```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5710-H5734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolutions 155 and 156 
and rule XXIII, 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. 1561.

                              {time}  1238

                     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. 1561), to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of 
the United States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
State and related agencies for fiscal year 1996 and 1997; to 
responsibly reduce the authorizations of appropriations for United 
States foreign assistance programs for fiscal year 1996 and 1997, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June 
7, 1995, amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Ackerman] had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at 
any point.
  Pursuant to House Resolutions 155 and 156, 1 hour and 45 minutes 
remain for consideration of amendments under the 5-minute rule.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?

                    amendment offered by mr. gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment 
that has not been printed in the Record. I have consulted through staff 
and the ranking minority member with regard to this amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman: In section 2644 (relating 
     to further steps to promote United States security and 
     political interests with respect to North Korea) by striking 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       (1) action by the Government of North Korea to engage in a 
     North-South dialogue with the Government of the Republic of 
     Korea to facilitate progress toward:
       (A) holding a North Korea-South Korea Summit;
       (B) resuming North-South joint military discussions 
     regarding steps to reduce tensions between North and South 
     Korea;
       (C) expanding trade relations between North and South 
     Korea;
       (D) promoting freedom of travel between North and South 
     Korea by citizens of both North and South Korea;
       (E) cooperating in science and technology, education, the 
     arts, health, sports, the environment, publishing, 
     journalism, and other fields of mutual interest;
       (F) establishing postal and telecommunications services 
     between North and South Korea; and
       (G) reconnecting railroads and roadways between North and 
     South Korea;
       At the end of division A insert the following new title:

 TITLE VI--REORGANIZATION OF UNITED STATES EXPORT PROMOTION AND TRADE 
                               ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 601. PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION OF UNITED STATES EXPORT 
                   PROMOTION AND TRADE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Supporting American businesses overseas and assisting 
     United States exporters to identify market opportunities is 
     of increasing importance to America's economic health and 
     competitiveness, and to the well-being of American workers.
       (2) At least 18 different government-sponsored 
     organizations or agencies spending over $3,300,000,000 exist 
     to provide support to American exporters and international 
     businesses. In the past, poor coordination among these 
     organizations and a lack of accessibility often hindered the 
     effectiveness of the Government's trade promotion activities.
       (3) Recent efforts to improve coordination between many of 
     these organizations and to increase their availability to 
     exporters around the country were begun through the Trade 
     Promotion Coordination Council. These efforts appear to have 
     generated some improvement in the Government's trade 
     promotion capabilities.
       (4) Broader governmentwide reform efforts and future 
     funding questions currently being addressed in Congress may 
     affect different trade promotion organizations to varying 
     degrees.
       (b) Report Required.--In order to fully assess the 
     organizational structure, capability, and spending levels of 
     United States Government trade promotion organizations, the 
     Trade Promotion Coordination Council, not later than March 1, 
     1996, shall submit to the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate, and to other appropriate 
     committees of jurisdiction, a report detailing what steps are 
     being taken to improve accessibility and coordination among 
     all trade promotion organizations and agencies, what 
     additional measures should be taken to further improve the 
     efficiency of and reduce duplication among these 
     organizations and
      agencies, and any suggested legislative actions that would 
     further improve the Government's export and trade 
     promotion activities.
       (c) Content of Report.--The report required by subsection 
     (b) shall--
       (1) identify the name, number, function, and budget of all 
     Government organizations or agencies with some responsibility 
     for supporting, advancing, or promoting international trade 
     or United States exports;
       (2) assess the amount of exports directly generated by the 
     activities of each organization or agency;
       (3) describe the overall impact of the Government's trade 
     and export promotion programs on increasing exports and 
     overseas market share;
       (4) identify areas where increased cooperation and 
     interoperability would improve United States export promotion 
     efforts;
       (5) identify areas where greater efficiencies can be 
     achieved through the elimination of duplication among the 
     organizations and agencies included in paragraph (1);
       (6) identify ways to improve the audit and accountability 
     mechanisms for each organization or agency, with particular 
     emphasis on ensuring independent oversight capabilities for 
     each organization;
       (7) assess the trade and export promotion activities of the 
     major trade partners and competitors of the United States, 
     including amounts of tied aid and export subsidization 
     provided by the governments of those trade partners and 
     competitors; and
       (8) provide a plan to reorganize the United States trade 
     and export promotion organizations and agencies, with 
     legislative requirements if necessary, in order to more 
     efficiently promote trade, increase organizational 
     assessability, organize bureaucratic effort, and expend 
     public resources in support of American exporters and 
     international business.
       In title XXV (relating to international organizations and 
     commissions) insert the following new section at the end of 
     chapter 1:

     SEC. 2502. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE 
                   UNITED STATES IN THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to authorize participation by the 
     United States in the Interparliamentary Union'', approved 
     June 28, 1935 (22 U.S.C. 276-276a-4) is repealed.
       Strike section 3412 of the bill (relating to prohibition on 
     assistance to foreign governments engaged in espionage 
     against the United States).
       Page 289, add the following after line 26 and redesignate 
     the succeeding chapter accordingly:

           CHAPTER 8--OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

     SEC. 3275. STUDY ON OPIC PRIVATIZATION.

       The President or his designee shall conduct and, not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     report to the Congress on the feasibility of transferring the 
     activities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to 
     the private sector.

     SEC. 3276. PRIVATIZATION OF OPIC ACTIVITIES.

       Upon completion of the report required under section 3275, 
     the President is authorized to sell the stock of the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation and to take other necessary 
     steps so that all the evidences of ownership of the 
     Corporation are transferred to the private sector, whether 
     through the sale of the Corporation's contracts, leases, or 
     other agreements or rights, or otherwise.
       In section 2201, add the following at the end:
       (c) Use of Earnings From Frozen Assets For Program.--
       (1) Amounts to be made available.--Up to 2 percent of the 
     earnings accruing, during periods beginning October 1, 1995, 
     on all assets of foreign countries blocked by the President 
     pursuant to the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1701 and following) shall be available, subject to 
     appropriations Acts, to carry out section 36 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended by this section, 
     exception that the limitation contained in subsection (d)(2) 
     of such [[Page H5711]] section shall not apply to amounts 
     made available under this paragraph.
       (2) Control of funds by the President.--The President is 
     authorized and directed to take possession and exercise full 
     control of so much to the earnings described in paragraph (1) 
     as are made available under such paragraph.
       At the end of chapter 3 of title XXII (relating to refugees 
     and migration) insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 2256. VIETNAM POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.

       (a) Asylum for Eligible Aliens.--The Attorney General shall 
     grant asylum in the United States to any alien described in 
     subsection (b), upon the application of that alien.
       (b) Eligibility.--Asylum shall be granted under subsection 
     (a) to any alien (1) who is a national of Laos, Vietnam, 
     Cambodia, or Burma, and (2) who, while acting other than in 
     an official or unofficial capacity on behalf of any 
     government or agency, personally delivers into the custody of 
     the United States Government a living Vietnam POW/MIA (or 
     participates in such a delivery).
       (c) Vietnam POW/MIA Defined.--
       (1) For purposes of this section, the term ``Vietnam POW/
     MIA'' means an individual--
       (A) who is a member of a uniformed service (within the 
     meaning of section 101(3) of title 37, United States Code) in 
     a missing status (as defined in section 551(2) of such title) 
     as a result of the Vietnam conflict, unless it is official 
     determined under section 552(c) of such title that such 
     individual is officially absent from such individual's post 
     of duty without authority; or
       (B) who is an employee (as defined in section 5561(2) of 
     title 5, United Stats Code) in a missing status (as defined 
     in section 5561(5) of such title) as a result of the Vietnam 
     conflict.

     Such term does not include an individual who the Secretary of 
     Defense determines remained in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia 
     voluntarily.
       (2) For purposes of paragraph (1)--
       (A) the Vietnam conflict began on February 28, 1961, and 
     ended on May 7, 1975; and
       (B) an individual in a missing status shall be considered 
     to be in a missing status as a result of the Vietnam conflict 
     if immediately before that status began the individual--
       (i) was performing service in Vietnam; or
       (ii) was performing service in Southeast Asia in direct 
     support of military operations in Vietnam.
     SEC. 2257. KOREA POW/MIA ASYLUM PROGRAM.

       (a) Asylum for Eligible Aliens.--The Attorney shall grant 
     asylum in the United States to any alien described in 
     subsection (b), upon the application of that alien.
       (b) Eligibility.--Asylum shall be granted under subsection 
     (a) to any alien (1) who is a national of North Korea, South 
     Korea, or China and (2) who, while acting other than in an 
     official or unofficial capacity on behalf of any government 
     or agency, personally delivers into the custody of the United 
     States Government a living Korea POW/MIA (or participates in 
     such a delivery).
       (c) Korea POW/MIA Defined.--
       (1) For purposes of this section, the term ``Korea POW/
     MIA'' means an individual--
       (A) Who is a member of a uniformed service (within the 
     meaning of section 101(3) of title 37, United States Code) in 
     a missing status (as defined in section 551(2) of such title) 
     as a result of the Korean conflict, unless it is officially 
     determined under section 552(c) of such title that such 
     individual is officially absent from such individual's post 
     of duty without authority; or
       (B) who is an employee (as defined in section 5561(2) of 
     title 5, United States Code) in a missing status (as defined 
     in section 5561(5) of such title) as a result of the Korean 
     conflict.
       Such term does not include an individual who the Secretary 
     of Defense determines remained in North Korea, South Korea, 
     or China voluntarily.
       (2) For purposes of paragraph (1)--
       (A) the Korean conflict began on June 27, 1950, and ended 
     on January 31, 1955; and
       (B) an individual in a missing status shall be considered 
     to be in a missing status as a result of the Korean conflict 
     if immediately before that status began the individual--
       (i) was performing service in the Korean peninsula; or
       (ii) was performing service in Asia in direct support of 
     military operations in the Korean peninsula.
       Strike subsection (a) of section 3421 (relating to the 
     repeal of section 537(h)(2) of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988).
       In subsection (c) of section 3421 (relating to the repeal 
     of the Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1986), strike 
     ``section 1 and section 204'' and insert ``section 1, section 
     204, and title III of such Act''.
       In section 3401 of the bill (in paragraph (1) of section 
     610(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to 
     be amended by such section 3401), insert ``or the Arms Export 
     Control Act'' after ``of this Act''.
       Strike section 3402 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 3402. AUTHORITY TO MEET UNANTICIPATED CONTINGENCIES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 451(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2261(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000''.
       Strike section 3403 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 3403. SPECIAL WAIVER AUTHORITY.

       (a) Laws Affected.--Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 is amended by striking subsections (a)(1) and 
     (a)(2) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Authority To Authorize Assistance, Sales, and Other 
     Actions; Limitations.--(1) The President may authorize 
     assistance, sales, or other action under this Act, the Arms 
     Export Control Act, or any annual (or periodic) foreign 
     assistance authorization or appropriations legislation, 
     without regard to any of the provisions described in 
     subsection (b), if the President determines, and notifies in 
     writing the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate--
       ``(A) with respect to assistance or other actions under 
     chapter 2 or 5 of part II of this Act, or sales or other 
     actions under the Arms Export Control Act, that to do so is 
     vital to the national security interests of the United 
     States; and
       ``(B) with respect to other assistance or actions that to 
     do so is important to the national interests of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) The President may waive any provision described in 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) that would 
     otherwise prohibit or restrict assistance or other action 
     under any provision of law not described in those paragraphs 
     if the President determines, and notifies in writing the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, that to do 
     so is important to the national interests of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Annual Ceiling.--Section 614(a)(4)(C) of that Act is 
     amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$75,000,000''.
       (c) Laws Which May Be Waived.--Section 614 of that Act is 
     amended by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Laws Which May Be Waived.--The provisions referred to 
     in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) are--
       ``(1) the provisions of this Act;
       ``(2) the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act;
       ``(3) the provisions of any annual (or periodic) foreign 
     assistance authorization or appropriations legislation, 
     including any amendment made by any such Act;
       ``(4) any other provision of law that restricts assistance, 
     sales or leases, or other action under the Acts referred to 
     in paragraph (1), (2), or (3); and
       ``(5) any law relating to receipts and credits accruing to 
     the United States.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 614(a)(4) of that Act 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraphs (A)(ii), by striking ``or the Arms 
     Export Control Act''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Arms Export 
     Control Act or under''.
       In section 3404 of the bill (in subsections (a)(1) and (c) 
     of section 617 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     proposed to be amended by such section 3404), insert ``or the 
     Arms Export Control Act after ``under this Act'' each place 
     it appears.
       Strike section 2601(b) (relating to visits to the United 
     States by officials of the Government of the Republic of 
     China and Taiwan) and strike the subsection designation and 
     heading for section 2601(a).
       Strike section 505 (relating to voluntary separation 
     incentives) and designate the subsequent sections and amend 
     the table of contents accordingly).
       At the end of chapter 1 of title XXVI (relating to foreign 
     policy provisions) add the following new section:

     SEC. 2604. VERIFICATION OF MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME.

       Not later than February 1, 1996, the Director of the Arms 
     Control and Disarmament Agency shall transmit to the Congress 
     a report on the capability of the United States to verify the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, to include any applicable 
     United States policy statements, pursuant to section 87 of 
     the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.
       At the end of section 501 (relating to reorganization 
     authority) insert the following new subsection:
       (c) Reduction in Expenditures.--A reorganization plan 
     pursuant to any title of this division shall provide for a 
     twenty percent reduction to apply to each of the first two 
     fiscal years after implementation of such plan in the total 
     level of expenditures for the functions transferred to the 
     Department of State from amounts appropriated for such 
     transferred functions for fiscal year 1995.
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                   DIVISION D--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

  TITLE XLI--UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 4001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fulbright Academic Exchange Programs.--Notwithstanding 
     section 2106(3)(A), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     for ``Fulbright Academic Exchange Programs'', $112,484,200 
     for the fiscal year 1996 and $88,680,800 for the fiscal year 
     1997.
       (b) Other Programs.--Notwithstanding section 2106(3)(F), 
     there are authorized to be appropriated for ``Other 
     Programs'', $77,265,800 for the fiscal year 1996 and 
     $57,341,400 for the fiscal year 1997.
       In section 3231 of the bill (in section 667(a)(1) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by 
     such section 3231; relating to operating expenses of the 
     United States Agency for International Development), strike 
     ``$465,774,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250'' and strike 
     ``$419,196,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250''.

[[Page H5712]]

  Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, with the cooperation of the 
minority, we were able to take care of the concerns of many Members by 
adopting an en bloc amendment. We added provisions to this bill that 
were supported on both sides, even provisions that were propounded by 
members who have no intention of voting for this bill. We tried to 
accommodate as many Members as we could.
  There were several amendments that we could not get agreement on 
however, and some matters that have come to our attention since the 
time for printing amendments had expired.
  Whereas yesterday we only shifted funds on one amendment, in this 
package we make even more spending reductions. Some of these are minor, 
such as the decision we have made to end U.S. participation in the 
Interparliamentary Union. The United States pays dues of nearly $1 
million per year for the IPU assessment, but participates only 
minimally. The IPU has, regrettably, taken a rather arrogant attitude 
toward our participation and on one relatively recent occasion 
increased our assessment at a meeting where we were not represented.
  Other changes involve greater amounts of money. For example, the 
Manzullo amendment represents a considerable, additional cut in 
cultural and educational exchanges. Mr. Manzullo has been one of the 
more active members of our committee and I commend his close attention 
to this program. I hope he will continue to look closely at the costs 
and benefits of this program, and welcome his willingness to meet me 
more than halfway in crafting a solution to the problems he sees in it. 
The amendment reduces funding for these exchanges by $10 million in 
each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
  Another senior member of our committee has reached a compromise with 
us. Mr. Roth has made modifications to his amendment, offered in 
committee and preprinted in the Record, relating to a requirement that 
the President's reorganization plan show reductions in transferred 
functions. We have come to a compromise making that amendment 
acceptable on this side.
  At the request of the Committee on Intelligence, which I understand 
was representing the concerns of the intelligence community of this 
administration, we are deleting a provision that cuts off aid to 
countries which conduct certain intelligence activities against this 
country. The intelligence community felt that having to make a cutoff 
could in certain cases expose its state of knowledge about the 
activities of other countries and, more generally, expose intelligence 
sources and methods. We reluctantly went along but will work with the 
intelligence committee and the administration to see if we cannot find 
another way to achieve this general goal.
  We also include the Mica export promotion study language, as 
modified, the McInnis language on Korea, a new Hoke amendment calling 
for a report on compliance with the Missile Technology Control Regime, 
a modification of the Hoke amendment on OPIC, a modification of the 
Upton amendment providing for special treatment for foreign nationals 
who find a live MIA from the Vietnam or Korean conflicts--something we 
would all wish for. In addition, we include the Solomon amendment 
providing that interest earned on certain blocked assets be used to 
fund a rewards program for the arrest and conviction of international 
terrorists.
  In response to concerns expressed after the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight held its hearings on voluntary separation 
payments, essentially contemporaneously with our consideration of this 
bill in our committee, we have stricken language authorizing such 
payments in this bill. I do hope and expect that as the administration 
puts together its plan effectuate our reform of the foreign affairs 
agencies, it will consider if voluntary separation payments are 
appropriate, and if they are will work closely with our committee and 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and for my part I 
will sympathetically consider their views.
  In terms of technical amendments, we strike a provision that 
inadvertently repealed provisions of laws under our jurisdiction 
relating to international environmental programs, and another provision 
that addresses administration concerns relating to the waiver and other 
special authorities provisions in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in the time remaining, I would like to make a few more 
comments on the bill as a whole.
  First, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, and of the 
House, on both sides of the aisle, for their cooperation as we have 
moved this bill through its various stages, as well as the leadership, 
committee, and personal staffs who have worked on the bill. In 
addition, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole for the excellent manner in which he has presided over these 
extended deliberations.
  Second, I want to point out that this bill has some things that 
everyone likes, and some things that some of us dislike intensely. We 
must look beyond to the details to the whole.
                               {time}  1245

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing in the overall bill is 
making fundamental needed reforms to the foreign policy establishment, 
reforms that this House voted for with a strong vote yesterday evening, 
in defeating the Ackerman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we are cutting our budget for the international affairs 
function in line with today's budget realities. We are setting forth 
policies that address important foreign policy problems, from terrorism 
to nuclear proliferation to the situation in Cuba.
  We are doing both of these things in an effort that has earned the 
backing of groups as diverse as Citizens Against Government Waste and 
Americans for Tax Reform, from the Irish National Caucus and the 
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to the 
Family Research Council and Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  And just one added note. In addition, language has been offered by 
another senior member of our committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], which is included, that would cut AID's operating expenses by 
an additional 15 percent above the 10 percent reduction in the bill.

 amendment offered by mr. hoyer to the amendment offered by mr. gilman

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer to the amendment to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Gilman:
       At the end of the amendment, add the following: In title 
     XXVI (relating to foreign policy provisions) insert the 
     following at the end of chapter 1:

     SEC. 2604. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA SELF-DEFENSE ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Serbian aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     continues into its third year, the violence has escalated and 
     become widespread, and ethnic cleansing by Serbs has been 
     renewed.
       (2) It has been almost one year since the Bosnian 
     Government unconditionally, and on time, accepted the 
     ``Contact Group'' plan, which the Serb forces have rejected.
       (3) The United Nations has failed to protect its declared 
     safe havens from continuing and relentless Serbian 
     aggression, and has failed to order North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO) air strikes against Serb forces in 
     retaliation for their attacks on Sarajevo, despite calls from 
     its own field commander to do so.
       (4) The United Nations Security Council has not considered 
     a resolution providing for the multilateral termination of 
     the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would 
     be the preferred course of action to allow that country to 
     defend itself.
       (5) The United Nations Security Council has not taken 
     measures necessary to maintain international peace and 
     security in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the aggression 
     against that country began in April 1992. [[Page H5713]] 
       (6) For the reasons stated in section 520 of the Foreign 
     Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 
     (Public Law 103-236), the Congress has found that continued 
     application of an international arms embargo to the 
     Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina contravenes that 
     Government's inherent right of individual or collective self-
     defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and 
     therefore is inconsistent with international law.
       (c) Statement of Purpose.--The Congress supports the 
     efforts of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina--
       (1) to defend its people and the territory of the Republic;
       (2) to preserve the sovereignty, independence, and 
     territorial integrity of the Republic; and
       (3) to bring about a peaceful, just, fair, viable, and 
     sustainable settlement of the conflict in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina.
       (d) Termination of Arms Embargo.--
       (1) Termination.--The President shall terminate the United 
     States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina upon receipt from that Government of a request 
     for assistance in exercising its right of self-defense under 
     Article 51 of the United States Charter.
       (2) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``United 
     States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina'' means the application to the Government of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina of--
       (A) the policy adopted July 10, 1991, and published in the 
     Federal Register of July 19, 1991 (58 FR 33322) under the 
     heading ``Suspension of Munitions Export Licensees to 
     Yugoslavia''; and
       (B) any similar policy applied by the United States 
     Government as of the date of receipt of the request described 
     in paragraph (1) pursuant to which approval is denied for 
     transfers of defense articles and defense services to the 
     former Yugoslavia.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted as authorization for deployment of United States 
     forces in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any 
     purpose, including training, support, or delivery of military 
     equipment.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. As I indicated to the gentleman last night, with the 
short period of time left for debate on this measure, I would think it 
would be more appropriate that we take this as a freestanding bill, and 
I assure the gentleman we will put this measure on at the earliest 
possible date next week in our committee so that it can move to the 
floor as rapidly as possible.
  I think to try to compress the debate in the short period of time we 
have remaining on the floor today does a disservice to this very 
critical issue, and I would hope that the gentleman would consider at 
this point taking the measure off the floor and taking it up in full 
committee and getting it as a freestanding bill on the floor when we 
would all have an opportunity to extensive debate.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. He and I have 
discussed this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], 
who wanted to be recognized initially on the en bloc amendment.
  (Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's 
amendment.
  I oppose this amendment for three basic reasons.
  First, the amendment includes bad policy language. It folds together 
several amendments that were printed in the Record that individually 
are objectionable.
  On North Korea, OPIC, the International Parliamentary Union, U.N. 
command and control--the list goes on and on--the amendment takes 
United States policy in a bad direction.
  Second, this amendment enables the bill manager to delete provisions 
of the current bill without any debate.
  These same provisions were put in the bill without discussion and 
over the minority's objection.
  The bill manager should have to stand up and explain to the House why 
a provision like that on espionage was included in the chairman's mark 
and the committee-passed bill, and why it is now being dropped.
  These are not just technical corrections. They
   are U-turns in the road. The bill manager should explain his 
driving.

  Third, I oppose this amendment on process grounds.
  It contains several provisions that we start to see until yesterday, 
and in three cases, provisions that we received only late last night or 
early this morning: provisions on the environment, special authorities, 
MTCR verification, USIA programs, and overall funding for fiscal year 
1988.
  These amendments were never even filed in the Congressional Record. 
We haven't had adequate time to study these provisions. We don't know 
what they do. We don't know their implications. We shouldn't vote for 
provisions that many on both sides of the aisle have had no opportunity 
to review.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that the arms embargo 
against Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be lifted upon receiving a request 
from the Bosnian Government to do so.
  I suggest there is no more important issue that confronts this 
country and the international community at this moment in time, in this 
moment in history, than does this issue.
  Last year, with bipartisan support the House voted overwhelmingly to 
lift the U.N. embargo, an action designed to uphold Bosnia and 
Herzegovina's inherent and recognizable right of self-defense, as 
provided under article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
  Following the House vote on June 9 last year, Bosnia accepted the 
contact groups, that is, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and 
ourselves, plan after the group assured Bosnia that if the Serbs 
refused the plan, international sanctions against Serbia would be 
tightened, more efforts would be made to afford greater protection of 
safe areas by the United Nations, and ultimately the arms embargo would 
be lifted.
  Mr. Chairman, I was at a meeting with the Bosnian President, 
President Izetbegovic, and Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic, and others, 
in Sarajevo, when it was announced Bosnia would accept the plan 
unconditionally. That acceptance, Mr. Chairman, was met by Serbia's 
ultimate rejection.
  And what did the international community do? First, sanctions against 
Serbia were eased and safe areas were left abandoned to the wanton 
aggression of the Bosnian Serbs and, of course, Bosnia continues to 
fall victim to the arms embargo.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, here we are 1 year later. And what has time 
brought the Bosnians? Nothing other than more deaths.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has 
expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
we have a number of amendments that are pending, but I hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be concerned about the 
time disbursement and the time other people are going to need to 
discuss other parts of the bill. I will not object, but I hope we do 
not see that go on any further.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am going 
to ask the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] if he would please 
consider other Members who want to debate other important issues and 
not take up a good portion of the remaining time of debate, and that is 
why I asked that you withdraw the amendment and give us a freestanding 
amendment, a freestanding measure later on next week, whenever we can 
get it to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my good friend.
  There are a few Members on this floor for whom I have more respect. I 
want to tell the gentleman, with as much respect as I can, yesterday we 
[[Page H5714]] voted on an amendment. We had approximately 2\1/2\ 
hours, maybe longer, on the War Powers Act.
  As the gentleman probably knows, I was one of the few Democrats who 
voted for the Hyde amendment. So I agreed with the proposition that the 
gentleman from Illinois raised. Nobody on this floor believes that if 
we consider the war powers amendment next week, the week after or 4 
weeks from now, it would have made a whit of difference.
  This amendment, for which time was not made available and which this 
Member had to go through a relatively strained parliamentary procedure 
to even get considered, at a time when people are dying in hostage, in 
a genocide, in a country that the international community has 
recognized, that the international community has said is subject to 
genocide and which this country, this country said is led by war 
criminals, Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Kradajic, Mr. Miladiz in Bosnian Serbia; 
our Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleberger, under George Bush, 
leveled the charge and accusation they were war criminals.
  I say with all due respect and affection to my good friend from New 
York, the chairman of the committee, I regret I have not had the 
opportunity even to present----
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection and 
just ask the sponsor of the measure to consider there are other Members 
who want to be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the 
gentleman from Maryland has only requested the time, as I understand 
it, in order to make up for the time that the gentleman yielded so 
graciously to other Members, especially the gentleman from Florida, so 
that he could present in timely fashion the opposition to the en bloc 
amendment and, therefore, his time was used up.
  I do not understand why anyone would make an objection to the 
gentleman now taking the time to explain the reason for his amendment, 
and so, the gentleman from Maryland, I think you have an amendment here 
that is one of the most important that we have faced this whole bill, 
this issue. Like you say, it is a question of genocide.
  You know, we had a holocaust at one time in this world. Many people 
at that time said, ``Never again, never again.'' But we are witnessing 
it today. We witnessed it for 3 years, and we have stood back and we 
have done nothing.
  We are saying we do not want to do anything. We want to let it go on, 
just let them be killed, because they are not Americans, they are way 
over there in Bosnia.
  So I think that the gentleman has a very good amendment, and I hope 
that the House will adopt his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for not objecting.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are 1 year later, and what has time brought the 
Bosnians?
  All of us know: Further deaths, further ethnic cleansing, further 
disruption to the democratically elected government.
                              {time}  1300

  For the aggressors however, Mr. Chairman, they just dug their 
trenches a little deeper. And the Bosnian Serbs upped the ante by 
taking more than 370 U.N. troops hostage. They released some, but they 
still hold others, and then, on last Friday they shot down a U.S. F-16 
fighter. Thank God that he has now been retrieved. We thank the 
technology that allowed him to get out of that plane and to let us know 
where he was.
  But, Mr. Chairman, let us be clear.
  It is not just UNPROFOR that is being held hostage but the United 
Nations and NATO itself. A test of wills has been going on now for 3 
years between the Bosnian Serbs, Milosevic, and the United Nations and 
NATO. The Serbs have won every time. And the world's most powerful 
collective institution is being rendered helpless.
  On several occasions, we have witnessed Bosnia's aggressors stay 
their assaults at the prospect that Bosnia would be aided by the 
international community. But each time, Mr. Chairman, they have 
returned even more bold and resolute to try to finish their crime, the 
annihilation of an independent democratic, internationally recognized 
Bosnia, when the international community has failed to act decisively. 
The taking of UNPROFOR hostages is but the latest example of such 
boldness and of such contempt for the international community's lack of 
resolve.
  Mr. Chairman, we in America have serious national interests in 
helping the people of Bosnia, which I think it very important to point 
out consists of Moslems, Croats, and Serbs.
  First, this is a recognized member state of the United Nations. We 
have an interest as we did with Kuwait in seeing that it is not 
destroyed.
  Second, we have an interest in stopping a genocide. Surely we do not 
want history to show that within years of one genocide we stood idly by 
while it was committed in Europe again?
  Third, we have an interest in international norms and laws being 
upheld and ultimately respected. If not, why should any nation seek 
help from an international community that espouses rule by law yet 
acknowledges and ultimately respects rule by force.
  Fourth, we have an interest in making sure that the carnage of Bosnia 
does not spread to other nations with the real possibility of pitting 
NATO allies against each other.
  I think it is also useful, Mr. Chairman, for us to take a moment to 
recall the actions that led up to the crisis with which we are now 
concerned. Those actions included:
  First, the increasingly bold and unrelenting Serb violations of a 
heavy weapon exclusion zone;
  Second, the shelling of Sarajevo;
  Third, the carrying off with artillery pieces and a mortar out of a 
U.N.-NATO impoundment depot, and
  Fourth, the ignoring of a U.N.-NATO ultimatum.
  It was only then that NATO conducted an air raid. The Serbs 
retaliated by shelling 5 ``safe-areas'' in Bosnia killing 76 people. 
That triggered a second NATO strike on other pale ammunition dumps. The 
Serb response was to seize hundreds of members of U.N. peace-keeping 
forces and then to shoot down a United States fighter enforcing the no-
fly zone.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that what we are encountering is 
similar to a scene dating back to the 1930's when another dictator 
sought to carve up a neighboring country in the name of ethnic unity. 
It occurred in Munich in 1938. It is appeasement.
  At the outset of the crisis in Czechoslovakia one European leader 
remarked and I wish that everybody would listen to this, ``How 
horrible, fantastic incredible it is that we should be digging trenches 
and tying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country 
between people of whom we know nothing.''
  All of us, and particularly our fathers, and many who serve in this 
room, learned the lessons of that negligence.
  Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that this House will repeat its message of 
1993-94 and say that we are going to allow the Bosnians to have the 
right and ability to defend themselves from terrorists.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me just say 
that I have a first degree amendment, and I ask for a division of the 
question on the last part of Mr. Gilman's amendment regarding AID and 
O&E cuts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will divide the question at the appropriate 
time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This is going to be a very confusing period as 
we discuss and debate the chairman's mark because we are going to be 
talking about several different issues, and I would just like to point 
out that the gentleman's amendment is likely to pass. I voted for it, I 
believe, the last time. I think it will pass this time. Unfortunately 
this issue was not brought before the committee. Otherwise it probably 
would have been a part of the [[Page H5715]] entire debate, and it 
probably would have passed anyhow, and so I am just a little 
disappointed that this could not have been brought up as a separate 
issue. I do not have the time to yield, but I just say, I wish this 
wasn't in the mix right now because it is going to confuse a lot of 
people who are paying attention to the debate.
  I had an amendment which was a freestanding amendment which is now 
part of the chairman's mark which will be voted on separately, which is 
confusing, which would cut the AID operating expenses. And AID last 
year got $517.5 million to run its operation. This year it was 
increased to $529 million. The chairman's mark reduced that down to 
$465 or $466 million, and what my amendment does is reduce it further, 
down to about $400 million.
  Now the reason that I propose this amendment is because $400 million 
is more than enough money for the operating expenses of AID. We cut our 
staff here in the Congress by a third. What we are asking with my 
amendment is for AID to cut their staffs and their operating expenses 
by less than a fourth, and we think that is reasonable thing to do. If 
we can do it by a third, they can sure do it by less than a fourth.
  Now I would also like to point out that AID has adopted the practice 
in my view of wasting money. I want to quote to my colleagues, and I 
hope they will pay particular attention to this if I might have 
everybody's attention. This is a memo that was sent out by the 
leadership of AID to many of their offices around the world. And I 
quote, I want to quote from, this interoffice memo which went around 
the world to many AID offices, and this is a quote from Sally Shelton, 
senior staffer at AID. She said:

       Larry Burn, assistant administrator from management at AID, 
     announced that AID was 62 percent through the fiscal year and 
     we have 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement 
     actions completed. We need to do, and that means spend, we 
     need to do $1.9 billion in the next 5 months.
       Burn also said, ``There are large pockets of money in the 
     field, so let's get moving.''

  So here was AID two-thirds of the way through their year saying they 
had only spent one-third of their budget so let us get on with spending 
more money so we can ask for more in the coming year.
  This is a perfect example of bureaucrats trying to spend money as 
fast as they possibly can, even more than they should, so they can ask 
for more money in the next fiscal year.
  In addition to that, there are some other items of waste that I would 
like to point out where AID is concerned:

       In El Salvador, AID-sponsored economists helped organize a 
     socialistic land reform program in the early 1980s that 
     nationalized land holdings, banks and private export 
     companies. After the U.S. had spent billions in El Salvador, 
     former President Alfredo Cristiani commented that millions 
     more would be needed ``just to correct the damage done by 
     U.S. assistance in nationalizing the economy.''

  So what AID did, the President down there said, was something that 
hurt them rather than help, and they spent millions and millions of 
dollars to do that.

       After the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, more than $1 
     billion in direct and indirect U.S. aid flooded Nicaragua. 
     Hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars were lost bailing 
     out a corrupt banking system largely controlled by Sandinista 
     bureaucrats and loan officers. Even today, this fiasco 
     threatens Nicaragua's democracy.

  In Burundi they spent $7 million to buy a 1,000-acre farm to raise 
improved corn seed variety. This farm cost the American taxpayer $7,000 
an acre, and I want to tell my colleagues, in Burundi you can get it 
for practically nothing, which is an outrageously expensive price to 
pay for an acre of farmland on which you are growing corn.
  The project turned out to be a complete disaster because AID located 
the farm near the President of Burundi's home village even though this 
was an area of the country with the worst soil. They were simply trying 
to placate the President's whimsical desire to have a fancy foreign aid 
project in his home village. Then it turned out after this $7 million 
investment that there were no improved varieties of corn seed to be 
grown in Burundi because the ag research had never been done and I can 
go on and on and on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that AID, like every agency of 
Government, needs to be fiscally responsible. We have a huge national 
debt, we have huge deficits, and this House and the Senate are trying 
our dead level best to get control of runaway Government spending.
  Here is an agency that has wasted money. I was a senior Republican on 
Africa for 10 years. I can tell my colleagues they wasted money in many 
countries over there. Some of the projects were good, but much of the 
money was wasted, and here we have, as I said before, a memo going out 
by the leadership in that agency saying that we have to spend money as 
fast as we possibly can because we are two-thirds of the way through 
our fiscal year and we have only spent one-third of our budget.
  We need to send a message to AID. We cut back Congress by a third as 
far as our staffs were concerned. They can stand a 20- to 25-percent 
cut.
  This is a good amendment which will save the taxpayers $65 million, 
and once again I would like to say I am very sorry that this was 
incorporated into this debate that is taking place right now on Bosnia. 
That should be a separate debate at a separate time. Unfortunately this 
is not the case.
  So, I hope my colleagues, when we get to this first degree amendment 
which will be voted on separately later on, will see fit to support it 
because it is going to save the taxpayers $65 million, it is going to 
downsize one of the biggest bureaucracies in Washington, and it would 
not hurt our foreign aid program one whit, and with that I would like 
to add also that there have been all kinds of atrocities in India that 
AID has seen fit to continue to support through our developmental 
assistance over there even though the Congress in the past has voted to 
cut that money off. AID, 2 years ago we were going to cut $4 million in 
developmental assistance to India. AID overruled the elected Members of 
Congress and went ahead and sent that money, and that is another reason 
they need to receive a very strong message.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the 
gentleman:
  You argue that this amendment would save money. Am I correct that AID 
would have to lay off at least half of their employees, and would that 
not be very costly in terms of retirement and all of the buyout 
benefits that come along with that in addition to the number of 
agencies that would be----
  Mr. BURTON Of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just 
say when we downsize Government there are going to be short-range 
problems, but long-term, long-term major cash savings, and I believe 
this amendment long term will save a great deal, more than the $65 
million that it will save initially, and I think that this is something 
the American people want us to do. They want to see us economizing 
Government and not continue to see runaway costs which have bankrupted 
this Nation, and so I think this amendment is a good one, and I hope my 
colleagues will see fit to vote for it.

                   Burton Amendment Cuts Aid to India

       Washington, DC.--Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman of the 
     Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, today won approval of an 
     amendment to the foreign aid bill which would dramatically 
     cut aid to India and other countries that consistently oppose 
     U.S. interests at the U.N.
       By including developmental assistance to the list of aid 
     programs which would be denied these countries, Burton's 
     amendment puts some real teeth into the foreign aid bill. The 
     bill, as reported by the International Relations Committee, 
     ties U.S. economic assistance directly to the voting patterns 
     of other countries at the U.N. If a country votes against the 
     U.S. more than 75% of the time, it would be ineligible for 
     economic support funds, International Military and Education 
     Training (IMET) funds, and Foreign Military Financing, three 
     relatively modest programs. The Burton Amendment adds 
     Development Assistance, which is a more substantial program, 
     to the list. For example, India which has voted against the 
     U.S. more than any other country, from 81% to 95% of the time 
     would lose $70.4 million in developmental assistance and 
     $364,000 in IMET funds next year alone.
       ``This is American taxpayers' money we are talking about 
     here. There is no reason [[Page H5716]] for us to be giving 
     American money to countries who do not support our policies. 
     I don't think it's unreasonable to expect countries who 
     receive our assistance to vote with us 25% of the time. Most 
     countries who do not support the U.S. in the U.N. are noted 
     human rights violators, such as Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, 
     Iran, and India. We should not be supporting countries like 
     this,'' said Burton after the debate.
       Burton has been a consistent critic of India's human rights 
     record, speaking frequently about torture and extrajudicial 
     killings of Sikhs in Punjab, Muslims in Kashmir, and 
     Christians in Nagaland. During debate today, he spoke 
     passionately on the House floor about India's long record of 
     abuses.
       All major human rights groups have condemned India as one 
     of the most notorious human rights violators in the world. It 
     is no surprise that India almost always votes against the 
     U.S. at the U.N. According to Asia Watch, ``Virtually 
     everyone detained in Punjab is tortured.'' Amnesty 
     International says, ``Torture (in Punjab and Kashmir) and ill 
     treatment is widespread and in some cases systematic, 
     resulting in scores of deaths in police custody.'' Even our 
     own State Department reported, ``Over 41,000 cash bounties 
     were paid to police in Punjab for extrajudicial killings of 
     Sikhs between 1991 and 1993.'' This month in Kashmir, Indian 
     troops burned to the ground a centuries-old mosque and 
     hundreds of Muslim homes in the neighborhoods surrounding it.
       ``It is absolutely grotesque and inhumane to torture human 
     beings in any way, but the government of India makes it a 
     routine practice. There are certain standards to which we 
     should hold countries who receive U.S. aid, and India is no 
     exception. I believe we should cut ALL aid to India until 
     they quit their murderous reign of terror in Punjab and 
     Kashmir, and start supporting U.S. policies at the U.N.,'' 
     said a determined Burton.
       The foreign aid bill does not cut money from humanitarian 
     food aid, international narcotics control, or antiterrorism 
     programs, even in countries which are effected by the 
     substantial cuts.

                   human rights in india at a glance

               Disregard for Religious Sites and Figures

       May 1995--Indian troops in Kashmir burn to the ground the 
     centuries-old walnut wood mosque in Charar-e-Sharies, along 
     with hundreds of homes around it.
       December 1992--Hindu mobs destroy the historic Babri Mosque 
     in Ayodhya as Indian troops stand by and watch.
       December 1992--Gurdev Singh Kaonke, one of the most revered 
     leaders of the Sikh religion, is arrested, tortured and 
     killed in police custody.
       June 1984--Indian soldiers launch an all out attack on the 
     Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest shrine of the Sikh 
     religion. 38 other temples throughout Punjab are attacked, 
     killing thousands of Sikhs.

                      What Human Rights Groups Say

       Asia Watch: ``Virtually everyone detained in Punjab is 
     tortured.''
       Amnesty International: ``Torture (in Punjab and Kashmir) 
     and illtreatment is wide-spread and in some cases systematic, 
     resulting in scores of deaths in police custody.''
       State Department Human Rights Report (1994): Over 41,000 
     cash bounties were paid to police in Punjab for extrajudicial 
     killings of Sikhs between 1991 and 1993.

       Graphic Examples of Torture and Murder, Punjab and Kashmir

       Extrajudicial murders of Sikh youth are a common 
     occurrence. Between 1986 and 1994, 6,017 unidentified Sikh 
     victims of Indian police were cremated in the District of 
     Amritsar alone. There are 13 districts in Punjab. It has been 
     estimated that security forces have had over 25,000 
     unidentified Sikhs cremated or dumped in rivers during this 
     period.
       In January 1995, the water level of the Sirhind Canal was 
     lowered for repair work. One dozen bodies of young Sikh 
     torture victims were found at the bottom of just one short 
     section of the canal with their hands and feet bound. There 
     are hundreds of miles of canals throughout the province.
       In January 1993, Indian paramilitary forces in Kashmir 
     burnt to death at least 65 Kashmiri civilians in the town of 
     Sopore. Soldiers deliberately set fire to five separate areas 
     of the town. They also dragged shopkeepers out of their shops 
     and shot them in the streets. The torching of entire Kashmiri 
     villages by Indian forces is a common tactic.
       In 1994, Sikh activist Kanwar Singh Dhami was imprisoned 
     along with his pregnant wife and son. He and his wife were 
     tortured in front of each other. When the police were unable 
     to extract an untrue confession from Mr. Dhami, they hung his 
     wife up by her heels (she was six months pregnant) forcing 
     her to have a miscarriage.
       In Amritsar district in 1993, Indian police brought a Sikh 
     youth they had tortured and thought was dead to the hospital 
     for an autopsy. After the police left, the doctors discovered 
     that the young man was miraculously still alive and revived 
     him. The police returned several hours later after hearing 
     that the man was alive. They took him out of the hospital, 
     killed him again, and brought him back to the same hospital 
     for his autopsy.
 don't support indian tyranny with american tax dollars--vote for the 
                  burton amendment to cut aid to india

       Here are some relevant facts about India and Indian-
     occupied Khalistan:
       India votes against the United States at the United Nations 
     84 percent of the time, more than any other U.S. aid 
     recipient.
       India is helping Iran build up it military arsenal.

                        Human Rights Violations

       Indian newspapers recently reported that 25,000 Sikhs were 
     either cremated as ``unclaimed bodies.'' or thrown in canals 
     and rivers.
       The White Paper on State Terrorism in Punjab cites S.S. 
     Ray, Indian Ambassador to the U.S., as the ``butcher of 
     Bengal'' and the ``butcher of Punjab.''
       Over 41,000 cash bounties were paid to police officers for 
     killing Sikhs, according to the US State Dept.
       Over 120,000 Sikhs killed since 1984.
       Over 150,000 Christians killed since 1947. Over 43,000 
     Kashmiri Muslims killed since 1988.
       Tens of thousands more languish in Indian prisons without 
     charge or trial.
       Amnesty International reports hundreds of Sikhs have 
     disappeared.
       Asia Watch reports ``virtually everyone detained in Punjab 
     is tortured.''
       Police operate over 200 torture centers (police stations) 
     in Punjab, Khalistan.
       Police routinely pick up Sikh youths and demand ransom of 
     tens of thousands of rupees for their safe release. 
     Otherwise, the youths are tortured and killed.
       Sikhs who die of torture are listed as being killed in an 
     ``encounter'' with the police.
       Despite the recent repeal of TADA, the other ``Black 
     Laws'', giving the regime sweeping powers to detain anyone 
     for any reason and kill Sikhs without fear of persecution, 
     remain on the books.
       India has not allowed Amnesty International to conduct an 
     independent human-rights investigation in Punjab, Khalistan, 
     since 1978.
       India recently attacked an ancient mosque in Kashmir which 
     houses the mausoleum of the venerated Sheik Nooruddin Wali. 
     In December 1992, Hindus destroyed the Babri mosque in 
     Ayodhya.
       In June 1984, India attacked the Golden Temple in Amristar, 
     the holiest shrine of the Sikh Nation.
       The Chicago Tribune reports that a nun was stabbed 36 times 
     by right-wing Hindu fundamentalists. By these actions, India 
     displays its religious intolerance.
       The Indian newspaper Hitavada reported in November that the 
     late Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, was paid $1.5 billion 
     by the Indian regime to foment terrorism in Punjab, 
     Khalistan, and in Kashmir.
       The State Department says that the human-rights situation 
     is getting worse.

                 India's Nuclear Threat to World Peace

       India has recently announced successful tests of the Akash 
     antiballistic missile, India's equivalent of the Patriot.
       India has deployed Prithvi missiles, which have a range of 
     250 kilometers, on the Pakistani border and has successfully 
     tested other missiles like Agni, Thrishul, etc.
       Last year, India launched the Polar Satellite Launch 
     Vehicle, which can be made to carry nuclear warheads.
       India spends over 20% of its research and development 
     budget on the development of nuclear weapons. Only 2% goes to 
     education and health.

                Khalistan's Right to Self-Determination

       No Sikh has ever signed the Indian constitution.
       The Sikh leadership declared Khalistan independent on 
     October 7, 1987.
       The movement to liberate Khalistan is peaceful, democratic, 
     and nonviolent.
       Former Member of Parliament Simranjit Singh Mann has been 
     held in a windowless cell for four months for the ``crime'' 
     of speaking out for Khalistan.
       The Supreme Court of India ruled that asking for Khalistan 
     is not a crime.
       According to India Abroad, 96 percent of the Sikhs in 
     Punjab, Khalistan did not vote in India's February 1992 
     elections there.
       India has 500,000 troops in Punjab, occupied Khalistan, 
     alone--more than Britain had in the entire subcontinent 
     during its rule.
       Khalistan, Kashmir, and Nagaland continue to be denied 
     their right to self-determination.
       India has 18 official languages. It is a polyglot like the 
     former Soviet Union. It is not one country.

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say that I oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I think it is very 
shortsighted, but I want to address the issue that my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], mentioned with respect to Bosnia.
  Mr. Chairman, after 3 years of all out war in Bosnia, and more than 
200,000 people killed and 16,000 children slaughtered, and after 2 
million people have been left homeless, and countless tens of thousands 
of women and girls have been raped, we are once again on this floor 
today debating whether or not the United States of America should take 
action in Bosnia.

                              {time}  1315

  Once again, Mr. Chairman, there are those who say we cannot lift the 
arms [[Page H5717]] embargo because it will involve us directly in the 
war. But let us be honest, Mr. Chairman. We are already involved in 
this war. By keeping this embargo in place for so long, not only have 
we denied the Bosnian people the very weapons they need to personally 
defend themselves, we have helped tilt the balance of the war in favor 
of Serbian aggression. In doing so, we have become unwitting 
accomplices to a mass genocide of more than 200,000 people.
  Mr. Chairman, there can be no more excuses, there can be no more 
second guessing. It is time that we lift this embargo once and for all.
  Now, over the past 3 years we have seen two dozen cease-fires come 
and go. We have seen the peace process start, stall, countless times. 
We have watched Serbs break agreement after agreement after agreement. 
We have seen NATO warnings issued and ignored. And the one constant 
through it all has been the absolute unwillingness of the West to take 
meaningful steps to stop the slaughter in Bosnia.
  The greatest sin, Mr. Chairman, is not that we simply turned our 
backs. The greatest sin in Bosnia is that time and time again we have 
raised the hopes of the Bosnian people that the cavalry was on its way, 
and time and again we have not delivered.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of Bosnia deserve better than this. If we 
are not going to stop the slaughter, if we are not going to strike back 
at the Serbs, if we are not going to defend Bosnia, then we should keep 
United States troops out and we should lift the arms embargo right 
away. If we are not going to defend Bosnia, then we have no right to 
continue to deny them the right to defend themselves.
  By passing this amendment today, we will simply extend to the Bosnian 
people the right which is guaranteed to every other sovereign nation 
under the U.N. charter, and that is the right of self-defense, and even 
the more fundamental right to self-determination.
  To those who would argue and say that lifting the embargo will 
disrupt the peace process. I say what peace process? There is no peace 
process to keep in Bosnia right now. Lifting the arms embargo will no 
weaken the peace process, it will strengthen it. The reason peace talks 
have failed the past 3 years is because the Serbs have no reason to 
negotiate. They faced no real opposition on the battlefield, although 
the Bosnian Moslems are waging a heroic battle with limited means. But 
they face no real opposition and they have no incentive to stay at the 
negotiating table as a result of that.
  Only when the Serbs are certain that the Bosnians can defend 
themselves will they realize that further aggression will really get 
them nowhere, and only then, Mr. Chairman, will we have a real chance 
for peace in Bosnia.
  Mr. Chairman, if we had been courageous in our approach on this most 
difficult issue from the very beginning at the beginning of this 
decade, we would not be in this situation we are in today. The very 
least we can do today is to lift the arms embargo, because if we do not 
lift this embargo and at least let the people of Bosnia defend 
themselves, then the blood of Bosnia is not just on the hands of the 
Serbs, but is on all of us.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like to real briefly ask 
one question: If the Bosnia amendment passes, as I believe it will, 
will the gentleman from Michigan vote for the bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are too many 
other things in the bill I will not support.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What is the purpose of the debate?
  Mr. BONIOR. The purpose is to get out to the American people that 
what we are doing in Bosnia is not in the best interests of peace in 
Europe, Bosnia, or international relations with the United States. It 
seems to me that we cannot stand by and watch as 200,000 people be made 
homeless, as 16,000 children are slaughtered, and tens of thousands of 
countless women are raped.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Bonior was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BONIOR. We have an obligation, and the purpose seems to me, as my 
friend from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has stated, is to let these people 
defend themselves.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I want to make the point that we on the Committee on 
International Operations agreed to give the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer] a freestanding hearing next week on his bill, which 
probably would have passed and been brought to the floor and passed.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have heard that 
argument three times on the floor. The problem with that argument, I 
say to my friend from Indiana, is this: That while the committee may do 
that, while the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] may be in favor of 
doing that, the majority leader on the other side of the aisle is 
opposed to what we are going here. It is my opinion that would not see 
the light of day.
  Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will yield further, the fact of the 
matter is if you vote against it after the amendment passes, you have 
not accomplished a thing, whereas if you waited and brought the bill up 
as a freestanding bill, it would pass.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I could not 
live with myself and continue to serve in the Congress if I did not 
speak on this amendment. I would not deserve to have the right to serve 
in this body.
  I have visited Yugoslavia three times. The first time with the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, who will speak in support 
of it. We were in Vukovar when the Serbs were bombing Vukovar, and we 
went down in the cellars and saw the people who told us that their 
families had been slaughtered. Slaughtered. They had no weapons to 
defend themselves. Now Vukovar will go down in the history of 
Yugoslavia as a place that will be like somewhere unbelievable in their 
history.
  Second, we went back one other time on a CSCE trip. We went into 
Mostar. In east Mostar the Croats and then the Serbs have been bombing 
and bombing. Here is a picture of a young lady, if the cameras and 
Members can pick it up, that will show that she was in a hospital, with 
no medicine, nothing at all to take care of her.
  We were in a prison camp run by the Serbs. The Moslems used to go 
around like this with their heads down, and they could not come up and 
look you in the eye. If they did, they hollered at them, they shouted 
at them. That will stick in my mind forever.
  I have seen these things. It is not something I read about in the 
Washington Post or the Times. This is not something that I saw on Peter 
Jennings. This is something I saw with my own eyes.
  Now, the close is this: We do not want to send American troops there. 
I do not want to send American troops there. I do not believe there are 
many people here who want to send American troops there. So if you are 
not going to send American troops, should you not give the Bosnians, 
the Moslems, and also the Croats the opportunity to defend themselves? 
Their moms and dads are being killed.
  Imagine, put yourself in their role. There you are in a little 
village of east Mostar. The murderers are coming in. Your wife is in 
the basement, your children are down in the basement, maybe your mom 
is, and you cannot defend yourself. You know NATO is not coming in. You 
do not want the United States to send troops in. All you want is for 
the arms embargo to be lifted, whereby you can defend yourself.
  I have been in the Holocaust Museum over Christmas. I took my family. 
We saw the letters where during World War II people said no, these 
things were not happening. Believe me slaughter and genocide are 
occurring.
  The gentleman from Michigan mentioned rape. We had hearings in the 
Helsinki Commission that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] can 
talk about, 20,000 women have been raped.
  This is a good amendment. It is a good amendment on this bill. It is 
a good amendment on any bill. It is an amendment that will send a 
message, [[Page H5718]] so when they listen on their little crystal 
radio sets tonight or tomorrow, they will hear that the U.S. Congress 
has voted to lift the arms embargo, to stand with them. If this 
amendment passes, believe me, I do not know how I am going to vote on 
this bill. I am going back and forth. But if this amendment passes, 
boy, I will support this bill with greater vigor.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted the gentleman to yield to 
compliment him on his statement and associate myself with the comments 
that he has made. I enjoyed my service on the CSCE with him. We had 
been to Yugoslavia and seen firsthand. It is interesting to point out 
as we are debating the issue here, the Prime Minister of Bosnia is 
testifying before the Helsinki Commission as to the necessity to remove 
the arms embargo now. By enforcing the arms embargo, we are violating 
international law. We must give the people the right to defend 
themselves. I compliment the gentleman on his statement.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all that I appreciate the 
frustration that lives at the basis of the comments of many of my 
colleagues who favor the Hoyer amendment. I do not favor it and am 
going to state the case against it. But I fully understand the 
frustrations involved. Let me give you several reasons why I think 
lifting this embargo at this time is a very dangerous move.
  First of all, we are at an extremely delicate time. We have 150 
hostages being held, the war is intensifying in Bosnia, the war is 
threatened to be broadened in Croatia, and it is at an extremely 
delicate point. This vote in this House is going to be construed as a 
vote to intensify the war. I think the proponents of the war do not 
really deny that. 150 hostages' lives are on the line, and we vote in 
this House to intensify the war. Think of that for a moment.
  Now, second, there is no doubt what follows after we vote to lift, if 
we did lift unilaterally. And what follows is an Americanization of the 
war. A unilateral lifting of the embargo will put 25,000 American 
troops into Bosnia. There is not any doubt about that. Our allies, who 
are now conducting UNPROFOR, have made it very clear to use they are 
pulling out, and the President of the United States has said when 
UNPROFOR pulls out, we are going to go in. And we are going to go in. 
We have the commitment. There is no doubt about that commitment.
  So the impact of lifting the embargo is 25,000 American troops go 
into Bosnia. We then will become responsible for humanitarian services. 
We will become responsible for protecting the Bosnian civilians. That 
is the result, and it is not in doubt. Lift the embargo unilaterally 
and we are committed to go in. The British and the French and all the 
others pull out. We are sitting there, we have got to protect the 
Bosnian civilians, we have got to deliver the humanitarian services.
  Next: Nobody addresses the financial consequences of this. The 
Defense Department has said that if you are going to level the playing 
field it is going to take $1 billion by conservation estimates. People 
just ignore that. We are going to have to supply those arms. The 
Bosnian Government cannot pay for it. Nobody is talking about stepping 
up here to the bar and putting $1 billion on the line, but that is the 
consequence of a unilateral lift.
  Nobody talks about the problems of delivery. How do you get these 
arms in? In order for the arms to go in, they have got to go, if they 
go by land or sea, through Croatia or through Serbia. How does that 
happen? They are going to have something to say about it, and they are 
probably going to take a good many of the arms. If you do it by air, 
all the airfields are in range of the Serbian gunners. So the problem 
of delivery is a serious one.
  Likewise, the problems of training. These are big guns. That is what 
the Bosnians need. They do not know how to use these weapons. Who is 
going to teach them? We are going to have to teach them. Where are you 
going to teach them? You are going to teach them on the ground, in 
Bosnia. American troops in Bosnia on the ground training them.
  Now, another problem with this is the impact on our allies. None of 
our allies support a unilateral lift of the embargo so far as I know, 
save one, Turkey. The United Kingdom is against it, France is against 
it, Canada is against it, the Netherlands is against it, Germany is 
against it, Spain is against it, Belgium is against it, Denmark is 
against it. They are all against it, and they are the ones that have 
troops on the ground whose lives will be at risk when we unilaterally 
lift the embargo.
  We see the unilateral lifting of the embargo as a kind of risk-free 
solution. It will solve the war. We will not injure any Americans. But, 
my friends, that is not what is going to be what happens. We are going 
to have troops on the ground, and enormous strains will develop between 
the United States and its allies in NATO. I do not know of any expert, 
military or diplomatic, who favors a unilateral lift of the embargo.

                              {time}  1330

  I have listened to testimony on this and briefings over and over 
again. Talk to our Pentagon people; talk to our diplomats. They will 
tell you that the result of lifting this embargo unilaterally is to put 
Americans right in the hottest war in the world today. It is a very, 
very unwise move.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  To say that the debate on the floor is somewhat discombobulated on 
this particular amendment I think would be an understatement. We have 
three amendments here. We have the Hoyer amendment, the Burton 
amendment and the manager's amendment.
  Let me just say that I think the Hoyer amendment is a good amendment. 
I do not agree that if we lift the embargo we are putting in American 
troops. I think that is really stretching the argument. I think the 
reason that we have to lift the embargo is because we have to allow 
people to defend themselves and basically that is what I see this 
amendment doing.
  But there is another provision here that we are debating. That is the 
Burton amendment. I want to look at the facts of that amendment, 
because it is extremely important to this House. But before I do, my 
friend here has been waiting to say a word.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the foreign aid package 
we have before us today. This is a good bill, and I congratulate the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and his committee for their hard 
work on this legislation.
  We have made and we are going to make a lot of tough choices on the 
road to balancing the Federal budget. I could not go home to southern 
Ohio and explain budget reductions that affect the people there without 
first cutting the funds we have sent abroad. This is a good bill.
  I support the foreign aid package we have before us today. This is a 
good bill and I congratulate Chairman Gilman and his committee for 
their hard work on this legislation.
  We have made, and are going to make, a lot of tough choices on the 
road to balancing the Federal budget. I could not go home to southern 
Ohio and explain budget reductions that effect the people there, 
without first cutting the funds we send abroad. This is a good bill.
  I would however like to say that I understand that in a post-cold-war 
era, Radio Free Europe should and must be cut back. But I strongly 
oppose its outright elimination. The committee bill cuts the program 
from $230 million a year to $75 million a year. That's a 70-percent 
cut. It's worth saving, and $75 million will keep it alive.
  I've been to Eastern Europe and I've heard the broadcasts. In some 
countries its still the only independent, uncensored news available.
  Former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick said, ``I think it is an 
important mistake to eliminate U.S. support for the freedom radios. 
They are the best purveyors of the message of freedom, the cheapest, 
safest, and most effective instrument of foreign policy.'' I could not 
agree with her more.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution, 
and reclaim the balance of my time.
  Let us look at the facts behind the Burton amendment, because this is 
a [[Page H5719]] key amendment to this bill. Over the past 10 years, 
AID has become a bloated bureaucracy by anyone's estimation, including 
GAO and every other agency that has ever looked at what goes on in AID, 
including this Congress. In 1985, their programs cost $9.8 billion. 
That was 10 years ago. Today these programs are down to $7.5 billion. 
That is a $2.3 billion drop. That is a 23 percent reduction in what 
AID's programs are costing.
  But look at what is happening to administrative costs. That is what 
the Burton amendment is addressing. The AID bureaucracy has received an 
increase in salary, travel, office supplies by some 41 percent. In 
1985, we were spending $393 million in administrative costs. Now they 
are receiving $556 million. That is an increase of 41 percent in their 
administrative costs. That is what we mean by bloated bureaucracy. The 
programs go down but the agency's costs for salaries and travel go up 
by 41 percent.
  What the Burton amendment does is cut it down, not by 41 percent, but 
by 25 percent. And that is certainly going in the right direction.
  AID is a smaller agency in programs but costs 40 percent more to run. 
That is why this is such an important amendment. I am asking Members to 
vote for it.
  This is the right amendment. This issue of what it costs to run this 
agency is a classic picture of an inefficient bureaucracy, or a 
bureaucracy run amok. The AID bureaucracy is asking this year, with all 
the increases they got in administrative costs, they are asking for 
$11.5 million more so they can all fly first class around the country 
and around the world.
  It is time that we cut back on the administrative costs. This 
committee bill that we have before us makes a modest cut of 10 percent 
for the next 2 years. What the Burton amendment is saying is to cut it 
back by 25 percent. Remember, they have a 41-percent operating cost 
increase, while the programs have dropped by 23 percent. So it is a 
huge increase, even with the Burton amendment.
  There is a huge amount, $556 million. If you cut it by $90 million, 
you are still at $466 million. In 1985, when this agency was spending 
$2 billion more and had many more programs, they were spending on 
administration costs $393 million. So we still see increases for 
administration, while we have seen cutbacks in the programs by $2 
billion.
  It does not make sense, does it? That is why this particular 
amendment is a good amendment. This amendment is only a modest 
reduction. If you are interested in putting the taxpayers first, if you 
want to cut waste and if you believe in shrinking the bureaucracy, then 
this vote on the Burton amendment is a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman know of any State 
Department employee who flies first class, who has flown first class in 
a commercial airline in this administration?
  Mr. ROTH. I will not name any by name. I am more responsible than 
that. But call down at the State Department. They will probably give 
you an entire list.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, no one flies first class.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment incorporates a 
provision which I had filed as a separate amendment. Let me commend 
Chairman Gilman for including this provision.
  My amendment injects some real savings into the reorganization plan. 
It requires that a 20-percent reduction be made in the functions that 
are folded into the State Department.
  This reduction would be in effect for at least 2 fiscal years.
  This provision insures that we will get savings from this 
reorganization, when it occurs in 1998 and 1999.
  Without this provision, we are not assured of any savings.
  This provision rectifies that problem and improves the bill.
  Let me also take this opportunity to describe a provision which was 
incorporated in the en bloc amendment, adopted last night. This 
provision, which I had filed as a separate amendment, requires an 
annual assessment of the impact of U.S. foreign policy on our trade 
posture and our competitive position in global markets. In 1988, 
Congress enacted a similar requirement, as part of the Trade Act, 
however the provision ``sunsetted'' last year and is no longer in 
effect.
  My amendment expands on that 1988 law, by requiring that we look at 
our overall competitive position.
  This amendment is important because we in the Congress must begin 
considering how our foreign policy affects our ability to compete.
  In today's world, our national security depends as much on our 
economic strength as on our military might. In our Subcommittee on 
International Economic Policy, we will use this report as the basis for 
increased oversight on how foreign policy affects trade.
  Finally, let me register my concern over another provision--which 
authorizes the President to sell off the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation.
  My understanding is that this does not in any way require the sale--
it merely authorizes it.
  Last year, Congress reauthorized OPIC for 2 years.
   Our Subcommittee on Economic Policy is scheduled to consider OPIC 
next year. OPIC has $10 billion outstanding in loans, guarantees and 
insurance policies. Most of these commitments are for 20 years, and the 
Government cannot cancel them without jeopardizing the full faith and 
credit of the United States.

  Against these liabilities, OPIC has $2.3 billion in reserves--on 
deposit in the U.S. Treasury.
  OPIC pays for itself, and it even makes money--last year earning $161 
million. Even though OPIC is subject to annual appropriations, it does 
not use any taxpayer money.
  In effect, the Appropriations Committee controls how OPIC uses its 
own money. The Reagan administration studied whether OPIC could be 
privatized--most recently in 1987--and the conclusion at the time was 
that no one in the private sector would buy it.
  It may be time to study this again, but we must not pre-judge the 
feasibility of making this sale.
  This provision should not be taken by anyone as a congressional 
policy. The truth is, we simply do not know yet what the impact would 
be of selling OPIC. Therefore, this provision is included in the 
manager's amendment with this understanding.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, we are actually debating three amendments, 
and I would like to speak on all three.
  First of all, with regard to the Burton amendment to cut AID, I 
strongly, strongly oppose it. Cutting AID any further, and we are 
cutting it enough in this bill, would in my opinion render AID much 
less effective. It would be simply a matter of being penny wise and 
pound foolish. If we are going to lead in the world, then we have to 
have a strong AID program. So I oppose the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton].
  The chairman's amendment, the manager's amendment, I oppose that as 
well, primarily because in the amendment we are withdrawing from the 
Inter-Parliamentary Union. Let me tell Members what that means.
  I want to read the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] with regard to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It says the act 
entitled An Act to Authorize Participation by the United States in the 
Inter-Parliamentary Union approved June 28, 1935 is repealed.
  Now, we have participated in the Inter-Parliamentary Union for 60 
years. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is a group of parliaments from all 
over the world, 135 countries, which get together to discuss 
parliamentary democracy and other concerns around the world.
  Is this the time that we ought to be withdrawing from such an 
organization? To me, as so much else in this bill, this amendment is 
yet another indication of the dangerous and growing isolationist wave 
engulfing the Republican Party. The United States is the leader of the 
Free World and we ought to lead.
  The IPU is the only global international parliamentary organization 
to which the U.S. Congress belongs. We have forums who meet on NATO and 
CSCE, colleagues, but the IPU is the only parliamentary organization in 
which we have a chance to meet with members of the Middle East, 
including Israel, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
  And like most international parliamentary organizations, the great 
utility of the IPU lies not in its resolutions or debates but in the 
forum it provides for Members of Congress to interact and make direct 
contacts with [[Page H5720]] prominent parliamentarians from around the 
world. From personal experience, I have been to IPU meetings, and what 
we get in interchange of ideas and talking is certainly an enhancement 
of democracy.
  This summer the United Nations is celebrating its 50th anniversary, 
and in New York City there will be commemorations and celebrations, and 
the IPU is taking the lead. Is this the year the United States ought to 
withdraw from the Inter-Parliamentary Union when we are celebrating our 
own country, the establishment of the United Nations and the 
establishment of the victory in World War II over fascism and the 
establishment of democracy, when countries are knocking down the door 
to try to be more democratic and emulate the United States? We are 
going to withdraw from the world. We are going to pull away. I can 
think of nothing that is really more ridiculous.
  One hundred thirty-five countries participate. The United States is 
now going to join Upper Volta or some other country in not 
participating. We really ought to wake up. It may sound good but it is 
not something that is in the best interests of this country. So I am 
opposed to the chairman's, the manager's amendment.
  I want to speak briefly on the Hoyer amendment and Bosnia. There are 
some of us who for the past 3 years
 have been arguing for a lifting of the arms embargo. Every time we get 
to the floor and we are able to bring forward some kind of resolution, 
we are always hearing the argument that we should not get involved. 
What has happened every time we plead? A year passes by, months pass 
by, more people are killed, more people are raped, more injustice has 
been heaped upon genocide, heaped upon a people. And yet the world 
wrings its hands.

  In my opinion, we ought to get the British and the French and 
everybody else out of there and let the Bosnians defend themselves. 
That is all they are asking. They are asking not for American troops. 
They are asking for the arms to defend themselves. How can we just sit 
by and allow genocide to happen again on the continent of Europe? I do 
not understand it.
  Diplomatic niceties are passed; 3 years ago, they passed. We said 
this 3 years, 2 years ago, last year and now, and nothing has happened. 
And if the events of the past several weeks have taught us nothing, I 
do not know how we ever learned from history.
  The Serbs are arrogant. They thumb their nose; they care not about 
what the international community thinks. They have made a shambles out 
of NATO. They have made us look like fools. They have made our allies 
look like fools. Yet we stand by and say, no, no, no, we do not want to 
give the Bosnian Moslems a chance to defend themselves. Is it because 
they are Moslems? They are people. Give them the chance to defend 
themselves. That is all they are asking, and I commend the gentleman 
from Maryland for his amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton]. He is a valued member of our committee.
  He is the chair of our Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and has 
been performing an important function in that area. I regret that I 
cannot support his amendment. The bill before us already cuts AID 
operating expenses by $52 million in fiscal year 1996 and another $98 
million in fiscal year 1997.
  The cuts in the bill already forces reductions in over 1,000 AID 
employees. This amendment is somewhat like firing the assembly line 
workers when the cars are only half built. Personnel reductions, if 
they are to improve efficiency, must be done in a deliberate and a 
planned manner.
  While I strongly am in favor of reducing the budget and did so in the 
bill, the cuts outlined here would devastate our programs while saving 
only a small amount.
  The amendment does not make exceptions for staff supporting Russian 
disarmament programs, disaster relief or aid to starving people. 
Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. First of all, I 
would like to say that I support the Hoyer Amendment. I applaud the 
gentleman for offering it, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  As much as I would like to support my friend from Indiana, and I 
appreciate his intent to downsize our foreign aid programs, and I share 
that intent. His amendment unfortunately is just too extreme. The 
Burton amendment would cut 25 percent from the operating expenses of 
AID. A cut of that magnitude would almost certainly result in a 
shutdown of the agency by next summer or perhaps earlier. That means 
the child survival programs, disaster assistance and food aid program 
would be halted before the end of the year.
  Shutting down operations would not allow AID to oversee and implement 
the $8 billion in funds obligated but not yet expended. It could lead 
to tremendous waste and abuse, which is exactly what the gentleman from 
Indiana does not want to happen.
  The agency has already made major cuts in its staffing. The 8,750 on-
board work force level planned for October 1, 1996 is 18 percent below 
the level at the end of fiscal year 1993.
  More personnel cuts can and will be made, but such cuts need to be 
made and they will be made.
  Whatever one thinks of foreign aid, it would be irresponsible to 
force such a draconian cut in the personnel account of this agency. We 
have a responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that the funds we 
appropriate for the government programs are properly disbursed and that 
adequate oversight is provided. I believe no matter how well-
intentioned, this amendment is shortsighted and counterproductive and I 
urge the defeat of the Burton amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton 
amendment.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the Burton 
amendment. While I have the utmost respect for my colleague on the 
International Relations Committee, and I believe that his amendment is 
truly well-intentioned, I think the amendment is short-sighted
 and counter-productive. Rather than streamline AID, the Burton 
amendment will undermine its ability to implement the activities that 
we in Congress have authorized. It will also destroy the reforms that 
AID has already implemented toward cost-cutting and program 
effectiveness.

  In 1992, President George Bush appointed George Ferris to head a 
Commission on the Management of AID. It was Ferris, a Republican 
appointee, who said, ``We know of no other agency that has increased 
its effectiveness to the degree that Brian Atwood has brought change 
and reform in AID. * * * What has been accomplished at AID should serve 
as an example for other departments and agencies of the Federal 
Government.''
  If I understand my colleague from Indiana, these cuts will save the 
taxpayers money without harming our foreign policy and development 
goals. I disagree. To accommodate such drastic cuts, AID would have to 
lay off almost one-half of its direct-hire staff in the next year, 
which would force the agency to spend most of its remaining resources 
in contract termination costs, lease buyouts, transportation home for 
personnel, and on mandatory retirement and separation benefits which 
would have to be paid under the Foreign Service and Civil Service Acts.
  By mandating such drastic cuts in such a short time frame, this 
amendment would actually add millions of dollars to the cost of 
streamlining and downsizing our foreign aid programs. These cuts would 
force the agency to close down more than 20 overseas missions in 
addition to the 25 that they have already begun to close. This would 
force us to make impossible choices. Will we support new democracies or 
child survival programs? Foreign aid used to be writing checks to 
governments. But in recent years we have weaned ourselves off of direct 
payments, and have focused on helping [[Page H5721]] nations develop 
from the grassroots up. This policy shift was, correctly, mandated by 
Congress. I believe that most AID programs are an effective use of a 
very small amount of our taxpayers dollars. AID-backed training 
programs can stabilize new democracies in Latin America, and prevent 
famines in Africa. These are honorable goals which we must support. 
Therefore, I oppose the Burton amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in my remaining time I wish to make an admission. That 
is that, No. 1, I supported the measure by my friend, the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], last year, and I feel that it has great 
currency this year. However, the ranking member of this committee has 
very carefully pinpointed those areas of vital concern that all of us 
here should have. It is not that we do not recognize the horror and 
destruction that is going on in Bosnia. It is that there is at this 
time an increase in the UNPROFOR troops in that area. In addition 
thereto, the United Nations has ongoing discussions with all of our 
allies in that locale.
  The day before yesterday the Prime Minister of Hungary visited this 
august body, and some of us who met with him are mindful of his 
entreaty that we not do anything to exacerbate conditions there.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand where the gentleman from Maryland is 
coming from, and all of my colleagues and I stand with him and take no 
back seat to any Member in this House in being diametrically opposed to 
the continuing slaughter going on in Bosnia. However, we need a careful 
and reasoned approach, and not just something thrown together in just a 
few minutes in order for us to be able to arrive at such conclusions as 
we help our administration, that we help our allies, and that we help 
ourselves come to an understanding.
  There are no good solutions in Bosnia. I defy any man or woman of 
this House to come forward and say that they have the answer, and 
anyone that did have the answer would want to utilize it most 
immediately.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the manager's bill, I urge defeat of 
the foreign aid bill, I urge the defeat of the bill of the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and the defeat of the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the American Overseas Interest Act 
and the manager's amendment to this bill. In the midst of the dire 
fiscal situation in which our Nation now exists, this bill, and in 
particular, this amendment that I helped craft, begin to set a course 
in the right direction--to cut back spending and address the problems 
that come with a $200 billion deficit and steadily expanding national 
debt.
  This Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. Each day we are passing 
on to the next generation a growing $4.8 trillion national debt. Last 
November, the American people spoke in clear terms that passing on 
massive bills to our children and grandchildren is simply not 
acceptable. This new Congress heard their voices and during the first 
100 days we passed legislation that represented a change from business 
as usual--an end to the tax-and-spend policies of the past.
  The American Overseas Interest Act continues this trend to cut back 
on Government spending. This bill eliminates three agencies and 
consolidates their operations into the State Department, eliminating 
4,000 positions over 2 years. This bill saves the American taxpayer $21 
billion over 7 years--a cut of between 15 and 20 percent from current 
levels--and conforms to the budget requirement that balances the 
Federal budget in 7 years. This is the first authorization bill we have 
had of this nature in 10 years. This bill cuts $2.1 billion over fiscal 
year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, and continues to reduce spending in 
subsequent years.
  Clearly we are on the right track to reduce spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the manager's amendment, because 
it goes further and explores areas where additional cuts have to be 
made. My amendment, which is part of the manager's amendment, says 
``Let us take a look at all programs,'' including the cultural and 
educational exchange programs, the vast majority of which are 
worthwhile.
  However, Mr. Chairman, the issue is not one of merit but of cost. Can 
we afford current spending levels, given the massive debt this Nation 
has incurred?
  As a part of this amendment, I have proposed additional reductions in 
the U.S. Information Agency cultural and educational programs. 
Specifically, we would save the American taxpayer an additional $10 
million in fiscal year 1996 and another $10--half coming from Fulbright 
scholarships and half from the other exchanges. The effects of these 
savings would be to reduce spending on these accounts by 27 percent in 
fiscal year 1996 and 44 percent in fiscal year 1997 from the fiscal 
year 1995 levels.
  Mr. Chairman, these are reasonable reductions and ones arrived at 
with the cooperation of the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
Mr. Gilman, whose assistance I greatly appreciate. I am pleased to see 
that this Congress takes seriously its mandate from the American people 
that massive debt is unacceptable, that passing the buck on to future 
generations must stop and that Government spending must be brought 
under control and reduced. This bill and this amendment contribute to 
this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of both.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment has a number of serious 
defects, and it would take more time than remains in this debate to 
address all of them.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to address what is referred to as the 
Hoke amendment, which would end OPIC. OPIC, which is an organization, 
is not the one associated with oil control but the one that helps 
American companies take advantage of opportunities overseas. OMB has 
found that the transfer of OPIC reserves would be substantially 
affecting our budget situation. There is an $2.4 billion outlay that 
would be at risk. There is $146 million in income from the reserves 
that are presently used in the 150 activities. The Federal budget would 
also lose future cash flows from insurance premiums of $40 billion a 
year.
  What would that do, Mr. Chairman? What it would do is endanger what 
has been $40 billion of American exports. Not only does OPIC make money 
for the American taxpayer, but it helps produce thousands of jobs here 
in the United States. It seems to me unbelievable that someone would 
want to cripple an agency that produces revenue for the taxpayers and 
produces jobs for Americans and business opportunity for American 
companies.
  In 1994 alone, Mr. Chairman, OPIC supported investments in projects 
that will result in over $5.5 billion in the first 5 years of the 
projects' operation, and will generate approximately 18,000 American 
jobs. OPIC generates overseas investments, which in turn generate trade 
and opportunity for American companies.
  When we see the Japanese restricting American trade, we understand 
why they are doing it. They are doing it because it is to their 
advantage, so when they stop American agricultural products from going 
to Japan, they are going to protect Japanese agriculture.
  When they stop American auto parts from going to Japan, they are 
doing it to stop Americans from making the auto parts that go into 
Japanese cars, because they want to make them in Japan.
  Why on Earth, Mr. Chairman, would anybody in this institution want to 
cripple an agency that makes profit for the taxpayers and creates jobs 
at home and business opportunities for American companies? If Members 
vote for the manager's amendment, they are endangering thousands of 
American jobs and the budget, because nowhere in the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], which is now part of the manager's 
amendment, do they explain how they will replace the millions of 
dollars that OPIC now generates for the Treasury.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, for a host of 
reasons, to vote against the manager's amendment. When other countries 
do us harm in trade and take away American trading opportunities, we 
know why they are doing it. They are doing it to help themselves. Why 
somebody would take an American agency that [[Page H5722]] helps 
American jobs and American workers and the American taxpayers and try 
to destroy it is counterintuitive to our own self-interest, 
and I would hope that people would recognize this and will vote against 
the manager's amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
   Mr. Chairman, let me bring up a few facts. I would like to speak to 
the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. It has been 
stated that the former Yugoslavia is a European problem, and that the 
Europeans cannot handle it; that in the estimation of many, Europe has 
not been willing to commit either the resources economically or 
militarily to solve it.
  I spoke recently with Dr. Kissinger. He said, and I quote, ``The only 
way for the war to expand to Greece and to other countries is if the 
major powers would have direct involvement to lift the embargo.'' Two 
weeks ago I had dinner with Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, ``Cap'' 
Weinberger, and John Sununu. They said that the President's lack of 
foreign policy in this particular area makes it even more dangerous for 
us to get involved in risky amendments. I look at Russia's involvement 
or willingness to become involved in this conflict. I look why Greece 
supports the Serbians; because they were in World War II, and it was 
the Croatians who fought with Nazi Germany. The head of the Moslems 
trained with Qadhafi in Libya with Moslem terrorists. Yet, on the other 
side, the Serbians and the Croatians both have former, and I quote, 
used loosely, former Communist leaders. Therefore, the whole area is 
awry. For us to get involved in that civil war and possibly jump in is 
dangerous, I think, Mr. Chairman.
   Mr. Chairman, I voted yesterday against my own leadership on the War 
Powers Act, because I did not think we had enough time to look at it. I 
thought it was not responsible. I do not think the War Powers Act 
works, but we need to adjust it. I voted against my own leadership on 
that principle.

                              {time}  1400

  I would say to my friend from Maryland, on the same principle, I 
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  If we give arms to the other side, I think we invite direct input 
from the Russians and their intervention. I look at the Pentagon, and I 
know most of the generals and the admirals by first names, and I talk 
to them. It is wrong, in their opinion, for us to get involved and lift 
the arms embargo.
  No one wants to raise the embargoes other than those that generally 
have not been directly involved in combat. For us to decrease our own 
military size, to put and risk our own troops in harm's way, our men 
and women, and then to lift an embargo, would further throw kerosene on 
that fire.
  My job in the Seventh Fleet was to employ war-fighting both Allied 
and U.S. troops in and out of countries. Seventeen weeks ago in the 
Christian Science Monitor I published an article that said if you bomb, 
the Serbs are going to retaliate. They are going to bomb Moslems and 
they are going to bomb Croatians and they are going to kill a lot of 
civilians. They are going to capture our peacekeepers, tie them to the 
primary targets, and then move their weapons.
  Yet yesterday I heard Secretary Perry say we knew that; we knew the 
risk, and we consider it a success. Well, after that when they chained 
them, they shut down, the Serbians are still bombing, they are still 
gunning, but yet 70 are dead.
  I would ask my friend from Maryland, if you want to sit in on 
hearings, I will bring in those admirals and those generals, and I 
would just ask the gentlemen from Maryland to sit down and listen to 
the dangers involved in this particular amendment. I understand the 
good intentions of the gentleman from Maryland, but in my humble 
opinion, it is wrong, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, speaking of behaving responsibly, would the 
gentleman explain what he is talking about, about a Moslem leader 
training with Qaddafi? I know that not to be the case. I do not know 
who it is you could possibly be referring to.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to provide the entire 
dossier on the gentleman, and I will provide it to him immediately.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment. Is it 
really too much to expect the largest economic and military power in 
the world to spend almost 1 percent of its budget on developing market 
opportunities overseas, in promoting democracy, in protecting human 
rights? The vast majority of the American people have no idea how 
little we spend on foreign aid.
  Now we have a manager's amendment that picked up all these little 
piles of amendments that were rejected by a committee that reported out 
a very extreme bill, they were rejected in committee, and now to get 
enough votes we throw them all into one package. Talk about a package 
that stinks, and that is entirely counter to the direction in which 
this country has gone from the days of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry 
Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and all the way up through Ronald Reagan and 
President Bush.
  You look at the Burton amendment. The Bush and Baker administration 
established these overseas missions in the New Independent States. The 
Burton amendment requires that we gut them. In fact, you have heard 
from the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations on how bad the Burton 
amendment is.
  I trust that people will recognize that that Burton amendment 
actually prevents us from accomplishing any of the programs we are 
talking about, eliminates the Micro Enterprise Program for all intents 
and purposes, eliminates our child survival programs, eliminates the 
ability to do anything more than simply write checks to foreign 
nations.
  That is not what this Congress has voted to do in the past. They 
voted to give more responsibility to our international executive 
establishment so that we could be audited and we would be accountable 
for what we spend. The Burton amendment prevents us from being able to 
do that.
  The Manzullo amendment, gutting the exchange programs. Anwar Sadat, 
F.W. DeKlerk, can you put a price tag on the value of leaders like 
that? And they were major participants in our USIA exchange programs.
  I could go down the list of these amendments. Most Members have no 
idea what they do. We were only
 just shown what they did a couple of hours ago. They are wrong, they 
are bad, they are inconsistent with foreign policy that has been 
established decades ago by both Republican and Democratic 
administrations.

  Now I would like to address the Hoyer amendment. The reason why this 
amendment is appropriate is that the arms embargo was never intended to 
apply to Bosnia. It was intended to apply when there was conflict 
between Serbia and Slovenia and then Croatia, and Slovenia and Croatia 
had the capacity, the access to arms. Bosnia never did. They never had 
the arms, they never had the capability for manufacturing weapons, so 
they have had to sit back while an aggressor came in and slaughtered 
them.
  People who would suggest that this is a civil war are simply wrong. 
This is not any civil war. The reality is that it is a war that was 
directed, conducted, initiated by Serbia to create a greater Serbia.
  No Bosnians have ever bent a blade of grass in Serbia, and we have a 
multiethnic democracy. It is not just a Moslem state as many would 
suggest. The head right now happens to be Moslem. The Ambassador to the 
United States is Jewish. The leadership of the Government is a 
combination of Croatians and Serbians and Moslems.
  They want to live together. That is why they are a threat to fascists 
like Milosevic and others. They do no want that to happen. They do not 
want a country like Bosnia to survive.
  The United Nations comes in, the United Nations has a mission. Not to 
do right, not to ensure justice is done, but to sit back and 
essentially observe. We created safe areas. How safe is anyone living 
in those safe areas? We have deserted them. They have been shelled. 
People have been killed. [[Page H5723]] 
  We have more than 2 million refugees throughout Europe. We have had 
about 40,000 women deliberately raped as a strategy, a tactic of war. 
We have over 100,000 people who have been slaughtered, defenseless to 
defend themselves.
  I think we ought to lift the arms embargo, but I think we ought to do 
more than that. I think we ought to protect a sovereign nation. We 
ought to stand up for the integrity of territorial borders. That is the 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to address the House for 
1 further minute, because the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] asked 
for 3 minutes, we gave him the 3 minutes out of deference, I think 
maybe a third of that time. We would ask that we have that extra time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would have 
to object. We only have 15 minutes left for the full debate. We have a 
number of Members who wish to speak. As much as I admire the gentleman, 
I am going to ask him to please refrain.
  Mr. MORAN. I defer to the judgment and leadership of the chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Burton amendment and rise to 
also support the Mica amendment which is part of this package.
  Let me tell my colleagues, I have seen AID firsthand in dozens of 
countries around the world and AID is a wasteful and ineffective 
bureaucracy. It should be abolished as it exists or dramatically 
modified.
  AID represents a post-World War II mentality. It has become an 
international welfare system that creates dependency and fails to help 
our U.S. trade activities. It often does very little to assist 
countries in need to help themselves.
  Let me tell Members some examples. After spending billions of dollars 
to free Haiti with a military force and having spent over $1 billion in 
United States economic assistance, including $600,000 in AID grants, 
what has happened?
  Here is the AID plan for Haiti. The cornerstone of this AID plan is 
25,000 Haitians collecting garbage, 2,400 feeding stations, millions 
for election supervision, millions for judicial training, and almost 
nothing, a couple of pages, for creating permanent jobs.
  Even teenagers with whom I met just recently in Port-au-Prince who 
serve in our military, these are teenage soldiers of our force. This is 
what one of them handed me, this note. He did not sign it but he says, 
``Port-au-Prince is secured. There is no need for United States 
presence in Haiti. I believe a lot of the money spent here should go to 
problems in the United States. This is a waste of taxpayers' money.''
  This is what our teenaged soldiers who observe the process there say.
  Last summer I went to Bratislava in Slovakia and found that we only 
had one part-time commercial officer from Vienna coming once a week to 
help our United States trade agencies in this emerging nation. On the 
other hand, the AID office in Bratislava--now get this--has more 
employees than our Embassy.
  We spend millions of taxpayer dollars in this country, for example, 
to set up a banking system and provide enterprise funds. Then we let 
other countries get the contracts for this business.
  The President, an American citizen, of the Slovak American Chamber of 
Commerce told me, and let me quote what he said. He said, ``We spend 
$200 to give away $1.''
  My colleagues, we are the laughingstock of the emerging nations.
  When I visited recently our Embassy in Moscow, we had only four full-
time commercial officers. In contrast, AID had an entire building with 
hundreds of employees.
  I took in the private sector one of the first trade missions to 
Lithuania and every Lithuanian from the lowest official to the highest 
said, ``Trade, not aid.'' Then I returned to the United States, turned 
on the TV and saw our transport delivering humanitarian aid to the 
Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, Russia. A couple of nights later 
I turned on the same newscast and there was the largest trade show in 
the history of Moscow, sponsored by the Japanese. Counting full-time 
employees and individuals serving under personal service contracts, AID 
has over 9,000 employees, more than our Embassies.
  This amendment only cuts 25 percent from their funds. The entire U.S. 
foreign commercial service office only has 896 people working abroad. 
We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars with few positive 
results.
  AID is an outdated, overrated giveaway program. We should be focusing 
our efforts on increasing and improving trade activities as I have in 
my amendment. Trade rather than temporary aid will raise the fortune 
and opportunities and jobs for all people.
  I do not oppose all foreign aid and I resent President Clinton's 
statement that we are isolationists.
  Let me tell Members, there are still billions in this bill for aid. 
Americans are the most compassionate people in the world. But let me 
tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they are not the dumbest. If the 
Clinton administration were around when they had outhouses, they would 
be opposed to bringing the plumbing inside.
  I do not oppose again all aid. Look at Japan. They tie trade to aid. 
Look at our successes where we provide trade and business opportunities 
rather than a temporary handout. Finally, look at even the earliest 
Biblical lessons that teach a man how to fish.
  People in Grenada may need sidewalks. I need sidewalks for the people 
in my district. People in Port-au-Prince may need their garbage 
collected, but, my colleagues, in my district, I only have the people 
in my district and the taxpayers to pay for their trash collections.
  Quite frankly, both I and my constituents believe there can be a 
better way. Let us revise AID.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is such limited time, I ask unanimous 
consent that additional speakers be limited to 3 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
and I will not object, may I ask how much time is left?
  The CHAIRMAN. Approximately 10 minutes, until 2:25.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Then I would object, Mr. Chairman, because 
we have two additional speakers.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have more 
than two additional speakers. I am trying to give everyone the 
opportunity to speak. That is why I am asking consent to agree to a 
limitation of time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, 
I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 additional minutes for this 
debate. I think it is important that Members who want to speak get an 
opportunity to speak.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the rule calls 
for a 2:25 limitation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out that the rule does not 
provide for a unanimous-consent request to extend the time beyond that 
provided in the rule.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous-
consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment to cut the 
operating expenses of the U.S. Agency for International Development, 
the implementing arm of our Nation's concern for children around the 
world.
  It is really ironic that a Member who has seen with his own eyes the 
suffering of African children would propose such a cruel amendment.
  This amendment will gut programs of child survival and feeding 
programs for young children, because there will be insufficient staff 
to carry out the very programs for which we are authorizing funds. What 
kind of a business are we running when we commit products to save 
lives, but do not have the cooks and truck drivers to get the food to 
the needy consumers? [[Page H5724]] 
  I know from past discussions of this subject in the International 
Relations Committee that Mr. Burton somehow feels that our overseas 
staff is too large. Yet, in the last 2 years under the effective 
leadership of AID Administrator Brian Atwood we have already reduced 
total staff while at the same time have added 24 AID missions in 
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. AID has even responded to 
assisting in the peace process by implementing new programs in the West 
Bank and Gaza, bringing the results of peace to the people there.
  Amazingly, Mr. Burton seems to have a problem with an agency that is 
trying to turn around the management mistakes of the past 
administration when 87 percent of the money was spent in the last 
quarter.
  How can any business operate this way and provide timely service to 
the people America wants to help? This is why we need to keep the AID 
budget for staff and operations on a sufficient level.
  I further find this amendment ironic on the month of the African 
child, which we celebrate on June 16 in commemoration of the South 
African children that lost their lives in Soweto.
  Let us save the children.
  Vote against the Burton amendment.
                              {time}  1415

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to support the amendment of my colleague and good friend from 
Maryland, Mr. Hoyer. I believe we are debating a simple proposition 
today. There have to be consequences of aggression. There have to be 
consequences of aggression. It is not enough to stand on this floor and 
bemoan the rapes and bemoan the genocide and then not do anything.
  I think we all agree we do not want to see U.S. troops actively 
engaged, but it seems to me that we do have to level the playing field, 
we do have to allow the victims of aggression the opportunity to 
protect themselves.
  When there are consequences of aggression, when the victim has an 
opportunity to respond, you have a climate in which peace negotiations 
can take place because now the aggressor has a reason to negotiate for 
peace because he suffers some casualties and he suffers some hardships. 
In the absence of these consequences, in the absence of weapons to 
defend oneself, there are no consequences, and the aggression 
continues.
  I believe that people should be cautious and I am not unmindful of 
the caution cited by the ranking member. But it is clear to me that 
this lifting of the arms embargo need not be immediate. We can have an 
orderly withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers. There is no peace to keep. We 
can protect them, have them move out, and then lift the arms embargo 
and enable the people who are the victims of the genocide we bemoan and 
the victims of the rapes we bemoan to defend themselves in the only way 
they can, and that is with weapons.
  If we truly believe that we should exert leadership in the world, if 
we truly believe as the only superpower we have a responsibility not to 
allow another Holocaust, it seems to me that we ought to take the only 
logical step remaining, and that is to lift the embargo following the 
withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers and allow the victims of this savagery 
to defend themselves.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment. Through 
vacillation, indecision, incoherence, and incompetence, the Clinton 
administration has allowed the situation in Bosnia to go from bad to 
worse. And let us not forget that the previous administration was in 
office when the arms embargo was imposed. During those years I was 
equally vociferous in my opposition to the imposition of the arms 
embargo.
  Beyond the deepening humanitarian disaster, 200,000 civilian killed 
while half of the population have been forced to become refugees--the 
worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II. There have been 
over 20,000 rapes. The United Nations and NATO have found themselves 
very much undermined through this process. But the loss of life 
obviously is our overriding concern.
  As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I just left a hearing where 
Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic made a very, very convincing and 
compelling case to lift the arms embargo. He has done this before with 
equal eloquence, but some of his comments
 today should be heard by every Member of this Chamber and every 
American. He said, ``We face extinction; our people are dying, each and 
every day,'' while the United Nations and NATO, but especially the 
United Nations, talks about more talks with people like Milosevic and 
others who are war criminals, and frankly thugs.

  Developments on the ground in Bosnia underscore the utter failure of 
the international community to come to terms with the armed aggression 
and genocide that has been perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs against the 
people of Bosnia.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we hear over and over again that we do not 
want to see escalation of the fighting in Bosnia. Nobody wants to see 
that, but there are an estimated 200,000 Bosnian government forces who 
want to take up arms, but there is only one rifle for every three 
soldiers. They cannot defend themselves. Mr. Speaker, everybody should 
remember and be mindful of the fact that when the breakup of the former 
Yugoslavia occurred, the military capability and the might of 
Yugoslavia fell into hands of the Serbs, placing the Bosnians and the 
Croats at a great disadvantage. When an arms embargo was imposed, one 
side had all the guns, all the MiG's, all the heavy artillery and the 
tanks; the other side had nothing but broom handles and sticks. Again, 
that is why the continued imposition of the arms embargo is so immoral.
  Dr. Silajdzic said, and I thought it was very well taken, that the 
arms embargo is illegal, immoral, and after 3 years it is inhumane. The 
policy of containment has done nothing to stop armed aggression and 
genocide. The arms embargo has rewarded aggression.
  And let me make another point that I think is very important. The 
Prime Minister said again today as he has said before, as President 
Izetbegovic has stressed, the Bosnians do not want American troops, 
they do not want British troops, they do not want French troops. They 
want to exercise their right to defend themselves, as any sovereign 
nation would want, especially in the face of aggression and genocide.
  On the U.N. rapid reaction force, he said it is a more robust status 
quo. The U.N. peacekeepers are not even safe and they have the modest 
ability to defend themselves, but certainly the civilians who are 
killed each and every day by sniper fire and shelling are anything but 
safe.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] mentioned earlier, that he and 
I have been to that part of the world--we have seen the devastation. We 
were in Vukovar together. Shortly thereafter, we met with Milosevic, 
who denied that attacks in the city had resumed. We saw Serb MiG's fly 
over Vukovar with our own eyes, yet he denied it. We saw the tanks and 
devastation and that has continued year in and year out, and we have 
done nothing to stop it. There is bipartisan support for this effort to 
lift the arms embargo. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and I 
and others have had hearings, we have looked in the eyes of the women 
raped as a part of this genocide, and we were absolutely moved to 
tears. It is unconscionable that we will not allow Bosnia--a sovereign 
state--to defend itself. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the Hoyer 
amendment in keeping with Bosnia's inherent right to self defense under 
the U.N. Charter.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Nebraska.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton 
amendment to make further cuts in AID.
  If we adopt this amendment, we should forget about child survival 
programs, [[Page H5725]] microenterprise support and democracy 
promotion programs that are authorized in this bill.
  This amendment will make it almost impossible for AID to implement 
these and other activities that don't simply involve writing checks to 
foreign governments, but involve serious work of program design 
implementation and oversight.
  To accommodate such drastic cuts, AID would have to lay off nearly 
one-third of its direct-hire staff in the next year, throwing its 
operations into chaos.
  In addition, the costs associated with the mandatory retirement and 
separation benefits which would have to be paid to those employees 
under the Foreign Service and Civil Service Acts would be enormous.
  The Burton rapid cutback would entail termination costs in excess of 
$100 million in fiscal year 1996, which could not be borne by the 
reduced operating expenses account. These costs include severance for 
U.S. and foreign national direct-hire and PSC employees, contract 
termination costs, lease buyouts and transportation for American 
employees returning from overseas.
  AID would also have to close down between 15 and 20 overseas missions 
in addition to the 25 it is already closing down.
  This would compel the United States to make impossible choices about 
ending support for countries in which we have real interests and which 
are going through tough democratic and market reforms.
  While there may be some merit to streamlining the AID presence 
overseas, this kind of draconian cut would merely ensure that the 
assistance we are authorizing in this bill is not spent wisely or 
effectively.
  This cut would also mean that AID would have to stop its development 
and acquisition of new technologies that are designed to make the 
delivery of assistance more efficient and cost-effective--technologies 
which we in Congress have been pushing them to develop and use over 
many years.
  Shutting down all overseas operations and terminating all of the 
Agency's employees would leave no capacity to oversee the 
implementation of the $8 billion in funds obligated but not yet 
expended in the Agency's pipeline.
  The fiscal year 1996 budget request for operating expenses represents 
less than 7 percent of the Agency's overall appropriation request of 
$7.56 billion for fiscal year 1996, an extremely low overhead rate by 
any standard.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill already meets the category of AIP funding of 
$25 million in fiscal year 1996 and $55 million in fiscal year 1997. 
The Burton amendment would approximately cut a further $70 million in 
fiscal year 1996 and $25 million in fiscal year 1997. The distinguished 
chairman and ranking minority member of the International Relations 
Committee have already spoken against this amendment, as has the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Livingston. 
I strongly urge Members to approve the Burton amendment.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct the mischaracterization of 
the OPIC amendment that I have. It calls for a privatization 
feasibility study. It was mischaracterized by the gentleman from 
Connecticut as being the elimination of OPIC. It is not. It does 
authorize the President to sell OPIC's stock. It does not direct him to 
do so. It calls for a feasibility study and its adoption will assist 
the Internnational Relations Committee in its upcoming review.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is 
recognized for the 2 remaining minutes under the rule.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment 
and in deep opposition to the Burton amendment and in opposition to the 
manager's amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. He is very gentlemanly to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to use my time to say that this is a bad 
amendment, referring to the Hoyer amendment, to an already terrible 
bill. It is going to waste $16 billion American dollars, money we have 
to borrow in order to give away to rich countries like Israel and 
Egypt.
  But worse than that, the Hoyer amendment would call for the wasting 
of American lives. Testimony before the Committee on Armed Services 
coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, 
says you cannot just give people surface-to-air missiles. You cannot 
just give people heavy artillery. You have to send people over there 
first to deliver it and then to train them to use it, and that means 
putting American service personnel on the ground in the Bosnia, which 
is going to lead to the loss of American lives in a 700-year-old war.
  Those who think that the Moslems from the Middle East are going to 
stand by once we lift the embargo or the Russians are going to stand by 
once we lift the embargo and not help the Croatians are absolutely 
crazy.
  Where is the rush to squander American lives?
  Yesterday this Congress did the right thing in voting not to get rid 
of the War Powers Act and voting not to give President Clinton more 
power to send American kids off to get killed. If you are so anxious to 
go help the Moslems or the Croatians or the Serbs, put down your 
briefcase, pick up a gun, and go have a lot of fun. But do not send 
American troops off to do what you will not do. Do you squander their 
lives for a hopeless war in a part of the world where we do not belong.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the Gilman amendment for one 
reason and one reason only: The Gilman amendment includes the Hoyer 
amendment which would lift the U.N. arms embargo against Bosnia and 
Herzegovina and allow that nation to defend itself.
  There are several provisions of the Gilman amendment that are 
troubling to me. I support the continuation of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, which the Gilman amendment would privatize. I 
support the work of the Agency for International Development and 
strongly disagree with the Gilman amendment's reductions in personnel 
at AID.
  But I have been to Bosnia. I have seen the slaughter of the people 
there. I have been huddled with those people in basements which were 
their only sanctuary after their city was shelled. The Bosnian Serbs 
are maiming and killing innocent people and the arms embargo continues 
to tie the hands of the people of Bosnia in their efforts at self-
defense.
  The Hoyer amendment, I believe, can help to bring the war in Bosnia 
more quickly to an end. The Hoyer amendment will let the people of 
Bosnia know that the United States Congress stands with them.
  For that reason and that reason alone, I vote today for the Gilman 
amendment which includes the Hoyer amendment to give the people of 
Bosnia their right to self-defense.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo because further reductions in funding 
for cultural exchange programs would cripple the country's ability to 
build a meaningful dialog with new democracies around the world.
  As the United States scales back abroad, USIA-supported exchange 
programs have become vital to our national security. In the past, the 
exchange programs encouraged greatness in the lives of modern, global 
leaders like F.W. DeKlerk and Anwar Sadat. Today, in a fractured world, 
these programs are a beacon to young leaders searching for practical 
policies that have been tested over time.
  We must make long-term efforts to promote, first, civil societies, 
second, open economies, third, respect for human rights and fourth, 
peaceful resolution of conflict.
  Let me tell you about an exchange program that works. In 
Jacksonville, FL, the chamber of commerce with its 5,000 members, has 
jointly developed a leadership program with the Czech Ministry of 
Industry and Trade. The program has become national in scope as Czech 
future leaders come to America to learn about democracy and trade. This 
successful hands on program involves local participation and should be 
replicated rather than destroyed. Many Czech participants have written 
letters telling how their internship changed their life by opening 
doors they did not know existed.
  This is a win/win situation for Jacksonville and other cities that 
have entered into USIA-supported exchange programs. Today Jacksonville 
is reaching out to the world because it knows it must in order to grow 
and not stagnate in the 21st century. [[Page H5726]] 
  I support USIA-supported exchange programs because I know that our 
Nation must not stagnate in the 21st century.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to 
unilaterally lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Government.
  I take this position very reluctantly. But I have to say that I 
believe that voting for this action today would be a grave mistake. 
Some of our most important allies have put their forces in harm's way 
to try to bring about a halt in the fighting and to safeguard the 
civilian population in Bosnia. True, they have not been completely 
successful. But compared to the carnage and atrocities that occurred in 
Bosnia prior to the deployment of U.N. forces, the situation is more 
than a modest improvement. And our allies have just taken further 
action to introduce additional forces for a rapid deployment force to 
enhance the prospects of peace enforcement and to open supply lines to 
civilian populations.
  If we lift the arms embargo we will pull the rug out from under our 
allies and invite the Serbian forces, which have been the aggressors in 
this conflict and have been responsible for utterly abhorrent 
atrocities and human rights violations, to renew completely unbridled 
hostilities. We will endanger the lives of UNPROFOR troops who today 
remain in illegal Serbian custody. And we will put the forces of our 
allies who are on the ground today in even greater danger than they 
currently find themselves.
  Our allies with troops on the ground have said they will withdraw 
from Bosnia if we lift the embargo. Our President has already pledged 
that he would support this withdrawal with the deployment of U.S. 
ground troops. So make no mistake about it--if we lift the embargo now 
we will absolutely compel the introduction of U.S. ground forces to 
extricate UNPROFOR troops.
  I might add that if anyone here thinks the Serbs will wait until the 
embargo is lifted, the Bosnian Moslems rearm, and the Bosnian Moslems 
train in the effective use of the new weapons they receive before the 
Serbs resume further offensive actions, including the full-scale 
shelling of civilian populations, they are sadly mistaken. The Serbs 
will initiate mass shelling immediately. Thousands more civilians will 
be killed or wounded.
  We should wait to see how the latest European initiative introducing 
troops into Bosnia fares before we ruin its chances for success. I know 
the situation in Bosnia is tragic. Last year some 3,000 people were 
killed in Bosnia as a consequence of the fighting there. But this is 
nothing compared to the number that would die if the fighting proceeds 
without check.
  If our allies give up on this situation, if they conclude that there 
is no further utility in trying to intervene on the side of peace and 
they choose to withdraw their forces, then we should indeed lift the 
embargo. But doing so before that time would be premature. It will 
result in further terrible loss of life. And it surely will suck U.S. 
ground troops into this conflict and involve our Nation in a war it 
does not want to be in.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment being offered by Mr. Gilman.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would further cut funding for one of the 
most successful programs our Nation operates--the Sister Cities 
Program, as well as other important cultural exchange programs.
  President Dwight D. Eisenhower founded the Sister Cities Program 
almost 40 years ago, and now Sister Cities is the largest citizen 
exchange organization in the world. There are more than 1,000 U.S. 
cities in partnership with over 1,900 international cities in 120 
countries.
  As a former member of the board of directors of Sister Cities. I have 
seen first hand the benefits that the program brings.
  My own city of San Jose, CA, has built strong relationships with such 
cities as Okayama, Japan, and Dublin, Ireland.
  When the San Francisco Bay Area suffered the Loma Prieta earthquake 
in 1989, the citizens of San Jose, Costa Rica, another of our Sister 
Cities, generously sent supplies and aid for the relief centers.
  The Sister Cities Program, Mr. Chairman, brings people of different 
nations together in friendship and understanding. It builds 
relationships that strengthen the bonds between the United States and 
the other nations of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, as we seek to reduce the Federal budget deficit, we 
must do so responsibly. In cutting funding for cultural exchange 
programs like Sister Cities, this amendment goes far beyond what is 
reasonable and will cripple programs that are of very great importance.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gilman amendment.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, today, we have the welcome news of 
Capt. Scott O'Grady's rescue by U.S. Marines in northern Bosnia. Having 
survived the trauma of being shot down by hostile forces is testimony 
to Captain O'Grady's courage and determination. This mission was a 
combination of Semper Fidelis and the luck of the Irish.
  As a Member of this body and because of my own Croatian heritage, 
Bosnia is a major concern. I continue to pray for the quickest 
possible--and least bloody--resolution to the crisis in the Balkans.
  Let me make firm by belief that there must be no large-scale 
commitment of American troops in Bosnia.
  The need, Mr. Chairman is to lift the arms embargo immediately. What 
many fail to see is that by not lifting the embargo, the 
internationally recognized state of Bosnia cannot effectively defend 
itself. We must not be a party to preventing fearless people from 
resisting naked aggression. The aggressive conduct of the Bosnian Serbs 
can and will be met--and punished--by those who want to defend 
themselves.
  If the international community will not help, it must not hinder.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a provision in 
the fiscal year 1996 American Overseas Act [H.R. 1561], related to 
unresolved commercial claims between United States nationals and the 
Government of Saudi Arabia.
  This section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export and Control Act to require 
congressional oversight and scrutiny of all arms sales to the 
Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia until such time as the 
Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that the unpaid 
claims of American companies described in the June 30, 1993 report by 
the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 9140(c) of the Department 
of Defense Appropriation Act, 1993, Public Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1939, 
including the additional claims noticed by the Department of Commerce 
on page 2 of the report, have been resolved satisfactorily.
  For more than 2 years now, Gibbs & Hill, Inc., has been waiting for 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to honor commitments to it and to our 
Government to favorably resolve its $43.4 million debt owed to it by 
the Saudi Arabian Government. The claim is one of the long outstanding 
claims designated for resolution by the Saudi Arabian Government, by 
its Embassy here in Washington, under the special claims process which 
was originated by this body following hearings on May 9, 1992 on the 
commercial abuses of American companies by the Kingdom.
  As recently as 3 weeks ago, United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 
Raymond Mabus, advised Members of Congress and the company that he had 
been assured by a member of the Saudi Royal Court, on the authority of 
the King, that the Kingdom was soon to pay the claim. Despite this 
assurance, the Saudi Arabian Embassy here in Washington continues its 
efforts to delay, obfuscate, and avoid payment of the debt. This 
outrageous situation cannot be allowed to continue. This section will 
show the Congress intends to stress upon the Saudi Arabian Government 
that the claims issue must be successfully concluded through the 
payment of this last remaining claim.
  The claim of Gibbs & Hill dates back more than a decade. In 1978, 
Gibbs & Hill went to Saudi Arabia to provide its engineering expertise 
to the Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu in connection with the 
design and construction of the Yanbu industrial city. Gibbs & Hill was 
hired by the Royal Commission to help design the desalination and 
related facilities which are a major component of this industrial 
complex. The Royal Commission required significant additional services 
of Gibbs & Hill to perform the work, committing to compensate Gibbs & 
Hill for the added services, benefiting from the work performed, and 
highly praising Gibbs & Hill's work product, but the Royal Commission 
refused to pay. Gibbs & Hill's attempts to seek redress through the 
Kingdom's court system was useless, as the court merely upheld the 
wrongful acts of another agency of the Kingdom. Gibbs & Hill was 
decimated by the financial losses suffered on this project as a result 
of the commercial abuses of the Kingdom.
  We have an opportunity now to bring the special claims process to a 
successful conclusion through the full and prompt resolution of the 
Gibbs & Hill claim. This is a stated policy objective of our Nation, 
which is currently supported by some 50 Members of Congress and 
Senators from both sides of the aisle. This section will ensure that in 
the future, American companies are protected from the type of 
commercial abuses suffered by Gibbs & Hill at the hands of the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for consideration of amendments under this 
rule has expired.

                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  [[Page H5727]]
  
  Mr. HOYER. To understand the parliamentary situation at this point in 
time, am I correct that the Gilman en bloc amendment will be voted on 
after the Hoyer amendment as a secondary amendment which will be voted 
upon first; then is it my understanding that the Burton amendment will 
be then split out of the en bloc amendment for the purposes of a vote, 
and then the Gilman amendment as amended?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. For the information of the 
Members, the Chair will announce that the order of voting will proceed 
as follows: first on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman]; next on separate votes on any divisible portion of 
this Gilman amendment; and finally on the remainder of the Gilman 
amendment, as amended or not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, does that mean that Members 
could ask for a division on any of the manager's amendments that are in 
there?
  The CHAIRMAN. Any divisible portion of the amendment can be subjected 
to a separate vote.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announced that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a rollcall vote by electronic device may be taken 
without intervening business on the divisible portions of the Gilman 
amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 318, 
noes 99, not voting 17, as follows

                             [Roll No. 362]

                               AYES--318

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--99

     Abercrombie
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Canady
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Deal
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fowler
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (GA)
     Longley
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonilla
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Harman
     Johnson (CT)
     Kleczka
     Laughlin
     Lofgren
     McDade
     Montgomery
     Oberstar
     Peterson (FL)
     Spratt
     Thornton
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  1448

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida and Messrs. CRANE, BROWDER, LEWIS of Georgia, 
and CLINGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BUYER, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Messrs CALLAHAN, NADLER, SERRANO, BLUTE, 
and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the last divisible portion of the 
amendment as originally offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], as amended, demanded by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton].
  The Clerk will report the divided portion of the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In section 3231 of the bill (in section 667(a)(1) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by 
     such section 3231; relating to operating expenses of the 
     United States Agency for International Development), strike 
     ``$465,774,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250'' and strike 
     ``$419,196,000'' and insert $396,770,250''.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that this portion of the amendment be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the last divisible portion of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 236, not voting 16, as follows:

[[Page H5728]]

                             [Roll No 363]

                               AYES--182

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bevill
     Boehner
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonilla
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Harman
     Johnson (CT)
     Kleczka
     Laughlin
     Lofgren
     McDade
     Montgomery
     Oberstar
     Peterson (FL)
     Spratt
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  1459

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Wicker for, with Mr. Yates against.

  Mr. DeFAZIO and Mr. QUINN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KASICH, KIM, and McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the last divisible portion of the amendment, as amended, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1500

  The question is on the remaining portion of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 117, not voting 18, as follows:
                             [Roll No 364]

                               AYES--239

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo [[Page H5729]] 
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Allard
     Bonilla
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Harman
     Johnson (CT)
     Kleczka
     Laughlin
     Lofgren
     McDade
     Montgomery
     Oberstar
     Peterson (FL)
     Spratt
     Walsh
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  1509

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Wicker for, with Mr. Yates against.

  Mr. WILSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my strong support 
for the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, of which I am an original co-
sponsor.
  Those who support this portion of H.R. 1561 believe in the integrity 
of the United States, and are sensitive to preserving America's 
credibility abroad. That credibility is linked to effectively carrying-
out policies of humanitarian assistance. U.S. humanitarian assistance 
must be allowed to be delivered to those countries in need all over the 
world.
  Specifically, this legislation will address situations such as that 
found in Armenia, where a Turkish blockade is preventing our aid from 
being delivered. It is essential that United States aid be allowed to 
flow unhindered into Armenia.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1561, 
the so-called American Overseas Interests Act. Despite several good 
provisions, this bill will severely restrict the ability of the United 
States to exercise leadership in the post-cold war world. By 
micromanaging foreign policy and slashing valuable foreign aid 
resources, this legislation unilaterally disarms America and relegates 
the world's sole remaining superpower to a second-class status.
  H.R. 1561 includes a number of provisions that tie the hands of the 
President and reduce the leverage he needs to solve complex foreign 
policy problems in countries such as Russia, North Korea, and China. It 
also undermines our effective participation in international 
organizations and our efforts to encourage other nations to share the 
burden of global responsibilities.
  It is ironic that many of my colleagues who criticized Democrats for 
curtailing and micromanaging the foreign policies of Presidents Reagan 
and Bush will vote for this measure today. They would be wise to heed 
the words of Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State under 
President George Bush, who recently stated on the bill, ``all of these 
various restrictions and demands on the President * * * are an absolute 
attack on the separation of powers. Foreign policy is now and always 
should be in the hands of the executive branch with the advice and 
consent of the Congress. * * * You can't put in prescriptions that may 
apply today and don't apply tomorrow.''
  Moreover, despite promises by its sponsors that it will reduce 
bureaucracy, H.R. 1561 will create a megabureaucratic State Department 
that is unwieldy, costly and ineffective. By contrast, the Clinton 
administration is already proceeding vigorously with its efforts to 
streamline the State Department foreign policies agencies, reducing 
staffing by 4,700 positions, cutting bureaucratic layers and 
duplication.
  H.R. 1561 also cuts our foreign aid programs by $1 billion, including 
a 30 percent cut in development assistance. These cuts will restrict 
the ability of our President to fight for our interests through 
diplomacy, protect our global security interests, and open markets to 
U.S.-produced goods and services.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with some reservations that I oppose final 
passage on this measure today. I support the provisions in H.R. 1561 
that include the administration's full request for foreign assistance 
to Israel and Egypt. This aid is absolutely critical to keeping the 
Middle East peace process moving forward.
  While aid to Israel is protected in the short term in this 
legislation, the long-term future of Israel's security is jeopardized 
by the isolationist policies implicit in this legislation.
  By slashing America's foreign policy resources, H.R. 1561 will hollow 
out our first line of defense against future threats to the United 
States and Israel. It will impede our ability to bar the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction that threaten both the United States and 
Israel. It will slash the resources we need to combat international 
terrorism that threatens both the United States and Israel. And it will 
diminish our influence and leadership in efforts to peacefully resolve 
potential conflicts in the Middle East before they flair into military 
conflicts.
  H.R. 1561 will set foreign aid spending on a downward spiral that 
will ultimately increase political pressure to cut into the aid 
accounts for Israel and Egypt. Under this legislation, aid to Israel 
and Egypt will comprise almost half of the overall foreign aid budget. 
Under this trend, there will soon be nothing left to cut in these 
accounts.
  Without foreign aid, our country will lose its ability to exercise 
leadership to confront the challenges of the post-cold-war world. It is 
a small but very important investment, representing less than 1 percent 
of our overall budget, in our ability to safeguard America's political 
and economic interests abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the end of the cold war, the world remains a 
dangerous and uncertain place. We will be confronted with new 
challenges abroad every day. H.R. 1561 will inhibit the ability of the 
executive branch to meet those challenges. For this and many other 
reasons, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 should be defeated, and the House 
should instead approve an authorization bill that gives the President 
the tools he needs to exercise leadership in the postcold-war world.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1561, the American Overseas Interest Act. I believe that the bill 
before us represents a responsible foreign aid approach that clearly 
defines America's overseas interests. It is a departure from the past 
and a vision into the future.
  An important provision of H.R. 1561 is the inclusion of the MacBride 
Fair Employment Principles, that serve as a corporate code of conduct 
for U.S. companies doing business in Northern Ireland. The MacBride 
Principles, named for the late Sean MacBride, co-founder of Amnesty 
International and Nobel Peace Prize winner, were initiated, proposed 
and launched by the Irish National Caucus in November 1984. Since their 
inception, the MacBride Principles have provided Irish-Americans with a 
direct, meaningful and non-violent means of addressing injustice in 
Northern Ireland. H.R. 1561 codifies these principles and for the first 
time ever, any U.S. company accepting funds from the International Fund 
for Ireland must comply with the MacBride Fair Employment Principles. 
Importantly, these principles do not call for quotas, reverse 
discrimination, divestment--the withdrawal of United States companies 
from Northern Ireland--or disinvestment--the withdrawal of funds now 
invested in firms with operations in Northern Ireland.
  The MacBride Principles have been widely endorsed by many states, 
companies, and individuals. For the record I would like itemize the 
principles as follows:
  First, increase the representation of individuals from under-
represented religious groups in the work force including managerial, 
supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs.
  Second, ensure adequate security for the protection of minority 
employees at the work place and while traveling to and from work.
  Third, ban provocative religious or political emblems from the work 
place.
  Fourth, advertise all job openings publicly and making special 
recruitment efforts to attract applicants from under-represented 
religious groups.
  Fifth, lay off, recall, and termination procedures should not favor a 
particular religious group.
  Sixth, abolish job reservations, apprenticeship restrictions and 
differential employment criteria which discriminate on the basis of 
religion.
  Seventh, develop training programs that will prepare substantial 
numbers of current minority employees for skilled jobs, including the 
expansion of existing programs and the creation [[Page H5730]] of new 
programs to train, upgrade and improve the skills of minority 
employees.
  Eighth, establish procedures to assess, identify and actively recruit 
minority employees with potential for further advancement.
  Ninth, appoint a senior management staff member to oversee the 
company's affirmative action efforts and the setting up of timetables 
to carry out affirmative action principles.
  It is important that the United States take a strong moral stand 
against unfair employment practices. As the largest contributor to the 
International Fund for Ireland, we should lead by example and not 
tolerate those who exclude any group because of their religion.
  It is my hope that someday employment practices in Northern Ireland 
will be fair so that the MacBride Principles will no longer be 
necessary. However, at this stage in the Northern Ireland peace 
process, the voice of the United States on the topic of fair employment 
practices is more critical than ever. I strongly endorse this 
legislation and urge its passage.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to first praise the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] on his fine leadership in producing a bill 
that reduces our foreign aid spending in a responsible manner.
  The collapse of the Soviet empire has eradicated the threat of 
Communist aggression worldwide leaving only one superpower, the United 
States. With this end to the cold war, in turn, came radical changes in 
the political and social landscape of the world and therefore, 
strategies to keep stability in the world need drastic reforms. We can 
no longer depend on the ``for us or against us'' formula of foreign 
aid. With the rise of new regional conflicts posing new threats to 
world peace and leaving us with new challenges for our foreign policy, 
we must develop new strategies to meet the demands of the new world 
order. Unfortunately, many of the antiquated foreign aid programs that 
existed during the cold war are still in use, and paid for by American 
taxpayers. While I understand that foreign aid cannot and should not be 
cut out completely, it must be reformed and reduced to meet the demands 
of the post-cold-war world.
  H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act of 1995, does just 
that. The House is currently considering H.R. 1561, which will further 
reduce Federal spending, and take yet another step toward balancing the 
budget by streamlining overall spending on foreign aid programs and 
redefining U.S. foreign aid policy for the future. Specifically it 
would consolidate three agencies in the State Department and reduce 
their budgets, forcing them to streamline and become more efficient. 
The agencies to be consolidated are the Agency for International 
Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S. 
Information Agency. The bill authorizes $32.3 billion over the next 2 
years, saving the taxpayers $2 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $1 
billion in 1997. The overall savings to the American taxpayer by the 
year 2002 is projected to be nearly $21 billion.
  I rise in support of the American Overseas Interests Act passed by 
the International Relations Committee, not only because of the 
reductions, eliminations and consolidations of bureaucracy, but because 
of the reasonable funding for valuable programs that are in our best 
interests. As I have always stated in the past, foreign aid programs 
are an integral part of the President's efforts to protect and advance 
U.S. interests at home and abroad. But, I strongly support foreign aid 
reform. The U.S. aid program must be constantly evaluated and held 
accountable to high standards of performance and results. Clearly 
measurable and achievable goals should be established. Tough standards 
should be applied to our aid program, as well as to those international 
organizations and financial institutions to which we contribute 
funding. Where our aid has no lasting impact, it should be terminated. 
Redundancy must be eliminated, and this will require major program 
changes. I would like to comment on two programs, in particular, that I 
believe are worthy aid recipients: FUSADES and FUNDESA.
  Almost everyone knows of my interests in Central America. As a member 
of the International Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, and 
an active participant in the affairs of Central America, I am quite 
concerned with the political, economic, and social climate in this 
region. Over the years, I have had the unique opportunity to meet and 
forge great relationships with leaders throughout Central America. 
Today, we are witnessing all across Latin America that those countries 
who emerged from the disasters of civil war with a commitment to 
improve human rights have been able to foster a stronger foundation for 
social and economic development. The movement to democracy in Latin 
America is no longer the great dream of this century. Victories in the 
Western Hemisphere, from Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua to El Salvador, 
are just a few examples of democracy in action.
  These organizations have helped people realize this dream and have 
received U.S. funding indirectly. FUSADES in El Salvador and FUNDESA in 
Guatemala have successfully helped the people of these developing 
countries progress economically and democratically. FUSADES and FUDNESA 
were created to promote economic and social development improving the 
precarious situation of many of our neighbors to the South. They 
promote equitable, responsive development by awarding grants to small 
entrepreneurs throughout the region. More importantly, these 
organizations provide small loans to local individuals who start small 
businesses and later repay their debts, at repayment rates of 
approximately 95 percent. For example, only a $100 loan for the 
purchase of a sewing machine can be the driving force to help an 
individual start his or her own business. These small entrepreneurs 
create jobs, assist the emerging middle-class, and in turn help 
stabilize the region's economy. A small amount of U.S. aid goes a very 
long way.
  While recognizing the need to rein in federal spending, we have also 
witnessed the positive side of foreign aid. With this in mind, I urge 
Members to support H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act. I 
ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1561, 
the American Overseas Interests Act. In an era of rising global 
interdependence, this bill sends the message that America is turning 
inward, away from its allies and the areas that need it the most. 
Instead of maintaining and strengthening the leadership and vision 
expected from a great superpower, this bill cuts and weakens the powers 
of the executive branch and distorts the priorities of foreign policy. 
More specifically, H.R. 1561 creates a vacuum of leadership and support 
for the nations in our own hemisphere at the time when they need it the 
most.
  As a former member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations and as a representative of a district heavily populated by 
Hispanic-Americans from throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, I 
have a strong interest in issues affecting this area. This bill would 
reduce assistance to the region by $213 million. Mr. Chairman, where is 
the logic in this reduction when it is clear that our closest neighbors 
are in dire need of our leadership and support? In the last few years, 
this region has borne the brunt of the reductions necessary to 
accommodate preserving or increasing assistance to other regions of the 
world and any reduction only further jeopardizes the process toward 
peace, prosperity, and democracy currently underway in Latin America 
and the Caribbean.
  Developmental assistance and economic support funds further our own 
national security interests by encouraging fledgling democracies, 
emerging economies, and public health initiatives. Not long ago, the 
Western Hemisphere was ruled largely by military dictatorships. Now it 
is overwhelmingly represented by emerging democracies. We should not 
turn our back on the nations of this hemisphere while they struggle to 
establish the structures which support strong democracies.
  In addition, foreign aid to Latin America and the Caribbean makes 
economic sense. It strengthens the ties forged by NAFTA, GATT, and the 
Summit of the Americas and supports the President as he seeks to 
further U.S. trade and economic interests in our hemisphere. The United 
States should not reduce its commitment to our fastest growing market, 
which accounts for $178 billion in two-way trade, $91 billion in U.S. 
exports, and 2 million in American jobs.
  Finally, public health initiatives for the hemisphere should be 
supported. The Western Hemisphere has been declared polio-free thanks 
in part to the decade-long investment by the United States in polio 
prevention programs. Significant progress has also been made in the 
areas of immunization, family planning, oral rehydration therapy, and 
AIDS. Cutting aid for these programs could affect the lives of millions 
of children and cause a public health crisis in the region.
  Aid to Latin America and the Caribbean furthers the interests of the 
United States with respect to national security, trade, and public 
health. It is in our own best interest to live in a neighborhood of 
nations which are stable and prosperous.
  While this bill seeks to cripple our own Nation's ability to forge 
ties with our closest friends and allies, it also works to dictate the 
foreign policy objectives of the rest of the world by prohibiting 
assistance to any foreign government that the President determines has 
provided economic assistance to or engaged in no-nmarket-based trade 
with the Government of Cuba or any entity controlled by such government 
in the preceding fiscal year. Mr. Chairman, is assistance to Russia or 
Israel in jeopardy as they move ahead with their trade initiatives in 
the Caribbean island? Do we expect hundreds of other sovereign and 
independent nations to, in effect, support an embargo which they have 
consistently voted against in the United Nations for 3 consecutive 
years? Are we asking the nations of the world [[Page H5731]] to submit 
to our punitive and vindictive Cuba policy and our obsession with its 
leader?
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561's short-sighted objectives with regard to 
Latin America and the Caribbean reflect the short-sightedness of the 
bill in general. Foreign assistance only represents 1 percent of the 
total Federal budget, but it is a crucial part of our role in world 
leadership. At a time when the world looks to the United States for 
leadership and vision, this bill sends the message that the United 
States prefers a narrow, arrogant, isolationist policy. As the world 
changes, it is logical that our foreign policy priorities also change, 
but this does not imply a need for withdrawal from our 
responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  So the remaining portion of the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Riggs) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, 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. 1561) to 
consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of the United States; to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related 
agencies for fiscal years 1996 and 1997; to responsibly reduce the 
authorization of appropriations for U.S. foreign assistance programs 
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
House Resolution 155, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment 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 to the committee 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question 
is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  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. hamilton

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

       Mr. Hamilton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1561 to the 
     Committee on International Relations, with instructions to 
     report it back forthwith with the following amendments:
       On page 11, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     82, line 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

          DIVISION A--STREAMLINING OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This division may be cited as the Foreign Affairs 
     Agencies Streamlining Act of 1995.

     ``SEC. 102. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) With the end of the Cold War, the international 
     challenges facing the United States have changed, but the 
     fundamental national interests of the United States have not.
      The security, economic, and humanitarian interests of the 
     United States require continued American engagement in 
     international affairs. The leading role of the United 
     States in world affairs will be as important in the twenty 
     first century as it has been in the twentieth.
       ``(2) The United States budget deficit requires that the 
     foreign as well as the domestic programs and activities of 
     the United States be carefully reviewed for potential 
     savings. Wherever possible, foreign programs and activities 
     must be streamlined, managed more efficiently, and adapted to 
     the requirements of the post-Cold War era.
       ``(3) As part of an overall review to foster efficiencies 
     in the executive branch, the President has had under review 
     the organization and functions of those departments and 
     agencies responsible for administering the international 
     affairs (150) budget function.
       ``(4) The President deserves commendation for the results 
     of such review to date, including significant numbers of 
     foreign posts closed and personnel reductions made by some 
     foreign affairs agencies.
       ``(5) In order to achieve further budgetary savings and 
     eliminate overlapping responsibilities and duplication of 
     efforts in the foreign programs and activities of the United 
     States without jeopardizing United States interests, 
     continued careful review and strong effective leadership will 
     be required.
       ``(6) A streamlined foreign affairs structure under the 
     leadership of the President can more effectively promote the 
     international interests of the United States in the next 
     century.

     ``TITLE II--ONGOING REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT

     ``SEC. 201. REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AGENCIES.

       ``(a) Review.--The President shall review, as part of an 
     overall effort to foster efficiencies in the executive 
     branch, the programs described in the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act, as well as other 
     initiatives within the administration of international 
     affairs programs, to determine how best to achieve the cost 
     savings and streamlining.
       ``(b) Considerations.--The review conducted pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall include a review of--
       ``(1) any additional costs or cost savings that would 
     result from reorganizing the agencies administering programs 
     under the international affairs (150) budget function;
       ``(2) the management implications of any agency 
     reorganization;
       ``(3) the optimal organizational structure for the foreign 
     affairs agencies;
       ``(4) the implications for the conduct of United States 
     foreign policy and United States foreign assistance programs 
     of any agency reorganization;
       ``(5) the justification for staffing levels of non-foreign 
     affairs agencies overseas, including the Departments of 
     Commerce, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and any intelligence 
     agencies;
       ``(6) the extent to which the activities of such non-
     foreign affairs agencies contribute to United States foreign 
     policy and national security interests;
       ``(7) the implications for United States foreign operations 
     of recent developments in communications technology;
       ``(8) the feasibility of centralizing worldwide financial 
     services of all foreign affairs agencies in the United 
     States, including the feasibility of moving all such services 
     to a location outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan 
     area;
       ``(9) the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of contracting 
     with private companies or other United States Government 
     agencies for certain services, including payroll, vendor 
     payments, and Foreign Service pension payments systems, 
     medical examination programs, and certain training programs; 
     and
       ``(10) efforts to consolidate management of all U.S. 
     international exchange programs to eliminate duplication and 
     overlap.
       ``(c) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     Committee on International Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate a report on the results of the 
     comprehensive review required by subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 202. REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Authority.--The President is authorized to submit to 
     the Congress a reorganization plan, if he determines such 
     reorganization is necessary, to enhance the coordination, 
     effectiveness, and efficiency of programs within the 
     international affairs (150) budget function.
       ``(b) Exception.--Any plan submitted pursuant to the 
     authority of subsection (a) may be submitted pursuant to 
     chapter 9 of title 5 (relating to executive reorganization) 
     of the United States Code, notwithstanding section 905(b) of 
     that chapter.
       On page 84, beginning on line 21 strike ``$1,728,797,000 
     for the fiscal year 1996 and $1,676,903,000 for the fiscal 
     year 1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$1,748,438,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 85, beginning on line 11 strike ``$366,276,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $355,287,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$372,480,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 86, beginning on line 1 strike ``$391,760,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $391,760,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$421,760,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 86, beginning on line 11, strike ``$23,469,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $23,469,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$24,250,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 86, beginning on line 16, strike ``$15,165,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $14,710,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$15,465,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 86, beginning on line 20, strike ``$9,579,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $9,579,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$8,579,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 87, beginning on line 6, strike ``$873,505,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $867,050,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$934,057,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 87, beginning on line 17, strike ``$309,375,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and [[Page H5732]] $302,902,000 for the 
     fiscal year 1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$425,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 94, beginning on line 15, strike ``$445,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $345,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$533,304,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 96, beginning on line 10, strike ``$68,260,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $68,260,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$100,000,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 100, begining on line 9, strike ``$13,858,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $12,472,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$13,858,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 100, beginning on line 11, strike ``$10,393,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $9,353,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$10,393,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 100, line 17, strike ``$666,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$740,000''.
       On page 100, beginning on line 20, strike ``$3,500,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $3,195,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$3,550,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 101, line 1, strike ``$13,202,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$14,669,000''.
       On page 104, beginning on line 11, strike ``$10,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $9,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$15,000,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 105, beginning on line 4, strike ``$450,645,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $428,080,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$496,002,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 105, beginning on line 14, strike ``$117,484,200 
     for the fiscal year 1996 and $113,680,800 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$130,799,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 106, beginning on line 19, strike ``$87,625,800 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $87,341,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$119,536,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 107, beginning on line 1, strike ``$321,191,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $286,191,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$395,340,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 107, beginning on line 17, strike ``$75,164,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $67,647,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$85,919,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 108, beginning on line 2, strike ``$4,300,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $3,870,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$4,300,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 108, beginning on line 8, strike ``$15,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 1996 and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$20,000,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 108, beginning on line 23, strike ``$44,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $40,050,000 for the fiscal year 1997'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$76,300,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 197, on line 19, strike ``$3,284,440,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$3,351,910,000''.
       On page 197, on line 20, strike ``$3,240,020,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$3,351,910,000''.
       On page 200, line 18, strike ``$22,620,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$37,000,000''.
       On page 200, line 22, strike ``$37,800,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$52,890,000''.
       On page 218, beginning on line 5, strike ``$20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$15,244,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 248, beginning on line 16, strike ``$2,356,378,000 
     for fiscal year 1996 and $2,283,478,000 for fiscal year 
     1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,504,300,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 264, line 9, strike ``$858,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$1,300,000,000''.
       On page 264, line 14, strike ``$629,214,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$802,000,000''.
       On page 264, beginning on line 18, strike ``$643,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1996 and $650,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$788,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 264, beginning on line 24, strike ``$325,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1996 and $275,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$480,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 265, beginning on line 5, strike ``$20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$31,760,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 265, beginning on line 10, strike ``$10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$17,405,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 283, beginning on line 11, strike ``$456,774,000 
     for fiscal year 1996 and $419,196,000 for fiscal year 1997'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$529,027,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 284, beginning on line 3, strike ``$35,206,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $31,685,000 for fiscal year 1997'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$39,118,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997''.
       On page 284, strike line 20 and all that follows through 
     line 24 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997 for the provision of 
     agricultural commodities under title III of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1727 
     et seq.).''.
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:

                 ``TITLE XXXVI--AGGREGATE AUTHORIZATION

     ``SEC. 3601. AGGREGATE AUTHORIZATION.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the maximum 
     aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
     shall not exceed $16,505,843,000 for fiscal year 1996 and 
     $15,395,362,000 for fiscal year 1997.

  Mr. HAMILTON (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 Indiana?
  There was no objection.

                             {time}   1515

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The motion to recommit is rather simple and straightforward. The 
motion to recommit has two components to it. First of all, it deletes 
that portion of the bill that requires the abolition of AID, USIA, and 
ACDA. In its place it replaces those portions with a requirement that 
the President review the management and operations of the foreign 
policy agencies. It is a requirement that the President review those 
agencies and report to the Congress efforts to streamline those 
operations. That is the first part.
  The second part of the motion authorizes the same level of funding 
for each of the line items in this bill that the President requested, 
but then it cuts the overall authorization funding to the level that is 
now in the bill.
  The effect of the motion to recommit, then, is to accept the funding 
levels that the committee and this House have already voted on. We 
accept those cuts. What we do is permit the President of the United 
States, however, to have flexibility as to how those funds are spent. 
We earmark Egypt and Israel, but in other respects he has flexibility. 
So the motion to recommit accepts the funding levels that this House 
has voted on.
  Second, with regard to reorganization, it lets the President take the 
initiative; after all, it is his administration. He should be able to 
reorganize that executive branch as he sees fit. We tell him he has to 
do it, no discretion at that time on that point. But there is no 
micromanagement on our part. We do not force him to reorganize in a 
particular way, but we do require him to reorganize.
  So the motion to recommit accepts the funding levels that we now have 
as voted on in this House but gives the President flexibility to spend 
those funds, and it requires a reorganization. It does not try to 
micromanage. It does not tell the President how to organize his own 
executive branch, but it does permit the Congress to set the policy 
parameters and give the President the flexibility with regard to 
reorganization.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished minority leader, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. Gephardt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask Members to vote for 
this motion to recommit. I do it in a bipartisan way. We have always 
had a bipartisan foreign policy for this country. We have always tried 
to stop partisanship at the water's edge. And we have always tried to 
write these authorization bills for foreign policy together. And we 
have always tried to balance the power of the President with the power 
of the Congress in reaching our foreign policy.
  In all humility, I suggest to all of my colleagues that this bill 
does not carry on that tradition. I was proud of the House last night 
when in a bipartisan way we refused to give up powers that I think it 
was important for the Congress to keep with regard to how we declare 
and make war. And I ask tonight that we pass this motion to recommit; 
we leave more of the power in reordering the structure of our foreign 
policy [[Page H5733]] to the President, that as we make these cuts we 
give the President more authority in exactly where the cuts ought to be 
made.
  Let me finish with this simple thought: Foreign aid and foreign 
policy are not popular and never have been in any district in these 
United States. But it is vitally important to every one of our citizens 
that we have a good foreign policy that is in the deep self-interest of 
every American citizen and in our great country.
  The best way to do that is to make it bipartisan and keep it that 
way. I urge Members to send this bill back to the committee along the 
lines the distinguished ranking member has made and let us return to 
the successful tradition of foreign policy that we have had in this 
country, which has served this country very well.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit. Our bill 
consolidates three major agencies. It cuts $3 billion in spending and 
changes the status quo. The motion to recommit keeps the status quo. It 
tries to add over $4 billion in spending. The recommit motion also 
calls for yet another study. We have studied the issue long enough. The 
cold war ended half a decade ago.
  I say it is time now to reform foreign affairs agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
distinguished chairman of our Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I know there is a lot of concern about the bill. America has a 
responsibility to practice smart strategic foreign aid, which I believe 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] is delivering us in this bill. 
The motion to recommit takes us back to the status quo.
  I am told that this morning the Heritage Foundation released a study 
saying that the Agency for International Development hired a group to 
study their studies. And we do not need to study anybody's studies 
anymore.
  The simple fact of the matter is under the Gilman bill, which is the 
most successful effort at reform in foreign aid since I have been in 
the House, will consolidate the Agency for International Development, 
ACDA, the [Arms Control Disarmament Agency], the United States 
Information Agency, in some sense a relic, and also makes cuts in 
foreign aid.
  The bill is endorsed by the Americans for Tax Reform by the Citizens 
Against Government Waste. Why? Because they recognize the fact that the 
United States has a role to play in the world. But they also
 recognize the fact that the gentleman from New York has made changes.

  Furthermore, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, one of the 
best examples of big corporate pork, is now authorized to be sold and 
to be phased out and to be privatized. This bill deserves and merits 
our support.
  I would argue to the Members that if you believe America has a role 
in the world, that you want that role to be narrowed and focused, this 
is not perfect, but this is the biggest step that we have made in the 
House in a dozen years to try to bring improvement to foreign aid and 
to satisfy some of the frustrations that our hard-working, tax-paying 
constituents have wanted.
  Mr. Gilman deserves a vote in favor of this bill and against the 
motion to recommit. I would urge Members, as the leader of the world, 
to adopt this bill. I think it makes good sense. It is fiscally prudent 
and moves us in the right direction on foreign aid reform.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to our distinguished majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let me take a moment to thank the committee, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], and the members of the committee for the hard work 
they put into this bill.
  My colleagues, we have just finished celebrating the 50th anniversary 
of D-day. I do not know about you, but I spent a good deal of my past 
weekend watching old film clips of that 50th anniversary. I was 
reminded, as I watched those brave men all too often falling on the 
shores of some remote beach, that this is a great Nation and in one 
very, very special regard, it is the greatest Nation in the history of 
the world. Because in America, in the history of the world, no nation 
has ever so much loved freedom that their nation's people have been 
willing to risk their own peace to secure freedom for other nations.
  We have all too many times seen our Nation's children on the field of 
battle, fighting for freedom and dreaming about peace. When we think of 
those terribly horrible, frightful times when men and women were 
willing to put their life and their limb on the line for the double 
dream of freedom and peace, we then should reflect upon the times when 
we can put some part of our national treasure on the line for freedom 
and peace.
  What can we do, where can we do it in the world, to help protect the 
freedoms of people, help ensure the peace of people, help to see to it 
that starving children perhaps have hope, help where we can to breathe 
hope and life into this world.
  We do not spend so awfully much but we have always been a frugal 
Nation. We always have insisted that we spend our treasure with care, 
with discretion, with compassion that is mixed with understanding and 
where in fact it will make the difference we hope and dream for in the 
lives of people.
  This committee has done this. This committee has repaired American 
foreign aid efforts, maybe not enough to suit everybody, but enough to 
tell the world that, yes, indeed, we are willing to look at the needs 
in the world. We are willing to be discrete. Yet we are willing to be 
generous, and we are willing to be organized and we are willing to be 
systematic. And we are willing to put some part of our treasury behind 
the dream of freedom and peace for all the world's people. This is a 
good bill. This is a good dream. It deserves our support.
  I implore Members, vote ``yes'' for the dream of freedom and peace in 
the lives of all the world as sponsored by the generosity of this 
greatest Nation in the history of the world.
  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 question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179, 
nays 237, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 365]

                               YEAS--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC) [[Page H5734]] 
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NAYS--237

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baker (LA)
     Bonilla
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Foglietta
     Harman
     Johnson (CT)
     Kleczka
     Laughlin
     Lofgren
     McDade
     Montgomery
     Oberstar
     Peterson (FL)
     Spratt
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  1545

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Oberstar for, with Mr. Wicker against.

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the final 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 192, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               AYES--222

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baker (LA)
     Bonilla
     Brown (CA)
     Chapman
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Furse
     Harman
     Johnson (CT)
     Kleczka
     Laughlin
     Lofgren
     McDade
     McKinney
     Montgomery
     Oberstar
     Peterson (FL)
     Spratt
     Waters
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  1603

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Wicker for, with Mr. Montgomery against.
       Mr. Bonilla for, with Mr. Oberstar against.

  Mr. TEJEDA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________
```