H 5710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without

objection, the Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. KASICH, HOBSON, WALKER, KOLBE, SHAYS, HERGER,

ALLARD, FRANKS of New Jersey, and

LARGENT, Mrs. MYRICK, Messrs.

PARKER, SABO, STENHOLM, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Messrs. COYNE, MOLLOHAN,

COSTELLO, and JOHNSTON of Florida,

and Mrs. MINK of Hawaii.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unaniThere was no objection.

GENERAL LEAVE

fmous consent that all Members have 5

legislative days to revise and extend

their remarks and include extraneous

material on the motion to instruct

conferees on House Concurrent Resolution 67.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LATOURETTE). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS

There was no objection.

fACT 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.

b 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 wellbeing 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
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5711

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’’.
H 5712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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.

b 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 SelfDefense 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.
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5713

(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 selfdefense, 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
H 5714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

voted on an amendment. We had approximately 21⁄2 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.

b 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
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5715

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 twothirds 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
H 5716 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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 widespread 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 humanrights 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.

b 1315

Once again, Mr. Chairman, there are

those who say we cannot lift the arms
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5717

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,
H 5718 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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.

b 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
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5719

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
H 5720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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.

b 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 costcutting 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
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5721

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
H 5722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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.

b 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.
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5723

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-auPrince 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?
H 5724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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.

b 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,
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5725

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 USIAsupported 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.
H 5726 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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.
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5727

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

b 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:
H 5728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

[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

b 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.

b 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
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5729

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

b 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
H 5730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5731

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
H 5732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

$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.

b 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
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5733

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 Dday. 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)
H 5734 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 8, 1995

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

b 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

b 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.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollPERSONAL EXPLANATION

fcall 366, I was unavoidably detained