has prevented the U.N. from establishing peace and maintaining
order in Kosovo. The United States cannot continue to fund such
activities.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kucinich
Amendment, which would seriously undermine our efforts to promote
stability and reconstruction in Kosova.
This amendment seeks to cut off all funding for the Kosova Protection
Corps, a civilian organization formed in September of last year to
employ demobilized members of Kosova Liberation Army on needed efforts
such as disaster response, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance
to isolated areas, de-mining and rebuilding the country's
infrastructure. The KPC, which operates under the authority of the UN,
offers employments to these veterans to engage in constructive
activities in support of the country and its people.
I understand and share the gentleman's concerns over allegations of
acts of violence committed by purported members of this organization.
These incidents should be investigated fully and those found guilty
should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But to
completely cut off funding to an organization that, in the words of the
KFOR commander, General Klaus Reinhardt, is ``an essential step to
restoring normalcy to this region'', would undercut and negate
everything that this country and our European allies have done to
restore peace and stability to Kosova.

[[Page H6004]]

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of former KLA members
who joined the KPC were not professional soldiers--they were farmers,
laborers or mechanics, individuals with skills that are desperately
needed as Kosova re-builds. Yes, they took up arms in the face of naked
aggression from Serb paramilitary and security forces. Faced with
similar situations, I doubt many in this Chamber wouldn't do the same
to protect their homes, their families and loved ones. The war is now
over, and it is essential that we support programs such as this which,
in a very real sense, beat swords into plowshares by transitioning
these veterans to the cause of community service and nation building.
That cause would be undercut, Mr. Chairman, if we allow this
amendment to prevail. Let's not destroy a worthwhile program and
jeopardize the cause of peace because of the misdeeds of a few. I urge
my colleagues to oppose the Kucinich Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Kucinich
Amendment to cut funding for the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC). The KPC
has served as an important force for peace and stability in an unstable
region. After the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) demilitarized, the KPC
was formed in an effort to employ former KLA members in a capacity
which could be beneficial to the region. Since it's inception, the KPC
has done important work in Kosovo, cleaning disease infested garbage
dumps in Pristina, repairing roads and bridges and helping to rebuild
over 1,000 homes.
While individual members of the KPC have been accused of carrying
illegal weapons, and while I do believe these individuals should be
dealt with, the KPC as a whole has played an important role in the
quest for peace in Kosovo. On February 4th, in Mitrovica, KPC members
intervened along with French and Italian NATO peacekeepers to disperse
an angry crowd. The leadership of the KPC has repeatedly spoken out for
tolerance and reconciliation amongst the different ethnic groups within
the region.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be a grave mistake to deny funding to
this important organization at this most tumultuous time in Kosovo's
history. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kucinich amendment.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, it was a bleak picture early last year in
the Balkans.
Slobodan Milosevic had begun a new campaign of terror against ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo.
Men of all ages were tortured and killed.
Women were raped.
Yet another ethnic population was being ``ethnically cleansed.''
Refugees poured over the borders to Albania and Macedonia.
When I visited the refugees last May, they relayed experiences that
few of us could even imagine are possible in the world today.
One Kosovar boy saw his father's eyes torn out. He told us, ``you
can't imagine what they have done.''
A woman from the Prizren region said that Serb paramilitary forces
entered her house, looking for her husband--a teacher in a local
school. The forces took all of the family's jewelry and money. She
escaped, but her husband and mother were burned alive inside the house.
The woman said, ``this happened to many people.''
These are brutal episodes, but too many of us have become numb to
them because in Milosevic's Yugoslavia last decade, we learned of
violence like this nearly every day.
But I know that for many of us, and for many of our parents and
grandparents, these stories bring back chilling memories of Europe
during the Nazi reign of terror.
Last spring, we could have struck our head deep into the sand, and
said that Kosovo was merely a European problem, but we didn't.
Together with NATO, we mounted a swift and successful campaign to put
an end to this awful bloodshed and mayhem.
Although Kosovo has a long way to go after a generation of ethnic
tension, years of neglect and months of war, things are getting better
day after day.
Democracy, the rule of law and prosperity do not take root overnight.
They must be nurtured. But with care, they will grow.
That's why we must reject this amendment.
It will do nothing more than uproot the careful work we have done so
far in the Balkans.
The people of Kosovo are dedicated to democracy, and I know they draw
their strength from the commitment we in the United States have made to
them.
The army fighting for independence in Kosovo last year voluntarily
disarmed.
According to the State Department, this demilitarization was the
quickest in modern history.
And the new force--known as the Kosovo Protection Corps--which this
amendment seeks to disband, has helped to rebuild homes, fight fires,
repair the infrastructure and clean polluted rivers.
Yes, there have been incidents where individuals have engaged in
abuses. And these must be dealt with severely.
In any country where chaos has ruled and war has ravaged civic
institutions, there is bound to be confusion. Tensions which are ages
old will not be diffused overnight.
We should not underestimate the problems.
But the answer is not to walk away from the problems.
The answer is to continue to work for peace.
And that's exactly what we should do in Kosovo.
Vote against this amendment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in strong opposition to the
Kucinich amendment which seeks to prohibit funds in the FY 2001 Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill from being used to fund the Kosova
Protection Corps (KPC).
KPC plays a vital role in Kosova, filling the void that was left when
the Kosova Liberation Army (KLA) surrendered its weapons.
The KPC was formed by the UN Administration in Kosova (UNMIK) as a
civilian organization responsible for disaster response, search and
rescue, humanitarian assistance, demining, and infrastructure
rebuilding. Security in Kosova is not provided by the KPC, but a
separately trained civilian police and international police force
serving under the direction of UNMIK. The KPC functions under the
political authority of UNMIK and the day-to-day operational direction
of KFOR.
The KPC carries out important civilian work projects, such as
building and repairing roads and bridges. In another instance, the KPC
intervened on February 4 when French and Italian NATO peacekeepers were
not able to disperse an angry crowd and succeeded in restoring order to
the situation.
The KPC has the support of the people in Kosova, the U.S. State
Department and the United Nations.
Despite the allegations made in support of the Kucinich amendment, UN
officials have investigated the allegations leveled against members of
the KPC and found no evidence to support them.
International military and civilian leaders in the region have
expressed their support and gratitude for the efforts of the KPC.
NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, has praised the Kosova
Protection Corps for its work throughout Kosova, which has included
repairing roads, bridges, and other reconstruction and relief projects.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kucinich amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
12, 2000, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) will
control the time in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This Member rises out of concern that because of reported executive
action that is currently being contemplated by the President, the
American taxpayer may soon be required to assume billions of dollars of
liability for potential North Korean nuclear accidents.
Under the Korean Energy Development Organization program, KEDO,

[[Page H6005]]

the United States Government committed to the construction of two
light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea with major financing from
Japan and South Korea. These reactors are designed to diffuse the
nuclear development program of the Democrat People's Republic of Korea,
the DPRK, that it had operated and, presumably, used to divert weapons
grade nuclear material. The new reactors are to be owned and operated
by North Korea.
Because North Korea is not known for its nuclear safety, some of the
essential American construction firms have, quite understandably,
refused to participate in the KEDO effort without insurance. Private
insurance companies, sensing a lousy risk, want nothing to do with the
KEDO program. As a result, the KEDO program could collapse under its
own weight.
In an effort to keep the KEDO program moving forward, some in the
executive branch have proposed that the United States provide insurance
guaranties for the KEDO program. Mr. Chairman, this is an enormous
legal liability that is being contemplated by Executive Order. While
the United States continues to participate in the construction of two
light-water nuclear reactors in the DPRK is not the issue, we have been
participating in the KEDO program since 1995; and funds are included in
this bill to continue that support. The question is whether the United
States will assume financial liability for the project if accidents
occur.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake, this is potentially a staggering
liability. It requires faith in the North Korea engineers, who may or
may not have been trained and over whom we have little or no control.
It requires faith that North Korea will devote the energy and resources
to maintain those reactors. It requires that conflict does not break
out on the Korean peninsula. And if North Korea's safety procedures
prove inadequate and a Chernobyl-type disaster occurs, it could require
tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. If there is a nuclear
accident, there is no quicker way to eliminate the current budgetary
surplus that many Members of this body have worked so hard to achieve.
Mr. Chairman, this Member would remind his colleagues that on May 18
of this year, in an amendment to the defense authorization bill, this
body considered and voted overwhelmingly to limit the ability to
provide such insurance guaranty. But the executive branch is ignoring
or seeking to ignore that overwhelming vote. The amendment before this
body today sends a very strong message that extending financial
guaranties to rogue nations is a serious matter.
If Members of this body are concerned about nuclear proliferation, if
my colleagues are concerned about fiscal responsibility, or even if
Members are suspicious that North Korea may not be absolutely and
irrevocably committed to cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation with
the West, they must vote for this amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
rise in support of the Bereuter amendment and commend its sponsor.
This bill provides funding that the Clinton administration has
requested to continue carrying out its policy of giving U.S. foreign
assistance to North Korea pursuant to the agreed framework of 1994. The
Bereuter amendment imposes a sensible condition on the funds that this
bill appropriates for North Korea.
This amendment prohibits any money appropriated under this act from
being used to assume any liability for the cost of nuclear accidents in
North Korea. Incredibly, the administration reportedly is considering
making U.S. taxpayers libel in the event that the North Koreans
mismanage their nuclear reactors that the administration wants to build
there and could trigger a catastrophic nuclear accident. This,
obviously, would be folly; and the gentleman from Nebraska is doing all
of us a favor by trying to stop the administration from doing this.
The distinguished Chair of our House Republican Policy Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), has been very active in protecting
the interests of the American taxpayer with regard to the possibility
that current U.S. policy may create a Chernobyl-style disaster in North
Korea. I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) on the defense authorization bill that addresses these
concerns, and I am pleased to support the Bereuter amendment to the
bill as well.
This is a very timely and important amendment, and I urge our
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that,
indeed, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has been extremely
active. He does have an amendment filed, and I will give him the
opportunity to close in a minute.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, if I have ever seen a bad deal, it is this amendment.
It is bad from a number of perspectives. It was not that long ago that
we were in the well here wringing our hands about the dangers of a
North Korean missile coming over and hitting part of the United States,
and there was no limit to the funding we would spend to stop this
threat from North Korea: $60 billion for an untested Star Wars program.
Rush the program through. We have spent a third of a billion dollars in
the last 9 months.
We all saw the last success of that program when the booster
apparently did not get to the target where it was predetermined to hit
the mark. So we have spent a third of a billion dollars in the last 9
months. There are people here who want to spend $60 billion before they
find out whether the system works or not to protect us from North
Korean missiles. But let us make sure we do not even give the
administration an opportunity to work out an agreement that stops the
North Korean missile program.
A better title for this bill would be ``an amendment to prevent an
agreement.'' Because before we know what the administration wants to
do, whether they are going to get a consortium of nations to simply buy
an insurance program, whether the Japanese and the others in the region
are going to pay the whole tab and we might have to facilitate some of
the technical elements of it, Congress is going to rush down here, and
we are going to tell President Clinton and his negotiators not to come
to an agreement.
We are going to spend $60 billion on Star Wars whether it works or
not. That is a good expenditure, just like the third of a billion we
have had for the failed tests. Let us just slow down a bit here. What
the administration has achieved is for the first time in 50 years we
are having a dialogue with the North Koreans. Now, this is not an easy
job. This is about one of the most paranoid societies in the world.
Orwell's view of the world could not figure this place out if he had
the blueprint in advance.
But, Mr. Chairman, we have got them to stop their nuclear program. We
have got them to stop their missile program. There is a lot more we
have got to do. We have our allies working together with us in a
coordinated program. We always complain about burden-sharing. Here
others want to take the lead in the burden, and we have got an
amendment on the floor to stop us from participating before we know
what that portion of participation is.
I understand the desire not to have anything in North Korea that
could give us a liability. But when Congress is ready to pass on a $60
billion Star Wars program before the technology works, when we have
spent a third of a billion dollars in the last 9 months, we should not
come here and say we cannot spend a penny to implement, negotiate and
come to an agreement that might shut down any future missile or nuclear
programs that the North Koreans might undertake is bad policy.
Let us give the administration a chance. This is the toughest country
in the world to negotiate with, and we have begun to make progress.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and

[[Page H6006]]

I just want to say that regardless of whether we are doing the right
thing in the amendment or not, I think the whole indemnification
process is wrong for us to get involved in.
What we are saying is that General Electric, which is the only
American company I know of that is even involved in providing some of
the resources for the new facility, will not go in there without
indemnification. So what we are saying, in effect, is that we are not
going to allow the United States to indemnify General Electric from any
class action suit that might take place even in North Korean courts.
American business people are already being subjected to this serious
problem in South Vietnam now. So I have questions about the
indemnification.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the
gentleman's questions, but the questions exist outside of any
liability.
We have not yet given the administration opportunity to see what
portion the Japanese are willing to take, and they are very interested
in this. So to handcuff the administration before we have even a
blueprint of what the final negotiations will present us for American
responsibility, while we are ready to spend $60 billion on Star Wars,
is irresponsible.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), but I might just say to the
gentleman from Connecticut that this has nothing to do with missiles.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering his
amendment. It is similar to language that this House recently approved
when I offered my amendment on the defense authorization bill. The
House voted 334 to 85 to authorize this prohibition on the Clinton
administration guaranteeing against the cost of nuclear accidents in
Stalinist North Korea.
This amendment is imminently sensible, and it must be adopted.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and I say that we should give negotiations a chance.
If we can spend $60 billion on Star Wars, a third of a billion in the
last 9 months, we ought to at least give an administration a chance to
try to work this out which has shut down the North Korean missile
program, which has shut down their nuclear program, and has made more
progress on the North Korean peninsula in the last several years than
all the 50 years before that.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Payne

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

assistance for national democratic alliance of sudan

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

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) reserves a
point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the amendment that I have offered is an
amendment that would allow assistance to the National Democratic
Alliance, which is a group of people in the south of Sudan. It will
provide them with nonlethal equipment, not counting food aid; but it
would give assistance to the people in the south to support their fight
against the National Islamic front, which is the government of the
north, which has given the people in the south a very, very horrible
time over the past 30 years.

{time} 1330

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

[[Page H6007]]

Payne) in the humanitarian disaster in the Sudan. I am not necessarily
against the language, but this is simply the wrong measure. This is an
appropriations bill.
I will be pleased to work with the gentleman, who has been an
outstanding advocate on behalf of democracy in Sudan, on these issues
in our committee and would be pleased to work with him to make certain
that we get the appropriate vehicle for doing what he is seeking, his
meritorious goals.

Point of Order

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI in that
it constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) wish to
be heard briefly on the point of order?
Mr. PAYNE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who I
have had the privilege to work with, for his comments. I think his
leadership on the Committee on International Relations has been
exemplary.
I have had the privilege also to work closely with the chairman, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); and I feel very strongly that we
have to finally move. It is the only right thing to do.
The pariah government of Sudan, those persons who bombed our
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, came out of the Sudan. They are
bombing their own people. Two million people have died.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would accept the suggestion of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) that we could work together. And I hope that
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations would also agree to
work along with us. We do realize that this may be perceived as trying
to legislate through appropriations, but I do appreciate his
willingness to work with us.
I commend the gentleman for the relationship that we have and also
commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has
seemingly started to appreciate some of these issues. And, hopefully,
we can work together.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne) explicitly supersedes other law. The amendment,
therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI. The point of order is sustained.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, if possible, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the chairman to discuss an area that I think in our foreign policy that
we overlooked, and that is the funding for the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia.
This is a country that of all the countries in the Balkans has
achieved what none of the others have. And, in fact, what we have is a
multiethnic society that has democracy, a functioning parliament that
we, through our foreign policy, have not kept our agreements with, and
specifically, the agreement that we signed that, if we were there
longer than 5 days, we would renegotiate our agreements for the
utilization of that society during the war in Kosovo.
The toll on Macedonia has been tremendous. They had an influx of
350,000 refugees in a country of 2 million people. That would be like
us taking 45 million people in.
The agreements that were made are not being kept with the Macedonian
people. In this time of instability in the Balkans and the need for
stabilization, it is, I believe, imperative that, number one, we go
back and reemphasize our effort for support for that democracy; and,
number two, we keep the agreement that the administration made.
I would like to enter into the Record the statements by Ambassador
Holbrooke, the fact that the administration had asked for more money
for Macedonia; and, in fact, their request was not for an increase in
money for Macedonia and to make that a part of the Record.
The second area that I think that we need to talk about is the
infrastructure damage that has been done by both the KFOR force and the
European force to their roads and highways which is handicapping their
ability to rebuild their democracy and their economics.
My question would be to the gentleman that if he would he take
another look at this prior to going to conference to see if in fact we
cannot live up to our obligations that were promised, number one, and
number two, invest in a country that has chosen peace instead of
conflict and is demonstrating that a multiethnic parliament and
democracy can work in that area.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we will be happy to
give consideration to that. I think the gentleman is fully aware of the
fact that we have a limited amount of allocation to us.
The time will come when the gentleman will have the opportunity to
vote on whether or not we are going to have an increased allocation.
And if indeed that increased allocation comes, which I am sure the
gentleman will then not object if we are going to fulfill his request,
I certainly will consider that.
I appreciate the knowledge of the gentleman of that area of the world
and especially Macedonia and would pledge to work with him.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to reinforce some of the points
that my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), made but add
that it was not just the road damage. They will have 580 to $600
million estimated in trade damage and other costs. They have 50 to
60,000 refugees still there.
Macedonia was in a terrible situation. Because, unlike the other
Orthodox neighbors, they sided with the United States and they let us
use their roads and let us use their facilities and have paid a
terrible price in trade. And having the refugees there and having our
armed forces go through, they have tried to sustain their balanced
government, but it is under direct challenge.
Because it has been a destabilizing force, now their borders are at
risk. It was never a completely clear border between the different
countries there, anyway. I know that my colleagues are under tremendous
financial pressure. Anybody watching these debates understands that. We
all have the sneaking suspicion that there will be more money later. I
hope my colleagues will strongly consider adding additional funds to a
country that stood with us.
Many of us did not favor that intervention. But when we went in, we
needed to have the protection for American soldiers and the base with
which to put them through. This country cooperated with us and paid a
terrible price, and we need to do what we can to help them.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also give the
same message to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that when the
time comes for an increased allocation whereby we can facilitate these
things, we would appreciate very much the support of the gentleman.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

[[Page H6008]]

any organization which promotes or makes available--
(1) population control educational programs or population
policy educational programs;
(2) family planning services, including, but not limited
to--
(A) the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives;
(B) printing, publication, or distribution of family
planning literature; and
(C) family planning counseling;
(3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or
(4) efforts to change any nation's laws regarding abortion,
family planning, or population control.

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

{time} 1345

For this reason, I offer this amendment to strike all these funds
because there is no other way to stop the use of these funds once the
funds get there, no matter what the restrictions are.
The Mexico City language is something I support and I vote for, and
the attempt is very sincere to try to stop the abuse of the way these
funds are used. But quite frankly the Mexico City language does not do
a whole lot. If the President wants to suspend that language, he can
and he takes a penalty of $12 million, a 3 percent reduction in the
amount of money that becomes available for these programs. It goes from
$385 million down to $373 million and the President can do what he
wants. So there is really no prohibition. We as American taxpayers do
support these programs. You say, Oh, no, they don't. We put
prohibitions. They're not allowed to use it for abortion.
That is not true. I mean, the language is true; but it does not
accomplish that. What it accomplishes is that these funds go in for
buying birth control pills and condoms, and the money that would have
been spent on birth control pills and condoms go and is used to do the
abortion. I believe in the fungibility argument in its entirety, not
just in the family planning. As soon as you give funds in any way
whatsoever to a country such as China that endorses abortion, I mean,
we are participants, we are morally bound to say that we are a
participant in those acts. Even though we say, I hope you don't do it
and you shouldn't do it and we're not authorizing you to do it, we have
to remember that funds are fungible and that they can be used in this
manner.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from New York seek to control the
time in opposition?
Mrs. LOWEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) continues to reserve his
point of order.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the Paul amendment which would
eliminate all of our international family planning and population
programs. The House rightly rejected this amendment last year by a vote
of 145-272. I respectfully submit that we do so again with an even
larger margin.
Our family planning and population programs work hand in hand towards
one very worthy goal, advancing the health and well-being of children
and families. Simply put, if you seek healthy children, you must have
healthy mothers. There is a strong relationship between educating women
on safe motherhood, voluntary family planning and child survival.
Planning pregnancies is one of the most powerful and effective child
survival tools in existence. Postponing early high-risk pregnancies,
giving women's bodies a chance to recover from a previous pregnancy,
and helping women to avoid unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortion
can prevent at least one in four maternal deaths.
We hear again and again that women die from having children too
young, having children too closely spaced together, and by having more
children than their bodies can bear. Getting that message out across to
women is an integral part of our population and family planning work
because healthier mothers will be better able to care for their
children.
Children born to mothers who wait 2 years between births have a much
stronger chance of survival than those born to moms whose births fall
less than 2 years apart. Giving women this information can save
children's lives, can save women's lives. We have to do all we can to
encourage and reinforce the messages of voluntary family planning, safe
motherhood, child survival. This amendment would absolutely destroy our
efforts to help both mother and child. It would destroy the efforts of
the barber in this small village in India to be taught while he is
cutting the hair of these men how to work with the men and women in
teaching them, educating them. That is what family planning is about in
the poorest parts of our world.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the Paul
amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has been a leader on this
international family planning issue as has the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney) and so many others in the House of Representatives.
But as a member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) has led the way.
This is a hard amendment for me to understand. Maybe we need a lesson
in the birds and the bees in this Chamber. We really have to be
thinking seriously about what the message is that will come out of this
Congress if we vote to eliminate all funding for international family
planning. The gentlewoman from New York explained obviously how
necessary this is. We all want to reduce the number of abortions that
take place. I myself personally consider abortion a failure, a failure
of education, of prevention, of opportunity for women to be in control
of their lives and control the timing and size of their families. But
that is so fundamental.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, as we all do, does it
not make sense, Mr. Chairman, that we would, therefore, try to prevent
conception and give people an informed way in which to do that.
So I understand and respect everyone's view on this subject. I
understand it more easily in terms of the gag rule, which I do not
support, but I understand that. But as a woman, the idea that we would
even consider on the

[[Page H6009]]

floor of this House the notion that we should cut off funding for
international family planning is incomprehensible to me for the
following reasons:
One, it would not reduce the number of abortions, family planning.
Two, we have the opportunity from the standpoint of population and the
environment, we have a responsibility to be responsible. I think that I
am going to have to yield back to the gentlewoman, but I do so
bewildered by the maker of this motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has expired. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me see if I can explain as an obstetrician the fundamentals of
the birds and the bees, about the fundamentals of law. Under the
Constitution we are not permitted to do these things.
I agree with much of what has been said. I believe in birth control,
and I believe it should be voluntary. But this is not voluntary on the
part of the American taxpayer. They are the ones who suffer the
consequence of the involuntary compulsion of the tax collector coming
and compelling the American taxpayer to fund things that they find
immoral and wrong. That is the lack of voluntary approach that you
have.
Yes, there are a lot of good intentions. I think that is very good.
But there are a lot of complications that come from these procedures.
As I mentioned before, this nonoxynol, it is a spermicidal, and it
increases the spread of AIDS. Good intentions, unintended consequences.
The American taxpayers are subsidizing this.
What we are saying is that there is a better approach. There is a
voluntary approach through donations, through our churches. But not
through the compulsion of the IRS telling the American taxpayers that
they are compelled to pay for an egregious act that they find
personally abhorrent.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
Does the gentleman from New York wish to make his point of order?

Point of Order

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

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

[[Page H6010]]

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but
to tell the gentleman that we should protect American companies as you
are doing for your constituents in Ohio.
As the gentleman knows, I have addressed this matter with the
director of OPIC and told him that if indeed moneys were expropriated
by the Palestinian Authority, well, then they should discontinue the
delay in making a decision.
But the gentleman is right. As he well knows, the Palestinian
Authority is going to be here in just a few months because they are out
meeting at Camp David now, making concessions, saying that we are going
to give them all of these billions of dollars if they will sign this
peace agreement. I would just like to echo what the gentleman is
saying.

{time} 1400

If we indeed are going to start giving money to the PLO, then they
are going to have to abide by standards of cooperation with the rest of
the world.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the chairman
supporting my amendment?
Mr. CALLAHAN. The chairman is supporting the gentleman's cause, and,
if indeed there was not an objection, I probably would vote for the
amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I did not bring the one that is subject to a point of
order.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I understand that.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I am asking for the gentleman's vote. That is the only
protection this Congress has.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I just told the gentleman that if the amendment were to
come to the floor, I probably would vote for it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I expect that it will.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying this: Rip them off. Go ahead.
Rip off American companies and let monarchs and dictators say ``Go to
hell. Go to court.'' Not in my district. I want an ``aye'' vote on my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 5 minutes
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
ask the Chair to let me know when I have consumed two minutes.
Mr. Chairman, if we can eliminate the bloviating, let me simply say
that I oppose this amendment for two reasons: Number one, it is my
understanding, we do not have the facts in this case. We do not have
the facts in this case, and we should not take an action which could
interfere drastically in the peace talks now going on at Camp David on
the basis of a 5-minute explanation from one Member of Congress who has
an ax to grind on the subject. The gentleman may be right; he may be
wrong. All I know is that my understanding is that at this very moment
the company to which the gentleman refers may be under investigation by
the U.S. Government itself for the way it does business.
Secondly, for us to eliminate all funding for the Palestinian
Authority would be incredibly against the interests of the United
States Government. The last time I talked to Prime Minister Rabin
before he was assassinated, he said to me, ``For God's sake, do not let
anyone interfere with the ability of the United States Government to
deal with the Palestinian Authority, because if you cannot deal with
them, then the only party left on the Arab side you can deal with in
the Middle East is Hamas, and they are terrorists, and then there will
be no hope at all for an agreement for peace in the Middle East.''
Mr. Rabin gave his life looking for that peace, so did Mr. Sadat, and
I do not think that that should be disregarded because one Member of
Congress has come to believe that one company, which may be under
investigation by our own Government, that their interests ought to take
precedence over the United States' national interests.
Mr. Chairman, how much time have I consumed?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said he had but one
speaker remaining, or I could have reserved my time.
Mr. OBEY. Since I said that, the distinguished minority whip has
asked to speak, and so has the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Then the gentleman should have notified me.
Mr. OBEY. I cannot see ahead of time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. The gentleman has also made allegations of an
investigation of a company.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. Being
that the gentleman said he had only one speaker, and I closed, is it in
order to at least let me have a minute to respond to these types of
statements, or shall we keep to the fact that the gentleman claimed he
had but one and forced me to utilize my time?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask all Members to suspend.
Under the rules and precedents of the House, the gentleman from
Wisconsin defending the committee position has the right to close
debate. Other statements which may be made in the course of the debate
cannot be enforced, of course, by the Chair.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Connecticut, because I have another Member who also has
informed me he wishes to comment on the amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio has one company
with a problem in the Palestinian entity. I have a list here that we
just in moments put together of 42 countries where American businesses
have disputes. If we are going to end our foreign policy every time
there is a corporate dispute, we ought to just pack up and go home.
We have had five wars in the last 50 years in this part of the world.
We have had women and children killed, including Americans, in
terrorist activities and accidental bombings and attacks. We are at
Camp David today trying to end this conflict that has gone on for a
century. I admire the gentleman for caring about his constituent, but
our responsibility here for this unique opportunity for peace cannot be
squandered for one economic debate.
Reject the amendment. Support the effort at Camp David.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to also associate myself with the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
I rise in strong support of the Middle East process and in strong
opposition to the Traficant amendment. Right now, as the gentleman from
Connecticut has said, the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian
Authority are meeting in Camp David seeking to forge an agreement to
end a generation of conflict. That leaves us with a very clear choice
today: Do we support that process, or do we seek to disrupt or possibly
derail a just and lasting peace in the Middle East?
Now is not the time to be cutting or conditioning aid to the
Palestinian Authority, or to Israel. It is in our own interest to
support this peace process and to help build the foundations of peace
and progress for the Middle East.
I strongly urge my colleagues to resoundingly defeat this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say to the gentleman from Ohio, after the
peace talks are over we will have plenty of time to assess the conduct
of both the Palestinian Authority and the conduct of the company in
question, and if at that time it is clear that the U.S. Government is
satisfied with the business practices of that company, and if the U.S.
Government concludes that it

[[Page H6011]]

is in the interests of the U.S. taxpayer to proceed, then I will be
happy to entertain such a proposal. But until that point, I believe
that it would be irresponsible of us to proceed with this amendment at
this time. So I would urge a no vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 546, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

limitation on assistance for the government of india

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
12, 2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and a Member opposed
each will control 10 minutes.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama rise?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama will control the time in
opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for the past probably 10 or 12 years, maybe even
longer, I have been coming to the floor talking about the atrocities
that have been taking place at the hands of the Indian government in
places like Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, and other places in India, and
today this amendment is merely to update my colleagues and anybody else
who is paying attention as to where we stand on this issue.
When only a few hundred people were killed in Haiti, we sent 20,000
troops into Haiti at taxpayer expense, and the problems there have not
been resolved. In the Sudan, over 2 million people have been killed,
and the United States has not really done too much.
In Kashmir, there are half a million Indian troops that have been
there for years and years and years imposing marshal law, gang raping
women, taking men out of their homes in the middle of the night never
to be seen again, except maybe turning up in the streams around Kashmir
with their hands and feet bound, having been tortured and drowned.
Amnesty International concludes the policies of the Indian government
in Kashmir to be an official policy of sanctioning extrajudicial
killings. Another half million troops are in Punjab, right next to
Kashmir.
If U.S. action and attention was justified in places like Kosovo and
Bosnia around the world, then we at least ought to be paying attention
to what is going on in the area of human rights violations in places
like Kashmir and Punjab and Nagaland and other places in India.
India does not allow Amnesty International or other human rights
groups to go into these areas. Even Cuba, the last communist bastion in
our hemisphere, allows Amnesty International in. India has killed over
200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab have
been killed since 1984, more than 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir have been
killed since 1988, and thousands of Dalits, or what they call the
untouchables, the blacks in India, have been killed. We do not know how
many of them.
According to our own State Department, India paid over 41,000,
41,000, cash bounties to the police for killing innocent Sikhs from
1991 to 1993. They actually paid bounties to kill some of those people.
In Punjab, Sikhs are picked up in the middle of the night, only to be
found floating dead in the canals with their hands and feet bound. As I
mentioned before, the same thing happened in Kashmir. Some Sikhs are
only so fortunate, and others are just never found.
Recently, India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the CBI, told the
Supreme Court that it had confirmed 2,000 cases of unidentified bodies
that were cremated by the military. Their families did not know what
happened to them. They were all piled up and cremated.
It does not get any better in Kashmir. Women, because of their Muslim
beliefs, are taken out of their homes in the middle of the night and
gang raped, while their husbands are forced to stay inside.
The State Department says on page 3 of its report released this year,
``The National Human Rights Commission does not have the power to
investigate the military's actions in that area.''
They went on to say, ``The Indian government rejected the
Commission's recommendations to bring the army and paramilitary forces
under closer scrutiny by allowing the Commission to investigate
complaints of their excesses.'' So the military has so much power, the
Human Rights Commission in India cannot even look into these things.
Human Rights Watch, an international organization, says, ``Despite
government claims that normalcy has returned to Kashmir, Indian troops
in the State continue to carry out summary executions, disappearances,
rape and torture.'' That is from this year's Human Rights Report, the
1999 Human Rights Report, issued last July.
``Methods of torture include severe beatings with truncheons, rolling
a heavy log on the legs, hanging the detainee upside down, and using
electric shocks on various parts of their body.'' Just imagine what it
would be like if you had to go through that.
``Security forces are making Dalit women,'' the untouchables, ``eat
human defecation, parading them naked, and gang raping them.''
Amnesty International says, ``Torture, including rape and ill-
treatment, continued to be endemic throughout the country.'' That is in
their annual report.
``Disappearances continue to be reported during the year,
predominantly in Jammu and Kashmir.'' Amnesty International again, the
recent report.
``Hundreds of extrajudicial executions were reported in many
States.'' Again, in the same report.
In July of 1998, police picked up Kashmira Singh. Police said they
were investigating a theft. They then tortured him for 15 days. They
rolled logs over his legs until he could not walk. They submerged him
in a tub of water and slashed his thighs with razor blades and stuffed
hot peppers into the wounds.
Muslim persecution. March 1996, Mr. Jalil Andrabi, chairman of the
Kashmir Commission of Jurists and a human rights advocate, was abducted
and slain 2 weeks before he was to travel to Geneva to testify before
the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

{time} 1415

Christian persecution. Since Christmas day of 1998, there has been a
wave of attacks against Christians all over the country. Churches have
been burned, Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked,
nuns have been raped and priests have been killed. Our State Department
agrees, there has been a sharp increase in attacks against Christians
and Christian organizations. This past weekend, just this past weekend,
two churches were bombed in India. Last month, a women's prayer meeting
was bombed by militant Hindus. Last month, four Christian missionaries
who were distributing Bibles were beaten, one so severely that he may
lose both his arms and his legs.
Right now, we are talking about giving India more money. We are
talking

[[Page H6012]]

about today in this appropriation bill giving them more money and yet
India has increased their military budget this year by 28 percent. They
are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on conventional and
nuclear weapons, and we are subsidizing, indirectly, that proliferation
of weaponry. This year, the President has requested $46.6 million for
developmental assistance to India through AID. That is an increase of
almost $18 million from last year's request. I cannot recall the
President asking for this large of a request for India ever.
I understand that the Glenn amendment, which passed the U.S. Senate,
is currently imposing sanctions on India for some of these violations.
So why should we be increasing aid to a country that we are currently
sanctioning for human rights abuses and other travesties? It makes
absolutely no sense to me.
We are talking about 25 percent cut with this amendment. I think it
is justifiable, it sends a strong message, one that will be heard
around the world, but especially in India.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for agreeing to
withdraw his amendment, which I understand he is going to do
momentarily.
The objective, or my objective in handling this bill is to wind up
with a final document that does not have offensive language in there to
my views or the views I think of the majority Members of Congress. The
very fact that the gentleman has agreed to withdraw it gives me my
victory, and I can see no sense in standing here all day long and
delaying the possibility of whether or not Members are going to be able
to get out of here in a timely fashion to catch their arranged flights
to go home for the weekend. So I have accomplished my mission, and that
is that the offensive language to me, with respect to India, is going
to be withdrawn and the amendment is going to be withdrawn.
But out of deference to those who want to speak in response to the
gentleman's remarks, I am going to yield 7 of my 10 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), with the forewarning, Mr.
Chairman, that she is not going to come forward with a unanimous
consent request to extend this debate and preclude the possibility of
Members getting out of here in a timely fashion this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), and I ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to
control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) controls 7 minutes which she may yield to others.
There was no objection.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton
amendment. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Ackerman).
(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana. I only regret that we do not
have as much time to put the light of truth to so many of the things
that he said, because we have not been given equal time in this debate.
That being said, the House has rejected the gentleman's amendment on
repeated occasions, and I do hope and expect it will do so again today.
I think it should be clear to all by now that punishing India by
cutting our assistance is not a policy that this U.S. Congress will
adopt.
The Burton amendment is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. In the
wake of the President's successful visit to India, the U.S. and India
have a new opportunity to build a broad-based relationship. Instead of
applauding India for establishing a joint working group with the U.S.
to fight against terrorism, the amendment would punish India by cutting
crucial assistance.
The gentleman makes a great many allegations about human rights
abuses in India, but conveniently ignores the fact that the people of
India are the major victims of terrorism perpetrated by groups
supported and trained in Pakistan and associated with Osama bin-Ladin.
In fact, after the Kargil incursion and the hijacking of an Indian
Airlines plane to Afghanistan, the Pakistani-backed terrorists have
stepped up their attacks on innocent civilians and security forces in
Kashmir.
To characterize India's struggle against terrorism as a violation of
human rights is not only unjust, but also provides aid and comfort to
the terrorists who have claimed thousands of innocent victims in India.
That there are things that go wrong in any civilized society, including
India, are true, and some of the things the gentleman points out are
true, but these are not done by the government of India.
Mr. Chairman, churches are bombed and burned here. People are killed
every day here. Women are raped every day of the year here. These
things are terrible, but it does not mean that our government is
responsible. The best way for us to help India continue to improve its
human rights record is to engage in positive and constructive dialogue,
one great democracy to another, not with punitive sanctions and cuts.
The momentum that we have gained in relations by the President's
visit needs to be strengthened and sustained. For Congress to act now
to stigmatize India for alleged human rights abuses would send the
wrong signal to the 1 billion democratic people in India. I urge all of
our colleagues to reject this amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). This is the time
that we should be working together on environmental, education, and
health issues.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise, as I have many times,
in opposition to the Burton amendment, and for our continued support
for the world's largest democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to this
ill-conceived amendment.
This legislation has many problems, but one of the bright spots is a
continued commitment to our Indian allies.
Unfortunately, this amendment will unfairly cut the critically-needed
economic assistance funding for India included in this legislation.
As an important ally and a nation committed to strong democratic
government, India has worked hard to ensure that the human rights of
all its citizens are protected.
The Indian government has aggressively responded to assaults against
religious minorities and has repeatedly expressed its commitment to
ensuring tolerance. Recently, in response to attacks on Christians,
Prime Minister Vajpayee reiterated his nation's desire to be inclusive
of all faiths and to ensure equal justice under law for all Indians. We
should support these efforts.
India is also one of our key trading partners and the Indian
government has worked hard to create a friendly environment for U.S.
firms.
As a result, U.S. investment in India has skyrocketed in the last ten
years. Direct U.S. investment in India has increased from $500 million
in 1991 to more than $15 billion today.
Indin has demonstrated a commitment to continue this growth and I
strongly believe that we must support their efforts.
As a key ally and a fellow democracy, India deserves our support.
However, Congressman Burton's amendment, rather than rewarding India,
seeks to punish the people of India by withholding crucial humanitarian
assistance.
India is a strong and vibrant democracy. It is the world's largest
democracy. And, the U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest
investor.
The momentum gained in U.S.-India relations in recent years needs to
be sustained and strengthened.
A vote for the Burton amendment would send the wrong signal to the
people of India from the U.S. Congress at this very critical time.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

[[Page H6013]]

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the arguments against the punitive anti-
India amendment are stronger this year than they have ever been. In
March, President Clinton completed the first visit to India by an
American President in more than 20 years. The President's trip
accompanied by a bipartisan congressional delegation produced a range
of agreements on trade and investments, security partnerships and
cooperation on energy and the environment. In September, India's
democratically elected prime minister will be visiting the U.S. to
further build upon this progress, especially in the area of economic
relations.
India is the world's largest democracy. It is a country that has made
tremendous progress in free market economic reforms over the past
decade. But more to the point, since the gentleman from Indiana has
been critical of India's human rights records, India's Human Rights
Commission has been praised by our State Department and many
international agencies for its independence and effectiveness. Indeed,
India has become a model for the rest of Asia and the rest of the
developing world in terms of democratization, economic reform and human
rights.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, cutting aid to India only serves to hamper
America's efforts to reduce poverty, eradicate disease and promote
broad-based economic growth in the world's second most populous Nation.
This amendment never made any sense, and it certainly makes less sense
now.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, it is in America's national
interests to support and sustain India's development. The Commerce
Department identifies India as one of the 10 Big Emerging Markets. With
a growing high-tech industry, combined with the support and confidence
of American investment, India has positioned itself to be one of the
great success stories of the 21st century.
India has made tremendous progress in addressing human rights issues.
The State Department has praised India for its substantial progress in
the area of human rights. It is a strong, vibrant democracy that
features an independent judiciary, diverse political parties and a free
press, which vigorously assists in the investigation of human rights
abuses.
This amendment threatens the relationship between the United States
and the Republic of India. We should not be punishing countries like
India, an example of freedom and democracy in Asia, while rewarding
authoritarian governments like China which supports forced labor, which
opposes freedom of the press, which opposes freedom of religion.
Mr. Chairman, the Burton amendment is a step in the wrong direction
for American foreign policy. We should oppose it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because I believe that we
want peace in India and Pakistan, and my visit with the President in
those countries, I ask that we oppose this amendment so that peace can
be had in those nations.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me that we come
out here on this Burton amendment again. It is going to lose. But I
implore my colleagues to look seriously and objectively at India. The
proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently
intimidates its religious minorities. To use a Hindi word, that is
bakwaas; that is absolute nonsense. The Indians know they have a
problem, but they are the most secular country in the world. They
appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, only the second time in their
history, to look at the death of an American missionary. They also have
a separate Human Rights Commission that operates in this country.
In contrast, consider our own treatment of Arab Americans in this
country. When they are portrayed as terrorists, we turn a blind eye.
India recognizes their problem and deals with them. I believe that
India has problems, but it is a nation that is dealing with them.
Rather than debate these kinds of amendments, we ought to find ways to
work cooperatively with India to support their development.
Vote against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, here we are discussing the Burton amendment yet again.
It never passes, and as far as I can tell, is brought up just to be
inflammatory.
I implore my colleagues to look at the nation of India objectively.
Since Independence, India has been a thriving democracy where suffrage
is universal and voting rates are higher than the United States.
Unlike most former colonial nations, India has never suffered under a
military dictator. The United States Military has more influence and
participation in our government than the Indian Military has in theirs.
India is a stable democracy, arguably the strongest and most stable in
all of Asia.
Proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently
intimidates its religious minorities. That is bakwaas--pure nonsense.
India is one of the most secular states in the world. India recognizes
and guarantees religious freedoms and has the commitment to the rule of
law to enforce those guarantees.
There have been isolated incidents--anomalies really--that have made
the worldwide news, however, India has publicly, officially, and
resoundingly responded. India appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, for
only the second time in this country's history, to investigate an
instance of a Christian missionary's death. Also, India has a separate
Human Rights Commission that is active and highly independent.
What is our response in this country when American-Muslims are
depicted vilely as terrorists? We blindly turn away. India admits these
problems and addresses them in the courts as well as and in the open
and totally free press.
India has its problems, but it is a nation dealing with those
problems. Rather than debate amendments that divide the US and India,
we ought to work with India help come to grips with their problems and
be a partner in the development of technology, trade and culture. The
US and India have much in common and the potential to be great
partners, we must not cut India off.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend from Indiana's
amendment. While I commend my colleague's sincere concern about human
rights and his tireless work on behalf of the oppressed, I have to
disagree with him about his assessment regarding India. India has a
fiercely democratic system that protects and promotes religious freedom
and an independent judicial system.
We must not forget that the tensions between the people of India and
Pakistan are to a very large degree fueled by communist China.
Beijing's mischief making in Burma, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and occupied
Tibet, nations that surround India, is a dangerous attempt to keep
democratic India off balance. China has sold over $2 billion in arms to
the drug dealing Burmese junta. It has given or sold nuclear and
conventional weapons to Pakistan. China occupies Tibet on India's
northern border and Beijing is Sri Lanka's major supplier of arms.
India faces a difficult challenge in fighting extremists. The same
vicious terrorists who attack innocent Indians are also responsible for
the deaths of many innocent Americans. And our requests to the
Pakistani government to pressure their Taliban clients to turn over the
Saudi terrorist Osama bin Ladin to American law officers has fallen on
deaf ears.
I regrettably, oppose my good friend's amendment. We need to work
closer with democratic India to promote our similar concerns throughout
the region. However, this is a wrong amendment targeted at the wrong
country.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
for her excellent work on this and so many other issues.

[[Page H6014]]

We have had an interesting year. President Clinton has led a
delegation to India and we have begun to undo the damage of the Cold
War where these two great democracies, the United States and India, did
not have the best of relations. The Burton amendment is inappropriate
almost any time; it is particularly inappropriate at this moment. We
need to build a closer relationship with this largest free country in
the world.
It is easy for us to run our democracy with the great wealth we have.
India runs a democracy in excess of 1 billion people with some of the
poorest people on this planet. We ought to be working to make a closer
relationship between India and the United States, these two great
leading democracies, and not drive a wedge between them. I urge
rejection of this amendment and the concept that somehow India should
be a whipping boy. India should be admired for its great successes in
building a democracy in one of the largest and one of the poorest
countries with some incredible economic development.
I want to commend the gentlewoman from California for her work in
these last several days and all of her work here.

{time} 1430

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to
my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
proposition of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) that we not
provide a 50 percent increase in aid to India. The fact is, we should
be asking ourselves why, in a country that has a vibrant and growing
economy, a country that is now moving forward on its own, is the United
States continuing to give more and more foreign aid to a country like
India.
Beyond that question, yes, let us concede that India is a democracy.
We are proud that India has made some progress and stands in that
region as a democratically-elected government. In Pakistan, I am afraid
they have gone in the opposite direction.
But that does not mean that we should have a reflexive, a reflexive
response to give India money, or just ignore the transgressions that
the Indian government commits upon its own people. We should be
encouraging this democracy to live up to the principles of human rights
and freedom that they are violating, and not just try to cover it up.
The fact is that it is clear that there are severe violations of the
rights of Christians, of Sikhs, of Muslims, that have been blessed by
the Indian government, if not at the highest level, at the local level.
We must also recognize the continuing violence and terrorism on the
subcontinent. Most of it flows from one fact, and that fact is that
India has refused to allow a democratic election in Kashmir in order to
solve a problem that a long time ago happened in 1948.
The United Nations has mandated that they have an election and permit
the people of Kashmir and Jammu to control their own destiny. Then this
terrorism that we have heard about would disappear. What we have now
instead is terrorism on the part of government itself, trying to
terrorize the people of Kashmir and other dissidents in India into
submission.
Terrorism is nothing more than an attack on unarmed people. We see
that in Kashmir, unarmed people are being attacked by soldiers who are
trying to push them into submission because they know in a free
election the Kashmiris would vote not to be part of India.
Let us not give India aid anymore. If we do, let us mandate
democratic change and human rights.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I think in this debate we also need to think of India
in strategic terms, not taking the action that the gentleman has
proposed, which I think would be harmful to the relationship with
India.
In strengthening our ties with India, we have the great advantage of
common values of democracy and rule of law. With that, we can push for
the further reforms we want to see in India. But I think we should all
remember that it is going to take engagement to push for those reforms.
I think a decade of reforms by several governments has moved India
from socialism and spurred economic growth. There is a new generation
of Indians who have taken advantage of this liberalization of their
economic climate, and frankly, I think that we see reforms coming to
the fore in India. I think these reforms on the human rights front and
in terms of trade can frankly succeed there because they have the rule
of law as an underpinning.
I think there is an effective bridge with the Indo-American
community. I think for those reasons this would be counterproductive. I
think that increasing U.S.-India cooperation is about maintaining a
regional security balance. I would urge withdrawal of the amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Once again, the object of this piece of legislation is to get a
document that does not have language that is either offensive to my
philosophy or even to the will of the House.
The gentleman from Indiana in the essence of time has agreed to
withdraw his amendment. That is the purpose. The language will not be
in there.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will end by saying that a few
years ago, this amendment did pass. Since then the other side, the
Indian lobby, has been very effective. I congratulate them on their
effectiveness.
The problem still exists, though. I hope one day we will not even
have to talk about it because they will have solved that problem.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman. Once again Mr. Burton seeks to treat our
friends in India in an unfair and unjust manner. The House should
reject this ageless exercise by our colleague. This, like all the
others over the years, is an ill-advised amendment.
This Burton Amendment, which would prohibit development assistance to
India, is a step in the wrong direction.
The Government of India has consistently been moving at a rapid pace
to strengthen its ties with the United States and the World. The
economic and diplomatic relationship between the United States, the
world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest democracy, can
only be hurt by successful passage of this Burton amendment. We can not
and must not ignore the important progress and mutual benefit we have
achieved in recent years.
The Government of India has been on a constant pace of change, for
the last decade. Recent elections have featured world record voter
turnout, essentially free of violence.
Mr. Burton, as usual, claims that human rights violations are taking
place in India. That claim is not supported by the facts. As Members of
Congress, we must be very careful not to view the Government of India
as being callous to these alleged human rights violations.
India has made great strides in their battle to bring its various and
diverse interests together. Indeed, recent reports by the U.S. State
Department declare that India continues to make notable and important
progress with its human rights problems. It would be false and
misdirected to say that India is not our friend.
U.S. business in India has grown at an astonishing rate of more than
50% a year over the past ten years, with the United States becoming
India's largest trading partner and largest investor.
India has more than a half century of democratic self rule, and we
must not break the ties that we have so diligently strived to assemble.
We must strengthen those ties. That is why we must defeat this latest
Burton amendment
We must also note that Indian Americans have become an important and
active part of the fabric of this Nation. Organized around the country,
they too use their influence to press for continued improvement in
their native land.
Reject this latest Burton Amendment! There is much too much at stake!
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton. This debate seems to
be an unfortunate rite of summer here in the House. Every year we
debate a Foreign Operation Appropriations bill and every year the
gentleman from Indiana tries to cut funding for India, one of our most
important allies. As in previous years, this attack should be rejected.
The amendment in question would eliminate programs aimed at improving
India's development. As my colleagues know, U.S. aid to India is
primarily used for food, family planning

[[Page H6015]]

programs, child survival programs and infrastructure development. We
should be doing all that we can to support India's government in
stimulating economic development and opportunity for the Indian people,
not standing in the way of these productive efforts.
Unfortunately, U.S. policy-makers have long neglected this important
region, one that is home to one-fifth of the world population. That's
why I applaud the efforts of President Clinton who visited India
earlier this year and who has invited the Indian Prime Minister to the
United States later this year.
There has been good news about India's economic performance in recent
years; fiscal reforms, market opening and the privatization of state-
owned companies has led to reduced inflation and tariffs as well as a
reduced budget deficit. The economy's current 6 percent rate of
expansion puts it among the fastest-growing in the world, as the
Economist reported earlier last month. India's economic growth
underlies its enhanced significance politically as a power that will
play a decisive role for many years to come.
The U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest investor.
India continues to reduce and eliminate barriers to trade, and U.S.
investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to over $15
billion in 1999.
Passage of the Burton amendment, however, would be a blow to the
flourishing bilateral partnership between the United States and India
and a setback to Indian political and human rights reform.
As in previous years, the Burton amendment is wrong. It was rejected
in a bipartisan manner. I urge all of my colleagues to again defeat
this amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana is
withdrawn.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

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

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

TITLE VII--LIMITATION PROVISIONS

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
12, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds in the foreign
operations appropriations bill from being used in violation of existing
laws against the importation of goods made by forced labor;
specifically, the Tariff Act of 1930. It is not a new law, but since
this act was passed the U.S. Government has turned a blind eye to the
repeated violations of the import of goods made by forced labor
overseas.
Forced labor violates the rights of workers and undermines pro-
democratic forces by providing financial resources and international
support to the totalitarian dictators under whom they languish. The
labor system, for instance, in the People's Republic of China, known as
Lao Gai or reform through labor, imprisons 8 million Chinese in slave
camps and mental institutions.
The Lao Gai prison systems continues Mao Zedong's politics of
despotism. In these work camps prisoners are subjected to beatings, to
torture, and to near starvation.
The United States imports $70 billion of goods from China, often
goods made in these Lao Gai prisons.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in the essence of time and with respect
to those schedules that have been prearranged, I will be happy to
accept the gentleman's amendment if we can discontinue debate on the
subject.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I accept that, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing
and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
I would say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I have
serious concerns about the operation of our Nation's assistance
programs with respect to Ukraine and Russia.
The gentleman and his subcommittee have been most helpful, but I
believe there are some remaining items that need attention,
particularly in the arena of agriculture, where U.S. policy towards
Russia and Ukraine have lacked primacy, have generally supported the
old order rather than reform, and have been unrealistic in meeting the
basic needs of villagers and small holders who are raising the majority
of food in both nations.
First, most people know that agriculture depends upon seasons. There
is a time to plant, a time to nourish, and a time to harvest. No one of
us can change this natural cycle.
However, it is my experience that the Agency for International
Development has not been sufficiently sensitive to these natural
deadlines when considering applications for program assistance in
agriculture. Approvals are delayed past planting dates. Termination
dates are set earlier than harvest dates. It is as if the project is
being set up to fail because these natural deadlines are being ignored.
Can the chairman assure me that as we move towards conference on this
bill, that we can work to be sure that AID focuses more attention on
agricultural reform in Ukraine and Russia, that it improves the speed
of its application review process, and that the duration of these
projects comports with the seasonal deadline?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the
gentlewoman's concern and will be pleased to work with her to be sure
that AID makes the improvement in its contracting process that she has
suggested.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman.
Secondly, anyone who knows Ukraine knows that its economic future
will be highly dependent upon a reformed agricultural sector. To fail
to recognize this fact in any development program is to ignore this
country's natural strength.
While I know that the gentleman is not in a position to commit to a
specific amount, I know that recent aid for agricultural development
has been declining globally, both in terms of dollars and as a relative
portion of the AID package.
Can the chairman give me any assurances that we can work to increase
the proportion of assistance to agricultural reform efforts in any aid
package that is provided?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again, I understand
the gentlewoman's concern. Our committee report supports her approach.
Ms. KAPTUR. I again thank the chairman.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Russian food aid, the
Agency for International Development has not placed a high enough
priority on agricultural and food systems development there.
Would the chairman agree with me that any food aid provided to Russia
should be leveraged for greater impact, that any resources generated by
this aid should be directed toward substantial economic growth and a
reformed agricultural sector, and that agricultural projects should
focus on the private sector, especially small-scale producers, small
hold farmers, and women in order to maximize impact in fostering reform
and allowing aid to reach the greatest number of people?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I agree with the gentlewoman, we should always use our
assistance programs in the most effective manner possible.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for his understanding, his
assistance,

[[Page H6016]]

his cooperation, his leadership, and his dispatch.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As he
knows, I have an amendment pending relative to the Panama Canal.
Given the gentleman's concerns with regard to the impact of the
amendment and the timeliness of its consideration, there are
approximately 30 Members who have expressed interest in the issues
raised by this amendment in that with the abandonment of the United
States' military presence in that theater, many of us are concerned
about the threat of drugs coming through Panama into our Nation, as
well as the inability of us to appropriately respond in the case of
international defense needs.
For that reason, I was hoping to condition an appropriation in this
act, to predicate it upon the good faith negotiations between the
Government of Panama and the Government of the United States to allow
the reinitiation of military presence, either at Howard Air Force Base
or whatever appropriate location may be determined.
In light of the chairman's concerns about the consequences of this
amendment, I will not offer the amendment, but wish to seek the
chairman's agreement and assistance as this bill moves forward to seek
whatever manner or remedy may be available to us to initiate
discussions for the reestablishment of some military presence within
the country.
I thank the chairman for his courtesies in yielding to me.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman, and we will be happy to work with the gentleman to achieve
his goals, because we share them.

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

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with regard to my heretofore discussed
amendment No. 23, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a
recorded vote be vacated.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a brief colloquy with
the chairman relative to that issue, and ask the chairman, if he would,
to see what would be possible to offer some remedy within reasonable
means that might meet the effects of Congress.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will work with the gentleman
from Ohio to try to find some legislative solution to the problems that
exist with the Palestinian Authority and the gentleman's company from
Ohio, because I happen to believe that the gentleman's company from
Ohio has a substantial claim that should be paid by the Palestinian
Authority, if indeed there is a way to do it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not want in
any way the form of that discussion to have any overtones on the
importance of what is happening in the talks between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. I will defer to the good judgment of the
chairman.
I thank the chairman for his consideration.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

{time} 1445

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

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

Amendment No. 48 offered by Ms. Kaptur:

H.R. 4811

Offered By: Ms. Kaptur

Page 132, after line 12, insert the following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

limitation on assistance to the government of ukraine

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
12, 2000, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) reserves a
point of order.
The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes on
her amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically is a limitation amendment,
limiting assistance to Ukraine reducing it by an amount equal to the
amount of any claim outstanding on the date of enactment of this act,
whether that to be a U.S. business enterprise, a U.S. private and
voluntary organization against the government of Ukraine, or any
Ukrainian business enterprise.
It is my intention, as I discuss this, to draw attention to the lack
of resolution on claims by Land O'Lakes and Pioneer and other such
claims.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was of the impression that the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I, in the essence of time, I
sought recognition to strike the last word to give her the ability to,
I thought, express her views on this subject, which as the gentlewoman
full well knows, is going to be ruled out of order, and in the essence
of time I would ask the gentlewoman to keep her comments brief so we
can get out of Dodge.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do intend to keep
them brief, but we entered into a colloquy and I appreciate the
gentleman's forbearance on that, but this was in the form of an
amendment.
I wanted to use the opportunity to speak about the lack of repayment
by Ukraine of various debts that are owed

[[Page H6017]]

to companies in our country and also to speak about U.S. policy toward
Russia and Ukraine, particularly as it relates to a sector critical to
long-term stability in those nations, agriculture and sustainable food
production.
Mr. Chairman, sadly and incredibly, U.S. policy toward Russia and
Ukraine have ignored agriculture and those nations governments are not
inclined to pursue a path toward reform without prodding. U.S. policies
have not only failed to elevate agriculture's importance as a key
economic and social transformation mechanism; but our actions have
generally supported the old order, rather than the new, and have been
seriously deficient in meeting the basic needs of villagers and small
holders who are raising the majority of food in both nations.
It is my intent to be very brief; however, I want to state for the
record that students of history will attest, the economic and social
systems of the former Soviet state were premised on the production of
collective farms and the distribution of their earnings to social
welfare concerns within those countries, everything from schools to
hospitals. Thus, agriculture was more than a sidebar activity in the
former Soviet Union. It was the spine of the economy.
When the Soviet system collapsed, the West made a very serious, and I
might add continuing mistake, in its efforts to help those nations
reform and transform. It has largely ignored agriculture. How myopic.
Any serious effort to transform the economies of those nations must be
rooted in the countryside.
Mr. Chairman, not only have the fundamentals of agricultural reform
been largely absent from U.S. policy initiatives toward Russia and
Ukraine, some of the steps we have taken have been absolutely wrong-
headed. In Russia, for example, the direct food aid provided through
AID and USAID has largely supported the very parastatal entities that
still control production.
A year ago, when the U.S. Government, without a vote of this
Congress, sent over $1 billion of food aid to Russia, there was no
agreement that the proceeds of the sale of those commodities would be
used for reform in the rural countryside. In fact, the proceeds are
being deposited in the Russian pension fund, an account over which we
have no control, no voice, no oversight.
Similarly in Ukraine, millions of dollars have been directed to what
one can politely call the establishment, but not to people desperately
trying to eke out a living. Take the issue of U.S. tractor sales to
Ukraine. The sales were conducted through the government of Ukraine.
Those tractors, which each cost $100,000 more than they would have cost
in the free enterprise system, could only be afforded by the old
collectives, not the humble entrepreneurs and women villagers in
babushkas struggling to restore Ukraine as the breadbasket of that
region.
Whether the West likes to admit it or not, the vast majority of food
being produced in those countries is now occurring on the small holder
plots, largely tilled by older women. Nothing from our billions of
dollars have ever reached these deserving people.
Somebody somewhere better pay attention to what is happening in
Russian and Ukraine. The West's media is captivated by the goings on in
Moscow and Kiev and the political intrigue surrounding who the next
prime minister or president will be.
I will tell my colleagues, put on your mud boots and walk into the
countryside where the pain gets deeper. Who is paying attention to the
fact that 70 percent to 80 percent of the diet of ordinary citizens in
Russia and Ukraine is bread and potatoes?
It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to put my statement in the Record. I am going to
submit everything that has gone wrong in terms of aide assistance to
Russia and Ukraine since independence was granted there.
I want to use this opportunity to speak about U.S. policy toward
Russia and Ukraine, particularly as relates to a sector critical to
long term stability in those nations--agriculture and sustainable food
production. Sadly, incredibly, U.S. policy toward Russia and Ukraine
have ignored agriculture. And, those nations' governments are not
inclined to pursue a reform path without prodding.
U.S. policies have not only failed to elevate agriculture's
importance as a key to economic and social transformation. But our
actions have generally supported the old order rather than the new, and
have been seriously deficient in meeting the basic needs of villagers
and small holders who are raising the majority of food in both nations.
As students of history will attest, the economic and social systems
of the former Soviet state were premised on the production of
collective farms and the distribution of their earnings to social
welfare concerns within the state--everything from schools to
hospitals. Thus, agriculture was more than a sidebar issue in the
former Soviet Union. It was spine of the economy. When the Soviet
system collapsed, the west made a very serious--and I might add
continuing--mistake in its efforts to help those nations reform and
transform. It has largely ignored agriculture. How myopic. Any serious
effort to transform the economies of these nations must be rooted in
the countryside.
Not only have the fundamentals of agricultural reform been largely
absent from U.S. policy initiatives toward Russia and Ukraine, some of
the steps we have taken have been absolutely wrong headed. In Russia,
for example, the direct food aid provided through AID and USDA has
largely supported the very parastatal entities that still control
production. A year ago, when the U.S. government, without a vote of the
Congress, sent over $1 billion in food aid to Russia, there was no
agreement that the proceeds of the sale of those commodities would be
used for reform in the rural countryside. In fact, the proceeds are
being deposited in the Russian Pension fund--an account over which we
have no control, no voice, no oversight.
Similarly, in Ukraine, millions of dollars have been directed to what
one can politely call the establishment, but not to people desperately
trying to eke out a living. Take the issue of U.S. tractor sales to
Ukraine. The sales were conducted through the government of Ukraine.
Those tractors, which each cost $100,000 more than they would have cost
in a free enterprise system, could only be afforded by the old
collectives, not the humble entrepreneurs and women villagers in
babushkas struggling to restore Ukraine as the breadbasket of that
region.

Whether the West likes to admit it or not, the vast majority of food
being produced in those countries is now occurring on the small holder
plots, largely tilled by older women. Nothing from our billions of
dollars have even reached these deserving people.
Somebody somewhere better pay attention to what is happening in
Russia and Ukraine. The West's media is captivated by the goings on in
Moscow and Kiev, and the political intrigue surrounding who the next
prime minister or president might be. But I will tell you, put on your
mud boots, and walk into the countryside where the pain gets deeper.
Who's paying attention to the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the diet of
ordinary citizens of Russia and Ukraine is bread and potatoes. Caloric
intake is going down. If the price of bread rises, political unrest is
not far behind.
Time and again, the people of those nations go waiting and wanting,
while assistance from the West misses the mark--
In Russia, the Russian Rural Credit Fund that could help real Russian
farmers develop private operations goes waiting and wanting for cash,
while U.S. assistance flows into government coffers;
In Ukraine, in 1995, the U.S. government gave $3.6 million in
commodities through Land O'Lakes to help Ukraine. The proceeds were to
be used to help Ukrainian agriculture. But it didn't happen. For all
these years, the U.S. government has tried to settle this matter, the
latest offer being $1 million for settlement. Promises of payment were
made last fall. Then last December, I personally asked newly reelected
President Kuchma to intervene in this matter. Last winter, when I
traveled to Ukraine, I left a similar request with the Prime Minister's
office. Promises were made again when I held a meeting this year
between USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and the Ukrainian Ambassador. But
these promises have not resulted in performance. Instead, we have seen
letter after letter, phone call after phone call, argument after
argument about whether or not the right documents have been exchange or
the correct contact number has been referenced.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the grandmas in babushkas who till the fields,
and literally feed that nation, don't even have good shovels or seed.
They get no real help either from the West or from the government of
Ukraine. What kind of wrong headedness is this? Frankly, we'd be better
off to send them seed packets and small rototillers with enough fuel to
make it through the planting season. It would be more practical and hit
a home run where it matters.
Our own Agency of International Development ignores the fact that
agriculture depends upon seasons. There is a time to plant, a time to
nourish, and a time to harvest. No one of us can change this natural
timetable. So why

[[Page H6018]]

would USAID ignore these natural deadlines when Americans attempting to
make a difference in agriculture in the field face approval delays past
planting dates? Or contract termination dates set earlier than harvest
dates? It appears as if even the meager projects addressing rural
reform are purposefully set to fail because natural deadlines are
ignored.
Let me focus on the amendment relating to Ukraine. It basically is a
limitation amendment--limiting assistance to Ukraine, reducing it by an
amount equal to the amount of any claim outstanding on the date of the
enactment of this Act--whether that be a U.S. business enterprise, a
U.S. private and voluntary organization against the government of
Ukraine or any Ukrainian business enterprise.
It is offered as a way of getting the attention of the government of
Ukraine to the serious outstanding issues that block full cooperation
between us, not just in agriculture but as partners in a market
economy.
It is my intention to withdraw this amendment this year, in hopes
that final resolution can be reached on such matters as Land O'Lakes
and Pioneer Seed. But, I reserve my rights to attach this amendment to
subsequent legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) seek to
control the time in opposition?
Mr. GILMAN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of
order?
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the gentlewoman from
Ohio to withdraw her amendment?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this
amendment this year, in hopes that final resolution can be reached on
such matters as Land O'Lakes and Pioneer Seed; but I reserve my rights
to attach this amendment to subsequent legislation, including perhaps
legislation emanating from the gentleman's commitment at the
appropriate point.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nebreska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) for bringing up this subject. I think what has happened in
the latter decade of the 20th century, with respect to our assistance
programs, internationally and American, to the former Soviet Union,
certainly including Russia and the Ukraine, has really been a
tremendous blow.
It has, I think, been counterproductive for causing them to move to a
market-oriented economy. It has been counterproductive for democracy.
In fact, it has contributed further to the corruption that has pervaded
so many of the former Republics of the Soviet Union, including,
unfortunately, Ukraine.
We have, as the gentleman knows, and I am sure the gentlewoman is
involved directly, so many positive contexts with the people of
Ukraine, but to see so much of our resources diverted. Recently, it was
suggested by a reputable source, an independent source in this country,
that as much as $1 billion to $1.5 billion in assistance,
international, including American, is diverted each month to private
bank accounts, at least exported from that country at a time when those
countries really need to have capital, their own and to attract foreign
capital.
We have this huge outflow through Cyprus and other points, and it is
a robbery of the assets and the potential and the future for the
Ukrainian people and for the Russian people and for some of the smaller
republics of the former Soviet Union.
I think we really have to be more insistent; we need to be more
careful in having auditing of exactly where these international funds
have gone. It seems to me in the past we have had too many decisions
made on supporting various leaders of the former Soviet Union,
certainly in the case of Yeltsin, when, in fact, we should have been
building institutions from the bottom up, and working with those
governors and local officials where, in fact, we have something
approaching honest government and accounting for the resources
presented to them by the international community.
Mr. Chairman, the IMF resources have been misused. In fact, the
leadership direction to the IMF has come unfortunately from this
country and from this administration. So I regret greatly that we have
lost this opportunity in so many of the taxpayers' funds and funds from
the world's community have been diverted to improper means.
The gentlewoman raises questions about those Caterpillar tractors. I
have heard the same story how they ended up in garages of the local
officials there in a very corrupt process. American companies many
times are left holding the bills, as well as our taxpayers. So I
appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this up.
We need to have reform. We need to be more insistent to make sure
that the funds we do provide are properly spent and accounted for; and
I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for
the remarks. First of all, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) for chairing the Ukrainian caucus, for keeping the
Ukrainian problem before us in the Congress. I happen to have a large
Ukrainian American constituency in my own area. I am very much
concerned about the future of Ukraine and its democratic reforms. A
great deal has to be done, and we thank the gentlewoman for her making
certain that the Congress addresses these issues.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) for taking time out of his busy schedule to be here on
such a critical issue.
I wanted to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing
and Related Programs, for allowing us just this moment. If so many
billions of dollars were not involved, I would not press to spend a few
extra moments here this afternoon.
I wanted to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), for allowing us this time.
We have had absolutely no other opportunity to bring this to
international attention than this moment. We think it is the right
time, and we look forward to working with the authorizing and
appropriations committees in the future to keep our assistance on a
short lease and to recover assets that are due to our company and our
people and to move our aid in the direction of reform in both of those
very strategic nations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentlewoman withdraw her
amendment?
Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and I want to commend the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership.
We have had this issue for our committee over and over again, and I
know that we are all behind the gentlewoman on this and thank her for
her leadership.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, finally, we have arrived at the end of the bill, and in
just a few seconds we are going to rise. I understand that there was a
ceremony in the Rotunda and that has now ended and Members are now free
to come back to the Chamber and we can now rise.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the Members of the House that we
have now a good bill, I know, in the minds of many. Especially in the
minority it is

[[Page H6019]]

even a better bill, because they made their points about HIPC. I, too,
made my points, because within the bill, I had put in some of the
provisions. I talk about the restrictions on new loans to these
countries.
I think all and all we have a good bill at this point, and I hope
that we will get bipartisan support to send this message on over to the
Senate where we can get on with this process of the passage of the year
2001 appropriation bill for foreign operations.
Mr. Chairman, I would once again like to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) for her many courtesies; and I think, however,
our balance sheet is a little slanted on my side, because I extended
her more courtesies than she extended to me. Nevertheless, that is to
be expected and not in the chauvinistic world. But in the Southern
world, this is traditional, that Southern men especially are extremely
courteous to our other staff colleagues.
I am happy to have had this opportunity during the last 6 years to
work with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), with the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to the members of our
subcommittee.
I am happy that we have a bill now that I feel that can be supported
in a bipartisan way. Even though I thought it was perfect before, I am
optimistic that now the Senate will agree with me with the
modifications that have been made that it is now a perfect bill, and
there will be no reason for a conference; but, nevertheless, we will
have to see about what happens there.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee
on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and while
on occasion we may not have always agreed, we certainly have recognized
his outstanding leadership in bringing the foreign operations bill to
the floor.
This may be the last occasion in which he does it as chairman of the
Foreign Ops Committee, and we have valued his hard work throughout the
years. We want to thank his staff who have been doing such outstanding
work and also the ranking minority Members, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for
their outstanding work in foreign operations.

{time} 1500

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

[[Page H6020]]

(Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our
ranking member. I think our committee is very excellently served by
them and particularly on this subcommittee where they both have so much
experience.
With that again, I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman
Callahan) and urge a no vote on his bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, often on this floor, good people can have strong
disagreements about substance, and we certainly do in this bill today.
Let me stipulate that I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), the subcommittee chair, is a very good person, as is the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking minority member.
We have very strongly differing views of how adequately this bill meets
our responsibilities.
I think the distinguished gentleman from Alabama has done a terrific
job as subcommittee chairman the last 6 years given the fact his hands
have been tied most of the time by budget resolutions. I do hope that
he gets the best possible ranking minority slot on whatever
subcommittee he wishes in the next Congress.
But having said that, let me explain my concerns about this bill.
Despite the increase in funding for debt relief, this bill still falls
over $200 million, almost $250 million short of the administration
request for debt relief. When one includes the supplemental, the
International Development Organization is almost $300 million short of
the administration request.
We still have substantial shortages in the African Development Fund,
the Asian Development Fund, the African Development Bank, which is only
about half funded at half the level the administration is requesting.
There are a number of other shortfalls as well.
I think we need to understand that, despite everything that this bill
does so far, it still does not lay a glove on the major problem which
confronts the international community in terms of public health. In
1999 alone, 480,000 children under 15 died from AIDS. Approximately
430,000 of those deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Around the
world, as was noted on this floor several times last night, 1,700
children under 15 years old are, in effect, newly infected with HIV
every single day. There will be some 44 million children in the 34 most
affected countries who will be orphaned by that disease within the next
10 to 15 years.
I think the world has no idea the human carnage that is in store.
When I look at this bill, even with the adoption of the two amendments
that were adopted on the floor, this still falls far short of what is
required for a Presidential signature. The administration is still
opposed to the bill, and I certainly do not intend to vote for the
bill, and I would urge Members to oppose it as well.
I would also ask that, when we vote on this bill, that we remember
that we have obligations to our constituents, to our taxpayers, and to
the fellow human beings with whom we share this planet.
In my view, this bill does not meet our obligation on all three
fronts. America does not understand how much it is vulnerable to a
health epidemic because of the shortfall of funds that we are providing
in crucial international and domestic health funds. I hope that we do
not find out over the next 20 years just how vulnerable we are. But I
believe that the Labor-Health appropriations bill, which we passed
earlier, and this bill both fall very far short of defending our
taxpayers and our citizens from that problem.
I think this bill generally, especially with respect to the
International Development Association, is needlessly unresponsive to
the needs of the poorest countries in the world. For that reason, I
would urge a no vote on this bill and, at the proper time, will have a
motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), as has so many other of my colleagues, for the tremendous
job that he has done shepherding this bill through the process, getting
us through the subcommittee and the full committee, and getting to
first base here in the House. We will move on, then, to the other body.
We will round second, then we will round third, and we will come home
with a bill that is probably not as perfect as the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said that it was, but it is a bill that has to
be passed.
I also want to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the role that they
have played, and I thank all of the Members who took part in this great
debate all day yesterday and most of today.
We have talked about a lot of issues. Some of them even were about
appropriations, believe it or not. Most of them were authorizing
issues. But, nevertheless, this was a good vehicle. We had good debate.
For the most part, the Members were very respectful of each other and
that is great.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) will play a major role in
the balance of this Congress and in the next Congress and as many
Congresses as he chooses to be here, because he is an obvious leader,
and he is recognized as such. His ability to move this bill, which is
one of the most difficult bills to pass, is proof positive of what I
have said.
I want to compliment all of our colleagues in the House, Mr.
Chairman, because this, believe it or not, is the 11th appropriations
bill. This is only July. This is the 11th appropriations bill that will
go through the House not including the supplemental, which we have
already passed and conferenced earlier. So I am proud of this House of
Representatives.
The differences are obvious. That is why there is 435 of us to
express these differences. But this House has done a good job in
meeting its constitutional responsibility to move appropriations bills.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I want to compliment the gentleman
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for an outstanding job, and I
guarantee him that he is going to be chairman of something very, very
important. In response to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we
are hoping that he continues to be the ranking minority member for a
long time, emphasis on ``minority.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to oppose the motion of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to recommit this bill and to get to final
passage and send the bill on to the other body.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 399]

AYES--298

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht

[[Page H6021]]

Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--125

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

NOT VOTING--11

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

{time} 1535

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

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

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

[[Page H6022]]

For example, the bill cuts by 30 percent the request for funding for
international family planning programs, and contains the ``global gag
rule,'' despite valiant efforts to strike the language on the part of
my colleagues Ms. Lowey and Mr. Greenwood and many others. The ``gag
rule'' provision prohibits private organizations in foreign countries
to which we provide aid from participating in the political process of
their own country using their own funds. This policy restricts the free
speech of international non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, it
undermines our own foreign policy objective of democracy promotion by
placing restrictions on these organizations that would be
unconstitutional in the United States. International family planning
programs save the lives of women and children worldwide, reduce the
incidence of abortion, and raise the social and economic well-being of
women all over the globe.
The ``global gag rule'' is simply wrong, and--I believe--it is an
embarrassment to us as a country.
I am also concerned about the bill's 40 percent cut in the
Administration's request for contributions to multilateral development
banks, which would result in substantial reductions in lending for
health, clean water supplies, education programs, and infrastructure
needed to reduce poverty in the world's poorest countries.
Specifically, the bill cuts funding by 32 percent for the International
Development Association, a main source of resources to battle AIDS, and
additional cuts are made in funding for the African Development Bank,
the African Development Fund, and the Asian Development Fund.
Further, the bill doesn't provide sufficient funds to battle the
global threat of tuberculosis, a disease that is endangering the health
and lives of people all over the globe as deadly strains of multiple-
drug resistant TB emerge. Tuberculosis kills two million people each
year and is the greatest killer of people with HIV/AIDS worldwide,
accounting for 40 percent of AIDS death in Asian and Africa. Especially
as the HIV pandemic is exacerbating the rise of TB, I believe that the
$55 million provided in this bill for international TB control is
insufficient.
Finally, I had hoped to vote to support an amendment for an
additional $15 million for the microcredit program, which provides
small loans to the very poor for the start-up or expansion of small
business ventures. These loans have helped to promote economic growth
in some of the most poverty-stricken regions in the world.
Unfortunately, this amendment was withdrawn, and I remain concerned
that this bill doesn't provide sufficient funds of this important
program.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the overall levels and in
the priorities reflected in this legislation. We can and should do
better, and because we haven't, I cannot support this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign
Operations Appropriations Bill. I deeply believe that foreign
assistance is a cornerstone of American foreign policy and diplomacy
and I have serious concerns that passing a bill this underfunded would
be determental to America's strategic interests around the world.
At $2 billion below the President's request, this bill is
irresponsible. The dramatic cuts to debt relief, HIV/AIDS funding, and
the restrictions on international family planning programs, would
imperil millions of women and children. The cuts to microcredit
lending, International Development Assistance, and the U.S. Agency for
International Development, would bleed dry projects that are a proven
success for uplifting the poorest families in the world. The
consequences of abandoning these programs are severe. Diseases know no
borders. Overpopulation is a burden on the infrastructure of the entire
world. Ignoring these issues is a threat to our own health and
environment, and our national security.
At the outset, all the funding requested to support the Middle East
Peace Process was included in this bill. Aid for Israel and the Middle
East has always been my highest foreign aid priority, but the fact that
these funds had to be compromised for critical increases to provide
funding for debt relief and HIV/AIDS demonstrates how cash strapped
this bill truly is. I am confident that all of the Foreign Military
Financing for Middle East countries will be restored in conference, but
we must also focus on increasing our commitment to the stability of
other regions as well.
Assistance for the politically fragile states in the Former Soviet
Republics, the Central Asian Republics, and the Balkans is drastically
below the Administration's request. The bill slashes the Expanded
Threat Reduction Initiative, which works to prevent the transfer of
Russian nuclear technology to rogue states, for the second year in a
row. Furthermore, the attack on debt relief translates into an assault
on the Latin American and African countries that are struggling to
implement drastic economic and democratic reforms.
There are some who believe that we can vote for this bill now and
threaten to vote against it later if it does not improve. I believe we
cannot settle for anything less than a better bill. This is only the
beginning of the process and we should not have to settle for less
before we go to conference with the Senate. The Republican leadership
has crafted an untenable bill and I hope that my no vote on this point
will strengthen the Administration's hand so it can get adequate
funding for these important priorities, in addition to full funding for
Israel and our Middle East priorities.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811, the
Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
There are many good things in this bill. For example, the aid to
Israel included in the bill is an important step in maintaining
Israel's security in a particularly unstable part of the world. It is
paramount that we continue to stand by Israel, especially as historic
peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians are
simultaneously taking place just a few miles from this Capitol at Camp
David.
Unfortunately, aid in the bill does not go far enough for other
countries desperately in need, especially in the continents of Africa
and Latin America. The bill contains only $82 million of the $472
million requested for debt relief. It will not even provide enough
resources to enable two countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, who have met
all necessary conditions to obtain debt relief, to procure it. If we
are to have a stable world, we must help those countries that need it
most. To do otherwise only invites conflict.
Of particular concern to me is the lack of adequate funding to fight
the AIDS epidemic that is currently devastating the continent of
Africa, as well as other regions of the world. The bill only allocates
$202 million of the $244 requested by the President to fight this
horrible disease. We have turned out back on Africa for too long, and
AIDS will not wait for us to find our consciences.
Finally, the bill includes a modified version of the anti-choice
``Mexico City'' policy, which prohibits funding of any private foreign
non-governmental and multilateral organizations that perform abortions
or lobby to change abortion laws in foreign counties.
For these reasons, and the fact that the bill is simply too
underfunded, I oppose this bill.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, today I reluctantly voted
against H.R. 4811, the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
I did so for a very specific reason: this proposal contains some
direct aid to the government of Colombia. In February of last year, a
member of my district's Menominee Indian Nation was brutally murdered
in that country. This woman, Ingrid Washinawatok, was in Colombia as
part of a peaceful educational effort when she was kidnapped and killed
by the Marxist terrorists of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC).
Since Ms. Washinawatok's murder, Colombian President Andres Pastrana
has said he is unwilling to extradite those responsible for her death
to the United States to be tried under U.S. anti-terrorism laws. This
refusal flies in the face of the cooperative relations our nations have
enjoyed in the past and directly contradicts legislation I authored on
the subject--legislation that passed the House last year by a unanimous
vote. That measure called on the Colombian government to extradite Ms.
Washinawatok's killers to the United States for trial as soon as
possible.
I would also note that some months ago, I specifically asked U.S.
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey for help in this matter during a
congressional hearing. He has not responded to the specific questions I
posed to him.
In my opinion, if Colombia wishes to continue receiving significant
U.S. aid, it must be willing to cooperate with us on key matters such
as this. I hope that my vote against a foreign aid bill that otherwise
has much in it to support will be seen as a modest message to Colombia.
It is my further hope that withholding aid to the Colombians will push
their government to reconsider the folly of their decision not to
extradite the murdering terrorists who killed Ingrid Washinawatok.
I offer this statement today because this bill does contain several
positive provisions that certainly deserve support. These positive
measures include funding to help bring permanent peace and stability to
the Middle East. In particular, this proposal would send needed aid to
support those nations, like Israel, who share our democratic values and
with whom we have forged loyal strategic friendship. This is funding I
would have been pleased to support--unfortunately, the mitigating
circumstances with regard to Colombia precluded me from doing so. While
I could not vote to pass this bill in its current form, I hope my
reasons and intentions are now more clear.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this bill.
While I will support this legislation, I am concerned that this bill
short-changes the United States' foreign policy initiatives. This bill
makes large cuts in funding

[[Page H6023]]

for programs which most directly affect the poorest countries in the
world--cuts which disproportionately affect African and Latin American
countries. Further, the bill drastically cuts funding for international
financial institutions that provide developmental loans to poor
countries. This legislation also cuts funding designated for
international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment and codifies the
``Mexico City'' restrictions on international family planning funding.
I am pleased, however, that the House approved two amendments to
address some of the funding problems and helps to make this bill
better. I strongly supported the amendment offered by my colleague, Ms.
Waters, to increase funding for the HIPC Trust Fund at a level equal to
the President's request. It is a critical victory that the Waters
amendment was approved, because passage of the debt relief provisions
in the underlying bill represent an unacceptable amount.
As approved by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 4811 provides
$82 million, or only 16 percent of the President's request for debt
relief for some of the poorest countries of the world. As a member of
the House Banking Committee, I am disappointed that the Leadership did
not make more of a commitment to debt relief, especially in light of
the accomplishments of my colleague and Chairman of the Banking
Committee, Jim Leach. Last year, with his strong leadership, the
Banking Committee approved H.R. 1095, legislation which took an
important step in relieving some of the debt loads carried by the
world's most economically distressed nations. While some of the most
important provisions of H.R. 1095 were realized last year, the FY2001
Administration request is desperately needed to expand the debt relief
effort. If the Waters amendment had not been approved, the low level of
funding including in this bill would have jeopardized the HIPC
initiative because it may have led other bilateral donors to reduce
their contributions. I am pleased with the passage of the Waters
amendment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to ensure that meaningful debt relief can be
achieved by the world's most impoverished nations.
I also strongly supported passage of the Lee amendment to increase
funds for international efforts to address the global HIV/AIDS crisis.
The recent 13th International AIDS Conference in South Africa
highlighted the fact that the epidemic in the rest of the world is
threatening to bring down entire nations. In many of the countries
throughout the world it has crippled the entire infrastructures;
education, economic, and national security. It is critical that we
invest our resources in an effort to turn back the tide. Regrettably,
the Foreign Operations funding bill would have cut the President's
request for funding the fight against the global AIDS crisis by almost
20 percent. This cut would have been devastating, especially so at a
time when HIV/AIDS poses a serious threat to the stability of lesser
developed nations around the world particularly in Africa. In sub-
Saharan Africa, the percentage of adults who have been infected with
HIV is 20 percent or higher. With today's passage of the Lee amendment,
I am hopeful that funds to fight the global AIDS pandemic can begin to
make a difference and save thousands of lives throughout the world.

While I have strong reservations about the underlying bill, I am
pleased with $2.9 billion in U.S. aid provided to Israel. U.S. aid to
Israel is one of America's most cost-effective foreign policy
investments. The economic and military aid that America provides Israel
serves the interests of both countries by promoting peace, security,
and trade. Aid to Israel is an essential and efficient means of
strengthening the Middle East's only democracy. Israel stands out as
the only steadfast ally that supports U.S. foreign policy and military
actions and votes with the U.S. and the U.N. more than any other
country. Aid to Israel supports American diplomatic efforts in
promoting a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The
continuity of U.S. aid sends a powerful signal to potential adversaries
that a negotiated settlement with Israel is the only option since the
U.S. commitment to Israel is unwavering.
For my state of Texas, exports to Israel are particularly important.
Israel has become a world leader in high-technology, agriculture,
medicine and education. Realizing the great potential for trade and
cooperation with Israel in these and many other fields, several states,
including Texas, have established joint exchange programs with Israel.
Since 1984, when Texas became the first state to set up and promote
bilateral trade and technological cooperation, more than 20 states have
followed suit. These agreements have resulted in the opening up of
trade offices in Israel, creating new jobs and opportunities for the
people of Texas and Israel.
Virtually all U.S. aid to Israel--economic and military--helps Israel
meet its security needs. As other countries in the region enlarge and
modernize their arsenals, this assistance gives Israel the means to
obtain expensive, advanced American weaponry that it needs to defend
itself. U.S. aid reduces the risk of war in the Middle East by
sustaining Israel's qualitative military advantage over the combined
military forces of its adversaries who have an overwhelming numerical
advantage. By keeping Israel's army second to none in the region, this
direct aid deters aggressors from attacking Israel without an American
military presence, which Israel has never sought.
The U.S. aid package contained in the FY2001 Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill is especially critical to Israel this year. As
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak prepares to meet with President
Clinton and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat at Camp David
this week to discuss final status issues, U.S. support for Israel and
her security needs becomes more critical than ever.
As the Camp David peace summit is ongoing, I think it is appropriate
to applaud the courage of the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who
has withstood a very difficult term in office. In recent weeks, three
of his coalition members have broken away or resigned because of his
efforts to seek a lasting peace agreement. Even at this time of
internal political tension in Israel, it is clear that Prime Minister
Barak traveled to Camp David with a profound sense of responsibility.
He understands that he has a mandate from the voters, the citizens of
Israel to do all that he can to establish peace, not for just for those
who would benefit now, but for the children and for those not yet born.
I am hopeful that Mr. Barak and PLO Chairman Arafat can find a way to
address the critical issues with a respect for all sides that can
result in a true, lasting peace for the Middle East.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that foreign assistance, which represents
less than 1 percent of the entire federal budget, is often politically
unpopular. However, at a time when the United States, having won both
the cold war and the economic war, reigns supreme as the sole economic
and military superpower and the leader of the free world, it has become
incumbent upon us to take a leadership role in pursuing peace and
prosperity for the less fortunate in the world. Further, I believe it
is in our own best interest to lead the other free and democratic
nations of the world in combating poverty and disease--which ravages
many parts of the less developed world--and poses a significant future
threat to stability. With that in mind, I hope--as the appropriations
process moves forward--that the defects in the underlying bill can be
corrected.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, on July 13, 2000, the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill, H.R. 4811, came to the House floor for a vote. I
reluctantly vote for this bill for the sole reason of moving the
foreign affairs platform forward.
I believe H.R. 4811 is a bad bill for various reasons. It
appropriates a total of $13.3 billion for fiscal year 2001--$1.9
billion or 12% below the Administration's request and $451 million less
than the fiscal year 2000 funding level. This bill makes large cuts in
funding for programs which most directly affect the poorest countries
in the world--cuts that disproportionately affect African and Latin
American countries--and contains only $82 million of the $472 million
request for multilateral debt relief assistance. Further, the bill
drastically cuts international financial institution funding that
provides interest-free loans to poor countries. H.R. 4811 cuts $42
million from international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, a cut I
find deplorable.
Although this bill is badly flawed in many ways, I believe the best
way to address those problems is to move it forward and express my
concerns directly to the conferees. If the bill is reported out of
conference with my concerns left unaddressed, I will support the
President's veto.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of both the
Helsinki Commission and the House International Relations Subcommittee
on Foreign Operations and Human Rights, I am particularly supportive of
many portions of this Foreign Operations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. The
section on ``Assistance to Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'' is
one

[[Page H6024]]

of the items in which I have a strong interest. This assistance has
made a difference in many countries.
Given the fact that the bill leaves FY 2001 assistance at FY 2000
levels, I want to state that, in southeastern Europe, our priority list
should begin with a focus on the need for democratic change to Serbia.
The people of Serbia deserve it; right now they are facing a major
crackdown by the Milosevic regime on their basic rights and freedoms.
Democratic change in Serbia is in the U.S. interest. Building democracy
and prosperity throughout the region, including in Kosovo and Bosnia,
would then be easier, making our assistance there more effective. Until
Milosevic is stopped, we face the possibility of more conflict in the
region, and the need for additional millions of dollars for
humanitarian aid, reconstruction and possibly military intervention in
both a peacemaking and a peacekeeping capacity.
In addition to helping initiate a long-needed democratic transition
in Serbia, this assistance could bring support for Montenegro,
Macedonia, and Croatia, now that the relatively new governments of
these republics have learned the value of embracing multi-ethnic
cooperation and tolerance, along with cooperation with the
international community. Mr. Chairman, we should prioritize assistance
to those who seek to make the right decisions.
I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee report language states
its support for the funding levels requested by the President for
Montenegro, as well as the allocation of $350,000 for an OSCE effort to
facilitate contacts with democratic forces in Serbia and Montenegro. In
the near future, the International Relations Committee should mark-up
similar provisions as part of H.R. 1064, the Serbia and Montenegro
Democracy Act of 2000, which I introduced in early March of last year.
I thank the Committee for this report language.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4811)
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 546, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

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

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

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

[Roll No. 400]

YEAS--239

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg

[[Page H6025]]

Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--185

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

NOT VOTING--11

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

{time} 1559

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

____________________