[Pages H6361-H6380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July

[[Page H6362]]

24, l997, 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. 2159.

{time} 1831

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. 2159) making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
bill had been read through page 4, line 24.
For what purpose does the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] rise?

Amendment No.13 Offered by Mr. Royce

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Royce: In Title I, under
the heading ``Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Noncredit Account'' after ``$32,000,000'' insert
``(reduced by $11,200,000)''.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes and
that the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] will control
20 minutes. Does the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] seek time in
opposition?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will control
20 minutes, and the gentleman California [Mr. Royce] is recognized for
20 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Royce-Andrews-Kasich amendment cuts the operating
expenses of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. It puts it to
a level that is more in keeping with the level of business this House
has authorized for OPIC. Specifically, this amendment reduces the
administrative appropriations by $11.2 million, from $32 million to
$20.8 million.
This amendment is supported by a diverse coalition of 12
organizations, organizations who come at it from differing perspectives
but groups united by the view that the U.S. Government should not be in
the business of insuring American corporations to invest abroad and
making loans to American corporations to encourage them to invest
abroad.
Now, there are many in this body who would like to see OPIC closed.
That is the position of the 12 groups. Many of us fundamentally
question why the American taxpayer should be supporting a government
agency that makes loans and issues risk insurance when these services
are available privately. And despite what OPIC and its supporters say,
there are companies that would do this business. Maybe not at the rates
that OPIC offers, but that is the point. OPIC is a business subsidy.
So let me ask my colleagues, many of whom have worked hard to give to
the private sector what government services can better be done by the
private sector, let me ask them to ask themselves why should OPIC be an
exception to this rule? Why do we have a government agency competing
with the private sector? That is the American financial services sector
that they compete with, the most efficient in the world. And also ask
why the American taxpayers should be liable to potentially multi-
billion dollar losses, and that is what we are talking about.
Do Members in this body recall the S&L crisis? It was not that long
ago. Yes, OPIC has not had large losses, but the problem is there.
Remember, we were given assurances that there would be no S&L problem.
So I want to point out OPIC's risky loans. Members, look at how many
are rated D or D-minus or F or F-minus and FF-minus. Common sense
should tell us something is not right here.
And many of us wonder why some of our largest businesses should
benefit from OPIC subsidies. Do Coca-Cola and AT&T and McDonald's
really need OPIC to make a profit abroad?
Let us not show so little faith in the power of American businesses
and the American economy, which year after year ranks as the most
competitive in the world, and please do not tell me that Coca-Cola,
which just announced an 88 percent increase in earnings for the second
quarter, is not a world class company because of the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation.
Do not get me wrong, these are great companies, the backbone of the
American economy, but they do not need OPIC, and we hear that OPIC does
not cost the American taxpayers a dime. That is a mantra of OPIC
supporters, yet the Congressional Research Service has reported that
OPIC has cost a minimum of $73 million over the last few years, and the
Congressional Budget Office tells us that we would save $296 billion if
we ended the program.
Last, we hear that OPIC creates jobs. I ask my colleagues that logic.
Members come down to the floor every day and praise the American
economy. They say how dynamic it is, and they are right. We have the
most dynamic economy in the world. That is not because we have OPIC
creating jobs. Consider that the Congressional Research Service has
reported there is little theoretical support or empirical evidence
which supports claims that subsidizing exports or overseas investment
offers a positive net gain in jobs in the U.S. economy.
There is simply no justification for appropriating $32 million to
OPIC today. This is a 50 percent increase in appropriations from 1994,
and no more business is being authorized than was authorized then.
I ask my colleagues why does OPIC need this additional money? Let us
cut it back.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of
my time be yielded to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and
that she be allowed to further yield time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
and in staunch opposition, but I first yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who is chairman of the Committee on
International Relations' Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
[Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to the
Royce amendment.
Mr. Chairman, they are laughing and gloating in Germany, France and
Japan over this amendment to gut the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation. Those three countries, among others, will be fighting over
the hundreds of thousands of jobs and trillions of dollars in
infrastructure projects if the House votes to pass the Royce amendment
and gut OPIC, United States foreign policy and investment insurance
agencies. The Japanese Government already out-subsidizes our investment
insurance 6 times to 1 as a percentage of GDP. Germany spends 5 times
more, and France 4 times more than the United States to help their
companies win lucrative infrastructure projects in the developing
world, and those infrastructure projects lead to a whole series of
other American job creating activities.
Mr. Chairman, this Member finds it truly amazing that some of our
well-intended colleagues would thus hurt our Nation in so shortsighted
an effort to eliminate funding for an agency of the Federal Government
which runs at no net cost and helps make our companies competitive in
the global marketplace.
At a time when the U.S. trade deficit is hitting record highs,
supporters of the Royce amendment feel compelled to remain in those
isolated, academic, ivory towers chastising government involved in
overseas investments. Well, Mr. Chairman, in a perfect world
governments would not have to be involved in subsidizing overseas
investments.

[[Page H6363]]

In fact, I have added an amendment to an OPIC authorizing bill moving
through the House Committee on International Relations which requires
U.S. officials to negotiate with foreign competitors and put an end to
these subsidies, and that is what we try to do through the OECD. We are
making progress, but we are nowhere close. But until that time,
therefore, our workers, our exporters, our businesses cannot afford to
have the U.S. House of Representatives vote like a bunch of
isolationists in ivory towers. The fact remains that foreign
governments will fight and spend money to rustle jobs away from hard-
working Americans.
Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote for American
workers and vote against the Royce amendment.
Let me bring, finally, a few facts to the attention of my colleagues.
OPIC makes a profit every year since its creation. Here is what the
net, net annual income was for OPIC. Starting in 1971, $25.9 million.
Today, last year, that particular year, 1996, $208 million, nearly $209
million. Here is the cumulative impact of U.S. exports generated, I
hope, by OPIC. It has increased from $687 million the first year, and
we believe this, $52,823,000,000 this last year. That is how much U.S.
exports cumulatively was generated by OPIC.
Finally, take a look at the cumulative U.S. jobs created and
generated by OPIC, and I mean directly, despite what we heard a minute
ago. It has increased from a relatively small amount, 4,800 the first
year; this year, 225,000 plus. That is how many additional American
jobs were created by OPIC.
I urge my friends to oppose the Royce amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kasich].
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me get the attention of my colleagues
in the House on both sides of the aisle. We were just able to pass a
bill that started to dramatically reform the operation of the Federal
Government and get us to a balanced budget.
What is this vote about? This vote is about reforming corporate
welfare.
Couple years ago we passed a bill that reformed welfare for people
who did not have lobbyists. Now we have a family friendly bill that is
on the House floor, and the reason why I say it is a family friendly
bill is there have been more lobbyists hired to defend this big
giveaway of the Federal Government, put more food on the plates of more
people who were hired to represent the special interests in this
regard. The fact is this program does not make any money. This program
only gets money because of transfers of interest payments,
intergovernment. It would be like arguing that the Department of
Education makes money on their student loan program. It makes no money.
It also says to all of my colleagues back in their districts, when
you have a woman, when you have a man come up to you and tell you they
want to start a small business and they would like a loan to open up a
small business, they do not get these kind of sweetheart deals that the
most profitable large multinational corporations get. Our operations in
the amount of business we do with China does not involve one dime of
any of these guarantees.
The fact is, if these business agreements make sense, let them get
loans like everybody else does in this country. We do not need
sweetheart deals, loan guarantees and direct loans from the Federal
Government to help big business. Big business can compete and win,
small business can compete and win by having an aggressive strategy to
market their products, by balancing the budget and having an element of
fairness.
So what I would suggest to Republicans as well as Democrats, if they
marched to this floor and they voted for welfare reform bill that
reformed the welfare programs for people who do not have lobbyists, it
is time to come to the floor and cast a giant vote against corporate
welfare and for the people who live next door.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], a senior member of the
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, if the fact that there was a lobbyist in
this town working on a bill was a reason to vote against it, then I
guess everybody is going to vote against the tax cut tomorrow because
the reality is on the merits we cannot beat OPIC. It makes money for
the Treasury, it pays its own way, and it has created in the range of a
quarter of a million high paying jobs in America. Where OPIC is
rightfully prohibited from participating in places like China, when an
American company goes after a contract, it gets a German Government
insurance program and has to use German subsidiaries to provide much of
the working product. The American private sector that is in financial
instruments of this nature supports OPIC. They are not for its closure.
This is taking a great racehorse that has won race after race, tying
up a leg or two and say, gee, it does not run so well any more. If we
cut the money out of OPIC; it is its own money, it is not taxpayer
money, it is money that is made in profit on its operations; we will
end up with an agency that will not adequately be able to monitor its
own operations. Kill it rather than vote for this amendment; $2.7
billion in reserves in the Treasury, $52 billion generated in exports,
a quarter of a million jobs; if this is welfare, where is the welfare
in this? This is a place where the private sector will not go, it is a
place the private sector supports our Government's actions. It puts
American families to work, it keeps us competitive internationally.

{time} 1845

Some people around here talk, posing for holy pictures. This may be
one: Members stand up and pose that they want to end a Government
program; but do they not look at the facts if they are going to try to
do that? Because the facts say this program is good for America, it is
good for taxpayers, it is good for families that depend on the jobs
from this very program.
Reject the amendment. It hobbles a great racehorse that does well for
our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to defeat this amendment and support a
program that organizations and men and women in unions and nonunions
alike benefit from the contracts American corporations get. This is an
ill-advised amendment that will harm American workers.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend, the
gentleman from California, for yielding time to me.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Mr.
Chairman, I think the American people ought to know tonight where their
money is going. Some of it is going to provide a loan guarantee for
McDonald's to open restaurants in Brazil. Some of it is going to help
subsidize the operation of a luxury hotel in Bermuda; or Jamaica,
excuse me. Some of it is going to help General Electric Co. build a
light bulb factory in Hungary.
Mr. Chairman, that is where the American people's money is going
tonight, courtesy of OPIC. Where we should go tonight is a yes vote in
favor of this amendment.
We are going to hear the arguments about the miraculous and wonderful
things OPIC does. OPIC makes money because they invest in profitable
deals. Mr. Chairman, if the deals are so profitable, then let OPIC
proceed as a private firm with private risk and private capital and put
their money at risk, not the money of the men and women that we
represent.
We will hear that OPIC does not cost the taxpayers any money because
what OPIC brings in is greater than what it puts out every year. The
Congressional Budget Office disagrees. Its analysis is that if we
terminated OPIC, over a 5-year period we would save $296 million.
Mr. Chairman, OPIC also makes money the way another Federal agency
used to make money. In 1987 the head of that Federal agency said that
times are bright, good times are ahead, the revenues are rolling in.
The head of that agency was the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board. He was talking about the savings and loan institutions. The good
times ended, our money rolled out, and that agency lost

[[Page H6364]]

money, the same way OPIC would if its deals go sour.
We will hear that OPIC creates lots of jobs. But then we will hear
the Congressional Research Service say that there is little or no
empirical evidence to support that claim.
We will hear that exports for our country will dry up, that we will
be unilaterally disarming in the war for exports if we get rid of OPIC.
Here is the evidence. In countries that were eligible for OPIC
treatment, U.S. firms exported $3.6 billion last year. But in the
Peoples Republic of China, ineligible for OPIC treatment, without one
nickel of assistance from OPIC, exports were $52 billion without OPIC.
Mexico, which is also ineligible for OPIC subsidy, United States
exports, $28 billion, without a shred of help from OPIC. The evidence
shows the exports do not increase.
Finally, we will hear that OPIC is a valuable tool to pursue the
foreign policy goals of our country. Mr. Chairman, the foreign policy
goals of our country should be decided and executed by us as the duly
elected Representatives of the people, and by those who work for the
President and the State Department, not by a quasi-public taxpayer-
subsidized corporation, which, by the way, has been using its public
subsidy this week to lobby us against cutting off its funding.
The letters have arrived, the doors have been knocked on, the
advertising campaign has begun. For no other reason, for no other
reason, our colleagues should support this amendment because we do not
like the idea of people we are funding using that funding to lobby us
on how to vote.
Do the American taxpayer a favor. Support our amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Ways and Means, who is working on the tax bill.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me tell Members why I oppose this
amendment and support OPIC. There is no question that this great
democracy of ours has been responsible for taking a lot of
dictatorships, a lot of military governments, and trying to make
democracies out of them. We have had tremendous success in Africa,
tremendous success in South America, and the one thing that makes
democracies work is not just a good feeling, but that people are eating
and people have jobs and people are doing things. That is what is
necessary in order to have a democracy.
What is it that really makes a country not look for aid but is
willing to be looking for trade? That is where we are looking for
economic expansion. It is not just love and affection. We want markets
there to sell our goods. If there is no disposable income, if they are
only asking for assistance, they cannot buy American goods.
Take Africa. The President of the United States finally recognized
that here was a continent that was rich with resources that have not
been developed. There are people that are skeptical about investing in
Africa because they think these new young governments are unstable. Now
comes OPIC and says, we will be there with you. We will give the
guarantees. Just the President recognizing for trade purposes Africa
has more than doubled the investments that are there.
What I am suggesting: Why would we shoot ourselves in the feet where
the investments have increased when we started having OPIC in Asia, it
has done well in Latin America, and now comes Africa's chance at bat to
say we, too, need investment.
I do not know why when something is working and not losing money, and
when the American people go and invest that money, and we know we get
our return because our investors normally are buying American-made
goods, and if we enrich the people that know that it was America, not
France and not Germany that was there for them, for God's sake, do not
tell Africa they have the opportunity to enjoy free trade with us and
then we encourage American firms not to be there when they need them.
I oppose the amendment. The thing is working. Let us continue to
support it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about
Africa, we should give direct loan guarantees to the country that we
are serious about, just like we do for Egypt or for Israel. Direct loan
guarantees is the way to be serious about investments in these
countries.
OPIC, however, is not the vehicle by which we should make these
investments. The amendment reduces the administrative appropriation for
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from $32 to $20.8 million.
OPIC uses taxpayer money to provide direct loans and risk insurance to
Fortune 500 companies, who are in turn firing American workers.
One year ago, the President and this Congress put an end to a six-
decade minimum floor of entitlements for poor people, Aid to Families
with Dependent Children, or AFDC. In my judgment, that minimal
entitlement was justified on the basis of simple humanity and basic
morality. But that view was defeated, and the minimum floor was pulled
from underneath the poor.
Yet, the corporations, many of whom have been lobbying us all week
long, want to continue their AFDC program, or aid for dependent
corporations, with their record profits and management salaries and
benefits. They have no such humanitarian claim or moral claim to this
particular subsidy. The cost to American taxpayers and workers simply
cannot be justified.
OPIC bestows upon these corporations welfare through direct loans,
subsidized loan guarantees, and political risk insurance. Imagine that,
a Fortune 500 company needing political risk insurance in a Third World
country.
With the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and backing of
business ventures, OPIC's corporate clients have eliminated thousands
of American jobs. With the destabilizing effects of corporate
downsizing on American workers and their families, we should not be
providing these incentives for America's corporate giants to invest
abroad, taking advantage of low-wage costs, lower standards, and often
exploitive working conditions of the Third World.
Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, we must raise their standards,
the standards of people in the Third World, not lower ours to meet
theirs in an increasingly global economy. Mr. Chairman, if we are
serious about Africa and serious about the Third World, let us give the
same kinds of loan guarantees to African nations that we also give to
Israel and to Egypt. That is fair. Vote in support of the Royce-
Andrews-Kasich amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, OPIC provides a unique service to this
country. It provides political risk insurance. That does three things:
currency and convertibility, political violence, and seizure of assets.
That is pretty unusual.
There is a statement made that OPIC, if it is really great, can be
privatized. The answer is no. I have a letter here from Zurich
Insurance Group that is addressed to me in direct response to a Dear
Colleague letter sent around by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Royce] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] asking if Zurich
America intends to enter the same market as that of OPIC, if OPIC is
eliminated. The answer to that is no.
Sean Cassidy, the vice president of Federal Affairs, said that Zurich
does not intend to compete directly with OPIC, but rather, complement
OPIC's coverage. So, therefore, there is no company that is ready to
pick up OPIC should it be privatized.
Second of all, here is how OPIC makes money. This is Price
Waterhouse's statement for the past year. OPIC takes in $299,000, and
here it comes, through political risk insurance premiums, that is $81
million, investment financing, $52 million, interest on U.S. Treasury
securities, $166 million. Even if we take out the interest on the U.S.
Treasury securities, it still comes up making about $45 million a year.
It actually makes money. OPIC makes money and it provides an insurance

[[Page H6365]]

service that nobody else can provide in this country.
What amazes me is the fact that OPIC steps into very unique
situations and makes projects nobody else can do. Look what is going on
just in Africa alone: In Uganda, Agro Management; in Tanzania, NBS Card
Service in Africa; in Ethiopia, the Louisiana-Baton Rouge Schaffer &
Associates; in Tanzania, a small business with ACG Co.; with Tanzania
suppliers, ADCO.
All over Africa we see OPIC stepping into the gap, so we have small,
emerging companies that are getting a foothold, and then after a while,
such as in Hungary, OPIC backs out because it is no longer necessary to
have political risk insurance, because when a country becomes a member
of OECD it no longer is eligible for political risk insurance under
OPIC.
So we have an organization here that actually makes money; not on
paper, it actually makes money. We would urge the defeat of that
amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Paul].
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. This is a form of welfare that should be stopped. We have poor
man's welfare, foreign welfare, and corporate welfare. This is an
example of foreign and corporate welfare. The program really ought to
be abolished.
If it is true that this program pays its own way, then there is no
need for us to be here. Why are they asking for $32 million? It is a
good program. Some insurance company will take it over.

{time} 1900

Obviously, they need the $32 million that is in here. But there is
something else involved here that is very, very important. On the very
chart that was standing here a minute ago, it was showing that they do
fabulously, this tremendous income of $299 million in 1996, which is
true. But in looking at this Price Waterhouse balance sheet, financial
report for 1996, it shows that OPIC owns $2.47 billion worth of bonds.
Right above it, as a matter of fact, the line went through it, so you
could not read it, it said that the income from these treasuries was
$166 million. That is what it is costing the taxpayers.
We are giving a subsidy to OPIC in the back door by paying interest.
It appears on the budget as an interest payment. I mean this is really
close to outright deception on the part of many here in the Congress as
well as the American people. So it is not paying its own way.
The other argument, we heard it expressed several times now, is that
this is a very necessary program because it goes where the private
market will not go. That is precisely the reason we should not be
there, because there is a risk. The businessman will not go there
because it is too risky.
So what do we do? We ask the American taxpayers to back it up. What
to do? To take our businesses from this country, export the business
and export the jobs. Most of this money goes to big companies. If we
look at their record over the past 6 years, these big companies have
had a significant shrinkage of employment. These jobs are going
overseas. Programs like this serve to export jobs, and this amendment
should be passed.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, we are allowing OPIC to spend money that
they have earned. This is not a new appropriation.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable interest on our
side on this issue. Members were not aware that there was going to be a
time limitation on this. I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional
minutes on this side in opposition to the OPIC amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is only able to entertain such a request if
it is 10 additional minutes for the proponents and opponents. Is that
the gentlewoman's request?
Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's understanding of the request is 10
additional minutes for the opponents and 10 additional minutes for the
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about a different aspect.
After encouragement from the White House themselves, a company in my
district, Buchite International, is the only American company to agree
to be a model company for investment in Gaza. Mr. Chairman, they have
been ripped off big time, and we cannot allow this to happen.
In their dealings with the Cairo Amman Bank of Gaza, the corporate
accounts were opened without proper documentation. Corporate checks
denominated in dollars were endorsed and cashed by individuals without
first being deposited into the account.
Canceled checks were not returned. Corporate funds in excess of
$100,000 were used to guarantee an overdraft facility of a private
individual without authorization. The company had no knowledge or
approval of this. A letter of guarantee was written by a bank without
notifying the company, in strict violation of company instructions.
Four point four million was invested, forcing them to default on a $2
million loan.
Tomorrow I will be bringing an amendment and there may be some
technicalities to that amendment. I want the Congress to allow that
amendment to go forward because the PLO and Palestinian authorities
cannot rip off American companies. We cannot tolerate that. Vote your
conscience on any of these amendments.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the pending
amendment which would reduce the OPIC account by 11.2 million. Let me
emphasize this is not abolition of OPIC. This is a reduction in the
administrative account. If I may quote from a letter from my
distinguished colleague from California, he states here that OPIC uses
taxpayers fund to provide loans, and the amendment would bring OPIC's
administrative appropriation in line with its stated administrative
cost.
According to OPIC, administrative expenses were 20.2 million in 1994.
Even though OPIC has the same insurance and loan caps as it had in
1994, it has requested a 50 percent increase in appropriations from
what administrative costs were in 1994.
It is a simple question of whether or not this corporation can
operate with the same workload as it did in 1994, with the same
administrative overhead.
We have heard about the fact that the loans are going to Fortune 500
companies that only 3 percent or three loans went to small businesses
and 41 went to the Fortune 500 companies. But aside from subsidizing
these megacorporations, OPIC has risked over $8.7 billion in U.S.
taxpayers money by underwriting risky investments in unstable regions
of the world. Let me remind my friends that, should political unrest
and turmoil upset these foreign markets, American taxpayers will be
liable for the losses of OPIC insured corporations.
I heard one of my colleagues mention earlier, remember that the FDIC
and the FSLIC could never go wrong. They always would make money and we
know what happened in the savings and loan fiasco.
Mr. Chairman, OPIC is not contributing to reducing the deficit. The
resources that come from the OPIC premiums that are received do not go
into the Treasury. They go, as they should, to income, to a capital
account to reduce the probability or possibility that there will be a
default.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join the Americans for Tax
Reform, Capital Watch, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for
a Sound Economy, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Friends of the
Earth, National Taxpayers Union, Public Citizens and USPIRG in
supporting this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.

[[Page H6366]]

(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] making a 35
percent cut in the operating budget of the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation. The funds in OPIC's $32 million administrative budget are
fully offset revenues from those companies utilizing OPIC services.
I might add that the revenue has been increasing each and every year.
In short, the cutting amendment does not save $1 of taxpayer funds.
My colleagues should be aware that each year for the past two decades
the premium and fee income from OPIC's programs have covered all of its
operating costs. The adoption of this amendment would simply reduce the
use of OPIC's own revenues. This amendment prevents OPIC from properly
managing its $23 billion portfolio of insurance policies, of loan
guarantees and loans to American businesses.
While OPIC has some $2.7 billion in reserve to protect the U.S.
taxpayer, this amendment would not allow OPIC to use enough of its
reserve funds to support its portfolio. In short, it is penny-wise and
pound-foolish and will put the American taxpayer at risk.
By depriving the agency of administrative funds for next year, it
will put thousands of jobs at risk and will stop any effort to develop
new trade and investment initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa. OPIC does
not cost a single taxpayer dollar. OPIC is required by law to operate
on a self-sustaining basis. And since 1971, OPIC has reimbursed the
government for every dollar of actual outlays it has received. Every
objective review of OPIC's operations undertaken over the past two
years by the CRS, J. P. Morgan and independent accounting firms and the
General Accounting Office concluded that risky markets still exist
where the private sector is reluctant to operate without public
guarantees and insurance, such as those provided by OPIC.
This agency has a proven track record of experiencing few claims
losses and recovering a large portion of its claims. All of our major
trading partners have insurance and export financing agencies like
OPIC. Taking us out of the export and investment assistance business is
tantamount to unilateral disarmament of our American investment
overseas. I urge defeat of the measure before us.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, both the gentleman from New Hampshire and
the gentleman from New York have talked about the administrative cost
increases. Let me point out that the size of the loan portfolio has
grown dramatically because of the mandate of Congress in 1994.
Take a look at the green bar chart. This shows the escalation of
administrative costs from $19 to $32 over this period of time. But look
at the loan portfolio they are managing: $160 up to $260, $310.
Actually they have been very, very conservative in the amount of money
they have spent for administrative costs. They have done that despite
having an authorization to manage this well. They have managed it well.
They are doing a good job. We ought to continue to support them, to
implement the congressional mandate.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Campbell].
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, equity in our approach to welfare, safety
for the American taxpayer, and sending the right signal to those
countries that have not yet provided a reliable place for investment in
the world, these are the three arguments that compel support for this
amendment.
Equity. We have with difficulty struck down welfare program after
welfare program or restricted it. We must be prepared to do the same
when it comes to an aspect of corporate welfare, an aspect of
favoritism for those companies who cannot stand on their own.
A question of risk. The chart that I have to my left is prepared by
the Congressional Budget Office. That does a risk rating of the loans
which are being insured by OPIC. It should not surprise us when we look
at it to see such a concentration of these loans at the risky end of
the spectrum, D, D minus, E, F, F minus. Why should it not surprise us?
Because by definition OPIC is offering insurance for loans that were
not otherwise able to be insured in the market.
Finally, sending the correct signal. There is something important
that the market tells us when the market says it will not insure an
investment in a country. It tells us that that country has not yet
established its economic or governmental structure in such a way as to
attract investment. And by affording insurance anyway, which the United
States does through OPIC, we are sending a message and actually
deterring, retarding the progress that that country might otherwise
make. Driven by the necessity of coming into the world standard so that
it would attract the type of insurance that would be available in the
private market, fairness to all welfare recipients, safety for the
American taxpayer, and sending the right signal to countries that have
far to go, all compel a ``yes'' on the Royce amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, not very often will my
colleagues find me taking a position that is contrary to that of my
colleague from Chicago. But I rise in opposition to the amendment to
cut OPIC.
I do so because we are a pace setter. We are a Nation that is known
as a leader. We have been a leader in business and industry all over
the world. I have been told that you cannot lead where you do not go,
just as you cannot teach what you do not know.
If I know one thing, I know that if our corporations, if our
companies, if our businesses are not there in the marketplace, then I
know that they cannot do business.

{time} 1915

And so that I urge that we oppose this amendment and let OPIC do its
job, do its work, do its business.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this Congress in the last 2\1/2\ years has
sought to balance the Federal budget and get our country's financial
house in order. We have sought to save our trust funds for not just
future generations but present generations. And, thirdly, we have
attempted as hard as we can to transform our caretaking, social,
corporate and agricultural welfare state into a caring opportunity
society.
We have worked hard to help mothers get work, a opportunity for
employment and training to be free from welfare. We have seen an
agricultural bill, the Freedom to Farm, wean farmers off welfare. And
yet when it comes to corporate welfare, we seem to find every defense
possible to continue it.
This amendment is not going to eliminate OPIC, it is going to reduce
its administrative costs. There are some of us who would sincerely want
to eliminate OPIC, totally privatize this operation. But, Mr. Chairman,
this is a modest amendment. I support it. It is in line with everything
we have attempted to do in transforming our caretaking, social,
corporate and agricultural welfare state into what must become a caring
opportunity society.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Brad Sherman.
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address those who call OPIC
corporate welfare.
We should remember who creates the risk in the first place. When the
terrorists take the plane, they do not shoot the Norwegians first. They
go after Americans because we play a prominent role in the world. And
when rogue countries think of nationalizing assets, they do so because
of American foreign policy and they threaten American assets first. We
have an opportunity to insure our companies from risks that we as a
government create.
There are those who say that OPIC is the next S&L mess. This
amendment is an opportunity to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy. If
we cut the administrative costs, if we cut the safeguards, if we cut
those who are watching to

[[Page H6367]]

make sure that sound loans and guarantees are made, then we can sit
back and laugh as mistakes are made, and sit back and say, ``We told
you they would make mistakes.''
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and I rise in support of this amendment.
I wish to reiterate an important point. The amendment does not
eliminate OPIC. It merely reduces OPIC's administrative expenses down
to a fiscally responsible level.
I am speaking on behalf of this amendment today because I believe
subsidizing large corporations represents corporate welfare. Large
multinational companies simply should not receive special treatment
from the Federal Government.
I ran for Congress with the hope of reducing the size and scope of
the Federal Government. But how can we ask one sector to accept cuts in
Federal subsidies if we are not applying this practice fairly? Like the
special interest groups, big business has to wean itself off the
Federal dole as well.
In order to successfully reduce the size of government, every single
line item that the Federal Government funds needs to be reviewed. These
items need to meet three criteria: First, is the Federal program
achieving its goal? Second, does it represent a true Federal priority?
And, third, does it duplicate other existing Federal or private
initiatives?
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation does not meet these
criteria. To begin with, the program is not meeting its intended goals.
Originally developed to help small domestic businesses compete
internationally, OPIC funds are instead diverted towards multinational
corporations that do not need special subsidies.
Second, this program does not represent a true Federal priority.
Funding biomedical research to save people from life-threatening
disease is a vital priority. Supplying weaponry and soldiers to keep
this country safe is a Federal priority. However, providing corporate
giveaways to large multinational companies in no way represents a
Federal priority.
And finally, OPIC competes with and effectively crowds out private
sector initiatives. Companies such as Exporters Insurance Company
Limited, Zurich American Insurance Group, both provide risk insurance
at competitive rates and terms without using hard-earned taxpayer
financing.
For these reasons I encourage support of this amendment. This is not
a needed Federal responsibility. There is a private sector alternative.
We should support this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I just heard my colleague from Florida
say that Zurich American is ready to take over OPIC, and I put into
testimony a letter from Zurich American. They are not interested in
taking over OPIC. Zurich American does not want to take over OPIC. We
cannot privatize it because no one wants to go into that market,
period. That should settle that argument.
Second of all, this is the rate of loss. It is 1 percent. It is one
of the smallest rates of loss that any company can have. And it is not
corporate welfare because American companies, multinational
corporations, if they do business in more than one country they are
multinational, they have to pay very high premiums to buy this
insurance. It is the premium risk insurance that accounts for most of
the profits that OPIC turns back.
Fourthly, today we are here not to get any new money from the
government treasury for OPIC but to use the money that OPIC has made in
terms of profits.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say, with all that risk
assessment we had from the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell],
that the recovery rate is 98 percent. Ninety-eight percent recovery
rate.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of us came to Congress to stop the endless growth
in government, and we talk an awful lot about it, restoring a sense of
common sense to what we do in this town. As an effort to accomplish
those objectives, a lot of us have focused on flawed and nonsensical
programs such as OPIC.
At the risk of being redundant, we have heard a lot of reasons to
eliminate OPIC here today. It is risky, its portfolio has grown
dramatically over the last several years, it is biased towards large
Fortune 500 companies, it crowds out other entities in the market, it
duplicates the products of private lenders and insurers. For those
interested in the market, I should add. And it is unnecessary.
Emerging markets attracted $243 billion in private investment in
1996. OPIC financed $2.2 billion. These are sufficient reasons to
eliminate OPIC, but what we are debating here today is simply the
increase of administrative costs, and I rise in support of this more
limited objective, in support of the Royce-Kasich amendment.
Make no mistake about it, there is no reason to increase OPIC's
administrative budget. In fiscal year 1994, as has been stated, OPIC's
current insurance and loan caps were established. OPIC's administrative
expenses were $20.2 million. Even though OPIC has the same insurance
and loan caps today as it had in 1994, it requested a 50 percent
increase in appropriations above that 1994 level.
Since OPIC is not authorized to increase higher levels of insurance
or loans and is a self-financed agency, there is no need to increase
appropriations for OPIC's administrative expenses.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when Americans, in fact we are celebrating
the fact that the government has been asked to do less and cut wasteful
government spending, OPIC should not ask this Congress to do more. It
makes no sense. Support the amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
California for yielding this time to me, and I am saddened that I have
to disagree with my other friend from California.
But let me say this in rebuttal to all I have heard about OPIC. It
does creates jobs. In fact, if we look right over here, we will see
that a single project has created some 260 suppliers across the Nation.
It creates small business opportunities and it does create jobs. At the
same time, we will see this whole list of small business owners who are
working because of OPIC.
How much can we realize that this is actually an opportunity for
American businesses to do international business? Why would we shackle
the hands of business to go across the Nation, to go across
internationally, to go into Africa and India and China and result in
dollars that come back to this country, where those who are in small
businesses and elsewhere pay the taxes that make this government run?
Do not shackle the hands of those who are working internationally.
Let us stand proud and make sure that we continue to create job
opportunities and jobs for the citizens of America through small
business.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a penny-wise and pound-foolish
amendment that is based on a flawed understanding of classical
economics, and it actually has some tinges of mercantilism. It believes
in a perfect world, and the fact is it is not a perfect world.
When we look at the facts we will find that the United States
provides export subsidies amounting to about 3 percent of our exports,
but the rest of the world, or many of our trading competitors, provide
anywhere from 20 to 40 percent subsidization. So we are already dealing
at a disadvantage in that case.
Second of all, this theory that this is somehow where the private
sector

[[Page H6368]]

would go is, I think, very flawed as well. Because what we are talking
about is lending the credit of the United States under a very
controlled program, with losses that the gentleman from Nebraska
pointed out are lower than most American mortgage pools are, and the
recovery rate better.
The fact is the private sector will not go into these areas. If we
are going to start believing in this theory, let us not stop here. Let
us go after student loans and FHA, because that is the same theory as
we are applying in that case.
Do we really want to walk away from emerging markets and have U.S.
businesses walk away from that? There is no proof whatsoever, no proof
provided by Americans for Tax Reform, or any other group that we have
asked for, that there is crowding out of the market. That in and of
itself is a flawed theory, that somehow we have reached our full
capacity utilization, when we know that we have not.
So this is a bad amendment, it is a bad idea, it is bad for the
American economy, and I hope our colleagues will vote it down.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this idea that OPIC is creating jobs
in the United States is so much nonsense I can hardly contain myself.
We are talking about taxing the hardworking people of the United States
in order to provide loan guarantees and subsidies for people who, not
that they want to sell products overseas, but so that they can build
manufacturing units overseas.
For people that want to know what that means, that means we are
building companies that will compete with Americans and put Americans
out of work and we are taxing the American people to do it. This is
absurd. This is a sin against average American working people.
Furthermore, what kind of countries are we talking about? These are
not struggling democracies we are trying to encourage investment in.
These are dictatorships. These are bloody gangster regimes that cannot
get private sector financing because it is too risky.
Now, of course, by getting the American taxpayers to pony up the
money, to take all the risk, are we encouraging those gangster regimes
to liberalize? Not only are we putting our people out of work, we are
telling the gangsters to go ahead and suppress their unions, go ahead
and suppress freedom of speech, go ahead and suppress competition, let
our businessmen in, because we are going to subsidize them.

{time} 1930

This is horrendous. We are taking away the incentive for
dictatorships to liberalize and become free. We are taking jobs away
from our people. The only thing wrong with the Royce amendment is that
it does not go far enough, it does not eliminate this abomination from
the budget altogether, this attack on the well-being of the American
people.
I am with the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]. Let us cut it
down if not eliminate it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi] for yielding me the time.
It is disingenuous at best to suggest that a vote for this amendment
is going to save one dime of taxpayer money. There is a big difference
between subsidy and public guarantee. There are some things that are
desirable that no individual company is going to take on themselves.
Other countries have similar tools because they work. And in fact,
there are a number of countries that invest far more proportionately
than we do. Cutting this administrative program off could in fact have
a perverse effect by putting more of this loan portfolio at risk.
This amendment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how
the program works. In terms of the notion of crippling our ability to
oversee and manage this larger portfolio, it could have the perverse
effect of losing taxpayer money and have these guarantees kick in. And
last, but not least, it would make it impossible to enable this agency
to move into some of the riskier markets where we need the power of the
free market to help transform this society.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me once again rise to
challenge a couple of arguments that I heard in support of this
amendment and certainly congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] for an outstanding speech that he just gave. No truer
words could have ever been spoken in support of this particular
amendment.
I want to go back to Africa for a moment, because several of my
colleagues since I spoke initially indicated that these corporations
subsequently invest in Africa. In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, if
we really trust African leaders, again, we should do for Africa what we
do for Israel and what we do for Egypt, give them direct loan
guarantees.
Nothing could be more paternalistic than to say that the only way we
are going to invest in Africa is through a U.S. corporation in an
undemocratic, un-American regime, and put the U.S. taxpayer dollars at
high risk if in fact that government is toppled and we find ourselves
on the wrong side of the human rights equation.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Royce-Andrews-
Kasich amendment. I would encourage my colleagues, particularly those
colleagues who voted in support of reducing this program in the last
Congress, an opportunity to vote again on behalf of the side of the
working people in our own country.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this amendment. OPIC has,
since its creation, really protected the U.S. investment it has made
overseas. Argument can be made, and persuasive arguments have been
made, as to why perhaps this should not be considered. But that
persuasive argument, I suggest to my colleagues, can be appropriately
argued somewhere else other than OPIC.
Consider these facts: Not one dollar has been used, been lost, as a
result of the taxpayers' money making administrative costs. In fact,
OPIC is mandated by Congress to be self-sustaining. It is self-
sustaining, paying for its administrative costs. This amendment would
deny OPIC the ability to fulfill its 1994 mandate that says raise its
portfolio from $11.5 billion to $23 billion. The Royce amendment would
undercut that ability to fulfill that.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the Government would provide
risk insurance to allow for countries that do not have the economic
stability to have jobs in development. That also creates investment
back here in America, if not jobs, certainly investment that goes back
into applying for economic development for American jobs and American
citizens here.
Mr. Chairman, OPIC supports more than 10,000 new American jobs here
as a result of that investment. Yes, I was one of those congresspersons
that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] referred
to, because I know of a company, indeed, that has participated in OPIC,
will not only take their monies but borrow from OPIC and add more
monies to make sure their investment is a sound investment in South
Africa.
It is working, it is working in countries, not only in South Africa,
but other countries that want to remove themselves from a dictatorship
and embrace democracy and have opportunity for economic development.
This is the right way for America to go. We should be leaders on this.
Vote no on the Royce amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi] has 1 minute remaining, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce] has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Alabama has the right to close, preceded by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].

[[Page H6369]]

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce], my friend and colleague, and also the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman, for their work on this amendment.
This week, our constituents are going to have taxes taken out of
their paycheck. And each week we go home for the weekend they ask us,
``Congressman, what did you spend my money on this week?
If my colleagues are prepared to tell their constituents that this
week they spent their money to help the McDonald's Corp. in Brazil,
then oppose our amendment. If my colleagues are prepared to tell their
constituents that this week they spent their money to help the General
Electric Corp. in Hungary, then oppose our amendment. But if my
colleagues believe, as we do, that the time has come to have equity in
the way we disperse welfare and to stop corporate welfare, then support
our amendment, as so many did in voting to limit OPIC last year.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I commend and applaud our colleague from California [Mr.
Royce], whom we all hold in such high regard, for his work in fighting
corporate welfare. I applaud him and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich] in their fight against corporate welfare. Indeed, I join them
in their fight against corporate welfare. But, Mr. Chairman, OPIC is
not corporate welfare. OPIC does not cost the taxpayer a single dollar.
Some of the points our colleagues have made in the course of fighting
this amendment this evening bear repeating. OPIC is required by law to
operate on a self-sustaining basis. Since 1971, OPIC has reimbursed the
Government for every dollar of actual outlays it has received. OPIC
produces a positive cash-flow for the Government because the fees it
charges clients, companies exceed its total cost.
OPIC creates American jobs by promoting exports. OPIC has a unique
foreign policy role, and OPIC levels the playing field in the global
competition. All of America's major economic competitors have OPIC-like
agencies to bridge commercial gaps in emerging markets. Let us not tie
the hands of our companies in the international market. I urge my
colleagues to vote against the Royce amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, claims have been made that OPIC is a large benefactor
of small business; 97.6 percent of the beneficiaries are corporations
with revenues that exceed $1 million. In fact, only one beneficiary had
annual revenues less than $2 million.
Private political risk insurance is regularly advertised in
publications like The Economist. Recently Exporters Insurance Co.
offered to reinsure much of OPIC's insurance portfolio at all existing
terms and conditions.
Last, we have got $23 billion at risk, taxpayers' dollars at risk.
CRS says that there are savings if we cut this back. There is a cost,
according to the CBO, $73 million. There is simply no justification for
appropriating $32 million to OPIC today. This is a 50-percent increase
in appropriations from 1994, and no more business being authorized.
This amendment is about stopping the train. It is about saying that
the House wants to stay in the future of OPIC, this should not be a
deal cut in conference committee. This may be the only say this body
has on the future of OPIC. Vote to hold the train. We are talking about
a modest reduction.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I
reluctantly speak out against my dear friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Callahan], from my own county, Orange County, where he
represents. I wanted to speak to that in just a moment.
But the simple truth is, and I certainly agree with the gentlewoman
from California that spoke earlier, OPIC is a self-supporting and self-
financed program. It is not a corporate welfare program. It has
recorded a positive net income for every year it has operated, and it
operates at no net cost to the American taxpayers. In fact, OPIC
actually contributes to the Treasury. It provides for these services by
charging a user fee that completely covers the operation of OPIC.
In my own home State of California, OPIC has provided support for
over 40 projects, generating $3 billion in American exports and over
9,000 jobs. In Orange County, CA, the county where the author of this
amendment resides and represents, one company alone has provided $1
billion of American-made services and goods exported and over 3,000
American jobs just because OPIC has helped them.
I implore the Members to stand above the political rhetoric and see
that this amendment is voted for what it is, that is that it is not
corporate welfare. I urge a no vote on the amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I insert for the
Record at this point a letter from the Vice President to the Speaker of
the House.
The letter referred to follows:

The Vice President,

Washington, DC, July 30, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representative,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I write to express my strong opposition
to the Royce-Andrews-Kasich amendment that is scheduled for
House floor action Thursday, July 31.
The Administration believes it is very important to
reauthorize Overseas Private Investment Corporation this
year. The Royce Amendment would make it impossible to perform
its valuable role in supporting American foreign policy and
its equally important mission of promoting the
competitiveness of American firms in international markets.
Since it was established in 1971, OPIC has supported over
$53 billion in U.S. exports. As Vice President, I have
personally witnessed what OPIC can accomplish in countries
like Russia to open opportunities for American companies and
create jobs for American workers.
I had meetings this week with Deputy President Mbeki of
South Africa which included OPIC participants. OPIC has
provided critical support for many foreign policy and
developmental initiatives around the world from South Africa
to Russia and the Newly Independent States. Most recently,
OPIC has been tapped to play an important part in a new
Africa initiative sponsored by both the Administration and
Members of Congress.
The Royce Amendment would undermine OPIC's capacity not
only to support foreign policy and create American jobs, but
also hinder prudent financial management of the existing
portfolio and harm OPIC's capacity to level the international
playing field while promoting American standards on human
rights and workers rights.
I urge you to oppose this amendment.
Sincerely,
Al Gore.

Mr. Speaker, the Royce amendment is an extremely harmful amendment,
which is just a back-door attempt to try to kill OPIC in the name of
corporate welfare. While I know the gentleman from California believes
very strongly in his crusade against corporate welfare, in the case of
OPIC he is tilting against the wrong windmill.
OPIC is not corporate welfare. If anything, OPIC is workfare. The
truth is that OPIC enables American workers to work hard to take home a
living wage and to make first-rate products which can be sold to the
developing world. OPIC creates a market for American products. Sure,
that helps American companies. But most importantly, it helps over
30,000 American workers each year who benefit from the OPIC-supported
projects.
I have listened to the testimony this afternoon of my colleagues, and
they are eloquent, and I know their passion and I know where they are
coming from. I listened to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talking
about the fact that this is corporate welfare. Let us save this few
tens of millions of dollars. Yet, he, just a few hours ago, agreed with
the President to give $4 billion more than what this bill gives.
So I think that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is saving $10
million while agreeing, on the other hand, to give the President $4
billion more. And I do not fault him. I voted for his budget
resolution. And he certainly is doing

[[Page H6370]]

everything he can to ensure that some day we reap a balanced budget,
and that is my goal as well. But this is not the way to do it.
This is not an authorization bill to allow OPIC to increase the debt.
What they are saying is shut down the collection window, that we have
billions of dollars out here in loans and, therefore, we are going to
cut their ability to even collect the moneys. And that is absolutely
wrong. And it is not, I am sure, the intent of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce], but that would be the result of this
legislation.
A few years ago, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] came to me and
said, ``Sonny, there is something wrong with OPIC.'' So I had a study
made about privatization of OPIC. I pleaded with the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] to meet with me to discuss the results of that study.
And 2 years later, he still has not had time to look at the survey that
we made at his request.
On the other hand, he has been very busy, he is cutting taxes, he is
cutting spending, he is doing all of these good things, and I want him
to continue to do those good things. But I wish some of my colleagues
would take the time to read the report that we commissioned that
justifies every dime that is spent at OPIC.
And speaking of spending moneys, OPIC returns money. What other
agency of Government do we have that returns money to us every single
year?

{time} 1945

They are bringing in each year, according to the Treasury reports,
more than enough money to offset this allocation that we are giving to
them. They bring in $251 million in profit and they are asking for $92
million of its own collections to continue their operations. So while I
certainly respect what the gentlemen are doing, recognize that this is
not helping General Electric; this is helping the employees of General
Electric. There is a big, big difference. The French do it. The
Japanese do it. The Germans do it. So why should we do it is what the
gentleman is saying. Let me encourage Members to vote against this
misguided amendment and let us continue the operation of OPIC.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation and to express my opposition to the
amendments offered by Mr. Royce and Mr. Paul to H.R. 2159, the FY 1998
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. These amendments would do
nothing but hurt American businesses and American workers.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when American businesses are facing increased
competition in the global marketplace, it is inconceivable to me that
we, the very government charged with helping our businesses, would
obstruct the most important means to this end. To those who support the
elimination of OPIC, I implore them to give up the isolationist belief
that if we ignore foreign trade deficits, they will simply go away.
Nothing could be farther from the truth! We must engage our competitors
in the global marketplace or we will become a second place economic
power.
Mr. Chairman, there is a reason we have trade deficits with some
foreign nations--they actively support their businesses to a much
greater extent than we do. If we cut OPIC, we tie the hands of American
businesses just as they are poised to step into the ring. My colleagues
have to understand this essential fact: the global marketplace is not
going to go away. If we stick our heads in the sand and let foreign
businesses get the upper hand in the global marketplace, then we are
turning our backs on our own people and our own future. Let us make no
mistake, Mr. Chairman, we need OPIC.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to the Royce amendment to cut the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation. OPIC has been crucial in promoting U.S.
investment abroad and continued support for the Overseas private
Investment Corporation is not only smart foreign policy it is sound
fiscal policy.
OPIC plays a critical role in our Nation's export strategy, and
supports important foreign policy initiatives across the globe. A cut
in OPIC's administrative fees will hamper crucial new investment work
in Africa and the Caribbean. This new investment will create U.S. jobs,
and improve stability in developing nations.
Mr. Chairman, OPIC operates on a self-sustaining basis paid for by
its program users. In fact, throughout its 26 year history, OPIC has
supported projects worth $107 billion and has created 225,000 new U.S.
jobs and $52 billion in exports.
OPIC is a major vehicle for promoting U.S. foreign and economic
policy without cost to the taxpayer and I urge mu colleagues to reject
the Royce-Kasich amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Royce] will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Funds Appropriated to the President

trade and development agency

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$40,000,000: Provided, That the Trade and Development Agency
may receive reimbursements from corporations and other
entities for the costs of grants for feasibility studies and
other project planning services, to be deposited as an
offsetting collection to this account and to be available for
obligation until September 30, 1999, for necessary expenses
under this paragraph: Provided further, That such
reimbursements shall not cover, or be allocated against,
direct or indirect administrative costs of the agency.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Paul

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Was the amendment printed in the Record?
Mr. PAUL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Paul: At the end of title I
(page 5, after line 14), insert the following new
paragraph:

reduction in amounts

Each amount otherwise provided in this title is hereby
reduced to $0.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate on the previous
amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] suggested
that there was one problem with the Royce amendment. He said it just
does not go far enough.
I have an amendment that will go far enough to deal with this entire
problem of corporate welfare. My amendment strikes all the funding from
title I. This means that the $632 million that goes to the Export-
Import Bank, the $32 million that goes to OPIC and the $40 million that
goes to the Trade and Development Agency would be struck. This would
not close these agencies down. We have heard on numerous occasions
already today that OPIC and other agencies like OPIC are obviously
self-supporting. If they are self-supporting, they need no more
appropriations. They can use the current funding, they can be
privatized. This whole idea that they come with the argument that they
are self-supporting and self-sustaining and that they make a profit,
there is no purpose in being here. Why do they come to the American
people and ask in this particular bill for export subsidies of $704
million? My amendment would strike the $704 million. These three
agencies have liabilities of well over $100 billion and this would be
eliminated.
One of the reasons the argument is made that these agencies are self-
sustaining is that they hold Treasury bills, which means that they
receive huge sums of money through the back door through interest
payments. This money is not appropriated for the specific purpose, but
as long as they hold Treasury bills they get the interest payments. For
instance, I mentioned earlier that OPIC in 1996 received $166 million
in this manner. Self-sustaining, it is not.
We should really ask if this is good economic policy. Quite frankly,
it is not good economic policy. It encourages businesspeople to do the
wrong things at the taxpayers' risk.
It is mentioned that these programs are available in the private
sector but they will not go into the risky areas. Obviously not. OPIC,
for instance, goes into countries, and what the American people have to
assume is the risk against political risk and economic risk. So if
these companies go bust, the American taxpayers have to stand behind
them. We have a misdirection of the economy and the misdirection of
investment because we get companies to do things more risky than they
would have otherwise. If they want to go into a more risky area, the
private insurance would obviously be higher,

[[Page H6371]]

so therefore this is a subsidy to corporations.
There is no reason why we should support this type of welfare. There
are several kinds of welfare. We have welfare for the poor, we have
welfare for the foreigners and we have welfare for the corporations. I
do not think the correct place to try to solve our problem on welfare
is to go after the poor man's welfare, but we can go after foreign
welfare and we can go after corporate welfare, and this is an example
of corporate and foreign welfare.
It is said that with these programs there is never any loss to the
taxpayers. That is a bit of a fallacy, because the loss to the
taxpayers is when we take the money from the taxpayer, so they are
losing all the time. Most little people never get benefits from this.
It is the large corporations that lobby us so heavily to endorse these
programs. There are not that many loans that default.
But there is another reason why we do not have that many loan
defaults, because they quickly renew these loans at different terms.
There is a lot of generous renewing of loans and therefore the default
level is very, very low, if we see it at all. But the risk is there.
The real risk to the American taxpayer is when we tax the Americans to
go and encourage programs like this. The assumption is made that if we
do not do it, it will not happen. Maybe not, maybe it will. If it does
not happen, maybe it is too risky. But most of it still would happen;
it would be insured in the private sector and many of these programs
would occur.
To get up and say A, B, and C company would not have existed and
could not have done this is not correct because we do not know. The
other thing we do not know is who suffered from this credit allocation.
When the Government gets involved in credit allocation, in saying this
credit is guaranteed and should go in this direction, every time there
is $10 billion going in that direction, it comes out of the private
sector and some little guy lost his credit. So obviously the banks are
going to loan to the people that have a guarantee.
Another area that we should address here is the subject of who gets
these loans. For instance, one of the biggest beneficiaries is China.
Red China gets over $4 billion. That in itself is enough reason to vote
for this amendment and reject corporate welfare on principle.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to destroy the
Eximbank which might sound good and might look good on the back of a
bumper sticker, but it would be a tremendous mistake for literally tens
of thousands of working American people who are working today as a
result of the fact that we are doing business in some overseas
countries. If indeed my colleagues believe that we are not in a global
economy, then my colleagues ought to do exactly what the gentleman from
Texas said: build a wall around the United States of America. Let us
not let anybody in and let us not let anybody out, let us not ship any
of our equipment overseas.
Let us talk about General Electric. What kind of generators do
Members think they use if GE builds a plant in a foreign country? They
use a GE generator built by American workers, built by American workers
who take that money home and support their families and support my
colleagues through their taxes that they pay.
So if my colleagues want to close down America, if they do not want
to do business overseas, if they really in their heart believe that a
global economy is not the future of this country, then my colleagues
ought to abolish the Eximbank and they ought to abolish OPIC as well.
But unfortunately, if the gentleman will read the newspapers, watch
television, look at world affairs, attend some of the committee
hearings that we have, when we hear the testimony of the Eximbank and
these various agencies, he will learn that we are exporting our jobs
overseas by letting them work in Texas, by letting them work in
Alabama, in California. They are taking that money to their homes and
we are shipping our generators and our products to them overseas simply
because we have provided for our businesspeople the same thing that the
French, the British, the Germans, the Japanese have provided to theirs.
Not as much, I grant the gentleman. They still give them much more.
They subsidize theirs. We do not subsidize these.
So, yes, if the gentleman wants to shut the world down as far as the
United States is concerned and abolish all these; but it would be very,
very unwise to do that. I would encourage my colleagues to recognize
that and to vote against the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Japan subsidizes 32 percent of their exports and we only
subsidize a small amount, only 2 percent. So I guess I would be
complaining a lot more if I lived in Japan because they do so much
more; but if we look at the economic growth of Japan, now it is less
than 1 percent and we are doing better. We have economic growth of 4
percent.
Mr. CALLAHAN. If I may reclaim my time, that is because they are
doing too much. We are not doing too much. We are trying to facilitate
our businesspeople in this country the opportunity to make them
competitive doing business in foreign countries. If that is wrong, then
I am wrong. But I am not wrong. The gentleman is wrong in trying to
abolish this agency.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in opposition to the amendment of our distinguished colleague from
Texas.
Mr. Chairman, this is a most unfortunate amendment, because it
strikes right to the heart of eliminating title I of our bill, which is
an important part of our foreign operations legislation. Eximbank,
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade and Development Agency
programs help create more and better-paying U.S. jobs through exports.
Each of these agencies has a distinct role in the administration's
effort to increase U.S. exports. Increasing U.S. exports is a major
pillar of our foreign policy and these agencies help do that. Every one
of our major industrial competitors have publicly supported
counterparts to Exim, OPIC and TDA. Virtually all of our competitors
fund their trade and investment finance agencies at a higher level than
we do. Failure to fully fund Exim, OPIC and TDA would severely handicap
our exporters as they battle for market share in the key fast-growing
markets. Exports create more and higher-paying jobs, support the
creation of American jobs by promoting exports. Vote against this
amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Could the gentlewoman cite the constitutional authority for
programs like this? Where did we get this authority? When did we get
involved in doing this? I am confused on that constitutional issue.
Ms. PELOSI. I would not be able to cite the constitutional authority.
I know the gentleman is well known for his opposition to any spending
bills, but I think the question that he asks is an appropriate one to
ask every Member who speaks on the floor, because these agencies of
government create jobs and return revenue to our Treasury.
I would like to address one of the points the gentleman made in his
remarks. He said if they are so self-sustaining, why are they not
privatized, or words to that effect.
I think it is very important that this is part of our national export
program, that we be able to participate in the program level and have a
control on the operating expenses so that all of the funds that are put
to this end are well spent and that they promote the most exports,
create the most jobs and increase the vitality and dynamism of our own
economy.
Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I think that is
a noble gesture to mix business and government, but some people are
hesitant to do that, to supervise what businesses are doing.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, the point was not to mix business and
government. The point was to promote U.S. exports abroad and to
recognize the realities of the global economy, where all of the
countries, the developed countries of the world and the developing
countries, are very competitive for the market share out there. It

[[Page H6372]]

is very important for us in those particular instances where, for
example, OPIC would be necessary, assessing the risk very carefully so
as not to put the U.S. taxpayers' dollars at an extraordinary risk, but
where the calibration is such that we need OPIC's participation, or
Eximbank's participation or TDA's promotion, that we give some
opportunity to U.S. business to make the playing field more level. As I
have said in my remarks, we do not come close to what many countries do
to help promote exports, but at least we can participate in promoting
exports.
Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will yield further, I think earlier she
said that it would be an appropriate question to ask for constitutional
authority and suggested that this is a good idea, and I would like to
emphasize that we do it more often.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I think if the gentleman reads the question, he will
find that the Constitution calls upon the Congress to promote the
general welfare of this Nation. I think by increasing trade and
creating jobs, we are promoting the general welfare of our Nation.
Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will yield further, this is frequently
cited as a constitutional authority to do almost anything. But let me
be specific to point out to the gentleman that we are not dealing with
the general welfare. We are dealing with the very specific welfare of
General Electric and other big companies at the expense of the general
welfare of the taxpayers who are paying the money.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I would like to say to the gentleman,
I keep a very close eye on these agencies. To the extent that I believe
that they are not promoting the general welfare and that special
interest is served rather than the public interest, I would be certain
to join with the gentleman in criticism of those aspects.

{time} 2000

But that is not what the point is here tonight.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Paul amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, offered for ideological reasons no doubt. It is devastating.
It would do draconian levels of damage to the American economy,
American exporters, American business and American workers. It needs to
be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would cite with authority Article I,
section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution that it is within
the powers of this body to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
if I could make my point, then I would be glad to yield for a question
from my constitutional friend.
In what we are doing here with these 3 bodies, Ex-Im, OPIC and TDA,
are we regulating commerce? You bet we are. We are involved in an
international global war. If the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Paul] were presented somehow in an international body,
and I would dread that because we would have a one-world government,
then I would say let us go ahead and do what he is doing because there
are 73 export credit agencies, there are 36 international equivalents
of OPICs. So what that means is that if we get rid of these specialty
types of credit agencies, where are we? What we have done is we have
effectively thrown up our hands and we have left it to the Finns and
Germans to take over.
Let me give my colleagues an example that is in my backyard, Beloit
Corporation. There is one of 3 manufacturers of paper making machines,
3 worldwide manufacturers of paper making machines, engaged in trying
to get a contract in Indonesia. The only other 2 manufacturers are in
Europe. One are the Finns and the other one are the Germans, and the
Finns and the Germans go through extraordinary lengths in order to, if
my colleagues want to use that word, subsidize, grant favorable
financing so that these sales can take place.
So what happened was Beloit Corporation applied to Ex-Im in working
with Members on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] over here from Milwaukee. We were able to see
Ex-Im grant a $275 million loan guarantee which has to be paid back
with interest at a good premium for the purpose of making sure that
Beloit Corporation was put in a level playing field to sell those
machines. Those were 2 machines that cost over $150 million a piece,
and there are several more in the lot. Let me finish my thought here.
Now what is going on here dynamically is this. Worldwide there is an
effort, there is an effort to eliminate OPIC and Ex-Im types of
financing. For example the OECD met and said that what we will do is we
will have an agreement that a Nation can only subsidize the spread;
that is, the actual amount of interest as charged worldwide on the open
market with what a Nation wants to pay to a certain extent, and they
continue to narrow that gap so that nations will be involved in less
core subsidizing of the loans for the exports.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Let me address the subject of regulation. The Constitution
does give us the authority to regulate commerce, but it never mentions
that we should subsidize special interests at the expense of the
average American taxpayers. Yes, we can put on tariffs and we can
regulate what comes and goes across our borders, but in the wildest
dreams of the Founders of this country they never intended that we
would have programs like this. We have to think this is a concoction of
the latter part of the 20th century, the past 20 or 30 years. This is
when this stuff; when welfare-ism has blossomed, it has been these type
of programs. It was never intended by our Constitution to do these
programs.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the
authorization appropriations are funds that are very much in the
American taxpayers' benefit. They come out positive as a result
directly of these jobs.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, back in those days the main income for
the United States was international tariffs. We have these incredible
tariff barriers, and that is how we supported the economy of the Nation
before the income tax.
I mean nobody wants those tariffs. I know the gentleman is a
libertarian and does not like the tariffs, but that is what was going
on 200 some years ago when the Nation was founded, and I think when
this was put into the Constitution it says to regulate, meaning this
body, the United States Congress, is given the power to make sure that
we can operate internationally.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Paul] will be postponed.

Point of Order

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
language beginning with ``provided'' on page 24, line 8 through
``justice'' on line 16 violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of
the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will suspend. The Clerk has
not yet read to that portion of the bill, and the gentleman's point of
order is not in order at this point.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H6373]]

TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out
the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for
other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 1998,
unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:

agency for international development

child survival and disease programs fund

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of part
I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, for child survival, basic education, assistance to
combat tropical and other diseases, and related activities,
in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes,
$650,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That this amount shall be made available for such activities
as (1) immunization programs, (2) oral rehydration programs,
(3) health and nutrition programs, and related education
programs, which address the needs of mothers and children,
(4) water and sanitation programs, (5) assistance for
displaced and orphaned children, (6) programs for the
prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on,
tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, polio, malaria and other diseases,
(7) not to exceed $98,000,000 for basic education programs
for children, and (8) a contribution on a grant basis to the
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) pursuant to section
301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

development assistance

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
sections 103 through 106 and chapter 10 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, title V of the International
Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980 (Public Law
96-533) and the provisions of section 401 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1969, $1,167,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, up to $2,000,000 may be made
available for the Inter-American Foundation: Provided
further, That of the amount appropriated under this heading,
up to $2,500,000 may be made available for the African
Development Foundation: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated balances
from prior appropriations may be made available to any
organization or program which, as determined by the President
of the United States, supports or participates in the
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available under this heading may be used to pay for the
performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to
motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions; and that
in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing
nations, funds shall be available only to voluntary family
planning projects which offer, either directly or through
referral to, or information about access to, a broad range of
family planning methods and services: Provided further, That
in awarding grants for natural family planning under section
104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 no applicant shall
be discriminated against because of such applicant's
religious or conscientious commitment to offer only natural
family planning; and, additionally, all such applicants shall
comply with the requirements of the previous proviso:
Provided further, That for purposes of this or any other Act
authorizing or appropriating funds for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs, the term
``motivate'', as it relates to family planning assistance,
shall not be construed to prohibit the provision, consistent
with local law, of information or counseling about all
pregnancy options: Provided further, That nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory
prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That none
of the funds made available under this heading may be used
for any activity which is in contravention to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and
Fauna (CITES).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Has the amendment been printed in the Record?
Mr. PITTS. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to have his
amendment considered?
Mr. PITTS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of the en bloc
amendments?
Mr. CALLAHAN. There is objection here.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

private and voluntary organizations

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act for development assistance may be made available
to any United States private and voluntary organization,
except any cooperative development organization, which
obtains less than 20 per centum of its total annual funding
for international activities from sources other than the
United States Government: Provided, That the requirements of
the provisions of section 123(g) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 and the provisions on private and voluntary
organizations in title II of the ``Foreign Assistance and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1985'' (as enacted in
Public Law 98-473) shall be superseded by the provisions of
this section, except that the authority contained in the last
sentence of section 123(g) may be exercised by the
Administrator with regard to the requirements of this
paragraph.
Funds appropriated or otherwise made available under title
II of this Act should be made available to private and
voluntary organizations at a level which is equivalent to the
level provided in fiscal year 1995. Such private and
voluntary organizations shall include those which operate on
a not-for-profit basis, receive contributions from private
sources, receive voluntary support from the public and are
deemed to be among the most cost-effective and successful
providers of development assistance.

international disaster assistance

For necessary expenses for international disaster relief,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance pursuant to
section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, $190,000,000, to remain available until expended.

debt restructuring

For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans
and loan guarantees, as the President may determine, for
which funds have been appropriated or otherwise made
available for programs within the International Affairs
Budget Function 150, including the cost of selling, reducing,
or canceling amounts, through debt buybacks and swaps, owed
to the United States as a result of concessional loans made
to eligible Latin American and Caribbean countries, pursuant
to part IV of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; and of
modifying concessional loans authorized under title I of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended, as authorized under subsection (a) under the heading
``Debt Reduction for Jordan'' in title VI of Public Law 103-
306; $27,000,000, to remain available until expended.

micro and small enterprise development program account

For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees,
$1,500,000, as authorized by section 108 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Provided, That such costs
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That guarantees of
loans made under this heading in support of microenterprise
activities may guarantee up to 70 percent of the principal
amount of any such loans notwithstanding section 108 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. In addition, for
administrative expenses to carry out programs under this
heading, $500,000, all of which may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the
Agency for International Development: Provided further, That
funds made available under this heading shall remain
available until September 30, 1999.

urban and environmental credit program account

For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of guaranteed loans
authorized by sections 221 and 222 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, including the cost of guaranteed loans designed
to promote the urban and environmental policies and
objectives of part I of such Act, $3,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That these
funds are available to subsidize loan principal, 100 percent
of which shall be guaranteed, pursuant to the authority of
such sections. in addition, for administrative expenses to
carry out guaranteed loan programs, $6,000,000, all of which
may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Operating Expenses of the Agency for International
Development: Provided further, That commitments to guarantee
loans under this heading may be entered into notwithstanding
the second and third sentences of section 222(a) and, with
regard to programs for Central and Eastern Europe and
programs for the benefit of South Africans disadvantaged by
apartheid, section 223(j) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961.

payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act
of 1980, $44,208,000.

operating expenses of the agency for international development

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 667, $468,750,000: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act for programs administered by the
Agency for International Development may be used to finance
printing costs of any report or study (except feasibility,
design, or evaluation reports or studies) in excess of
$25,000 without the approval of the Administrator of the
Agency or the Administrator's designee.

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

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 667, $29,047,000, to remain available until September
30, 1999, which sums shall be available for the Office of the
Inspector General of the Agency for International
Development.

[[Page H6374]]

Other Bilateral Economic Assistance

economic support fund

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II, $2,400,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1999 Provided, That any funds
appropriated under this heading that are made available for
Israel shall be available on a grant basis as a cash transfer
and shall be disbursed within thirty days of enactment of
this Act or by October 31, 1997, whichever is later:
Provided, That in exercising the authority to provide cash
transfer assistance for Israel and Egypt, the President shall
ensure that the level of such assistance does not cause an
adverse impact on the total level of nonmilitary exports from
the United States to each such country.

international fund for ireland

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$19,600,000, which shall be available for the United States
contribution to the International Fund for Ireland and shall
be made available in accordance with the provisions of the
Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
415): Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the
minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects
and activities: Provided further, That funds made available
under this heading shall remain available until September 30,
1999.

assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

(a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East
European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $470,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1999, which shall be
available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
economic assistance and for related programs for Eastern
Europe and the Baltic States.
(b) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior
appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for
an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such
funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such
program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without
returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States
and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made
available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the
minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects
and activities.
(c) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be
considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 111961 for purposes of making available the
administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use
of economic assistance.
(d) None of the funds appropriated under this heading may
be made available for new housing construction or repair or
reconstruction of existing housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina
unless directly related to the efforts of United States
troops to promote peace in said country.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, No. 27, which I
believe is germane to the second title of the bill at page 13.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to offer the
amendment at this time?
Mr. CAMPBELL. That is my request, yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CAMPBELL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to know about the
amendment, page 13, line 4, whereby I am inserting $25 million in the
Amendment No. 27; my parliamentary inquiry is whether that is in order
at this time without a unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman that the Clerk had
passed that point in reading the bill and it requires unanimous consent
to go back to that paragraph.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of striking the last word I am going
to ask an indulgence of the chairman of the subcommittee, and so I rise
to speak to this request.
I was here, I was talking at the desk. It is appropriate at page 13,
line 4. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus I have summoned
to be on the floor at this moment. There is every record that I
intended and had, except for the discussion at this desk, would have
been able to present it at this moment.
I ask; it is a favor, I understand, but I have a very specific reason
for asking for that favor, it is an unusual circumstance. I was here,
there was discussion, and I could not get to the microphone because we
were worried that the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Pitts] might have had precedence to mine.
It is for that reason, which is really not a common situation, that I
would ask a very great favor, but a favor of the chairman of the
subcommittee that if I renew my unanimous consent request that I might
now offer the amendment, No. 27, that it might be offered without an
objection.
Mr. Chairman, with that I renew my unanimous consent request that
Amendment No. 27 might be allowed at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I recognize the gentleman's plight. Nevertheless, we cannot continue
to go back because if we go back for him, we have to do the same thing
for every Member of this body. So I reluctantly still object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

(e) With regard to funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this heading for the economic revitalization
program in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and local currencies
generated by such funds (including the conversion of funds
appropriated under this heading into currency used by Bosnia
and Herzegovina as local currency and local currency returned
or repaid under such program)--
(1) the Administrator of the Agency for International
Development shall provide written approval for grants and
loans prior to the obligation and expenditure of funds for
such purposes, and prior to the use of funds that have been
returned or repaid to any lending facility or grantee; and
(2) the provisions of section 531 of this Act shall apply.
(f) With regard to funds appropriated under this heading
that are made available for economic revitalization programs
in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 50 percent of such funds shall not
be available for obligation unless the President determines
and certifies to the Committee on Appropriations that the
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has complied with
article III of annex 1-A of the General Framework Agreement
for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning the withdrawal
of foreign forces, and that intelligence cooperation on
training, investigations, and related activities between
Iranian officials and Bosnian officials has been terminated.
(g) Not to exceed $200,000,000 of the funds appropriated
under this heading may be made available for Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
(h) Not to exceed $7,000,000 of the funds made available
for Bosnia and Herzegovina may be made available for the
cost, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans and loan guarantees
for said country.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
Mr. Chairman, I recently traveled to Haiti in order to get a
firsthand look at the political and economic conditions there. It is my
concern that if the current political and economic impasse in that
country continues, there could be a social explosion that leads to a
mass immigration of Haitian refugees to Florida. As certain factions
inside Haiti are blocking reforms to further their own political
agenda, vital measures are being stalled that could lead to more
private investment in Haiti and ultimately to stabilization of this
country. Economic reform in Haiti, particularly in the privatization of
state-owned enterprises, is a necessary step in the improvement of
Haiti's economy.
During my trip I took particular note of the inaccurate and
antiquated power and telecommunication systems in Haiti. Without a
modern infrastructure it is ludicrous to expect that Haiti will attract
significant private investment. Therefore, the Haitian government must
privatize these industries.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations this year has inserted language which emphasizes
that aid for Haiti is being provided with the clear understanding that
it will only be provided if the Haitian government is actually
implementing a meaningful restructuring of the Haitian public sector.

{time} 2015

Am I correct in that assumption?

[[Page H6375]]

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida is absolutely
correct. The privatization of parastatal companies and strict
accountability for the effective use of donor resources are core
reforms which were promised but not accomplished in prior years.
The committee recommends that assistance to the government of Haiti
provided in this act be made contingent upon the privatization of at
least three parastatal enterprises. I might add that the subcommittee,
traveled to Haiti and that we shared the gentleman's concern, and we
also expressed a strong concern to President Preval.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman for the
clarification, and commend him on his efforts to ensure that the United
States aid to Haiti is being properly utilized.
As I witnessed the strength of the people of Haiti and their desire
to have economic opportunity, it became clear to me that the government
needs to lead by example. I suggested to President Preval that he take
a stronger stand in forcing the privatization of the utilities and
other areas.
Even if the United States could provide the Haitian government with
all the money in the world, it would come to no avail without reform of
the Haitian economy. So I would suggest this Congress and this
committee has a strong responsibility to work closely with the current
government in Haiti and try and see that these economic reforms become
reality, so those people in Haiti can have jobs, opportunity, growth
and prosperity.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

(a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union and for related
programs, $625,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 1999: Provided, That the provisions of such chapter shall
apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall
be transferred to the Government of Russia--
(1) unless that Government is making progress in
implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market
principles, private ownership, negotiating repayment of
commercial debt, respect for commercial contracts, and
equitable treatment of foreign private investment; and
(2) if that Government applies or transfers United States
assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or
seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or
ventures.
(c) Funds may be furnished without regard to subsection (b)
if the President determines that to do so is in the national
interest.
(d) None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall
be made available to any government of the new independent
states of the former Soviet Union if that government directs
any action in violation of the territorial integrity or
national sovereignty of any other new independent state, such
as those violations included in the Helsinki Final Act:
Provided, That such funds may be made available without
regard to the restriction in this subsection if the President
determines that to do so is in the national security interest
of the United States: Provided further, That the restriction
of this subsection shall not apply to the use of such funds
for the provision of assistance for purposes of humanitarian,
disaster and refugee relief.
(e) None of the funds appropriated under this heading for
the new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall
be made available for any state to enhance its military
capability: Provided, That this restriction does not apply to
demilitarization or nonproliferation programs.
(f) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be subject
to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
(g) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the
new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall be
subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to
environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
(h) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or
making grants, with funds appropriated under this heading or
in prior appropriations Acts, for projects or activities that
have as one of their primary purposes the fostering of
private sector development, the Coordinator for United States
Assistance to the New Independent States and the implementing
agency shall encourage the participation of and give
significant weight to contractors and grantees who propose
investing a significant amount of their own resources
(including volunteer services and in-kind contributions) in
such projects and activities.
(i) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior
appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for
an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
bearing accounts prior to the disbursement of such funds by
the Fund for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such
program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without
returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States
and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made
available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the
minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects
and activities.
(j)(1) None of the funds appropriated under this heading
may be made available for Russia unless the President
determines and certifies in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations that the Government of Russia has terminated
implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical
expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to
develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research
facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability.
(2) Fifty percent of the funds appropriated under this
heading that are allocated for Russia may be made available
notwithstanding paragraph (1) if the President determines
that making such funds available is vital to the national
security interest of the United States. Any such
determination shall cease to be effective six months after
being made unless the President determines that its
continuation is vital to the national security interest of
the United States.
(k)(1) Funds appropriated under this heading may not be
made available for the Government of Ukraine if the President
determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations
that the Government of Ukraine is engaged in military
cooperation with the Government of Libya.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the President
determines that making such funds available is vital to the
national security interest of the United States. Any such
determination shall cease to be effective six months after
being made unless the President determines that its
continuation is vital to the national security interest of
the United States.
(l) Funds made available under this Act or any other Act
may not be provided for assistance to the Government of
Azerbaijan until the President determines, and so reports to
the Congress, that the Government of Azerbaijan is taking
demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive
uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh: Provided,
That the restriction of this subsection and section 907 of
the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply to activities
promoting democracy or assistance under title V of the
FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public Law 104-201:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available under this Act may be utilized by
the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development
Agency to provide financing (including direct loans, loan
guarantees, and insurance) or other assistance contrary to
the provisions of section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act.
(m) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be made
available for humanitarian assistance through nongovernmental
organizations for refugees, displaced persons, and needy
civilians in conflictive zones throughout the Trans-Caucasus,
including Nagorno-Karabagh, notwithstanding any other
provision of this or any other Act.
(n) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that are
allocated for Ukraine, 50 percent shall be withheld from
obligation and expenditure until the Secretary of State
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the
Government of Ukraine: (1) is enforcing the April 10, 1997
Anti-Corruption decree of President Kuchma; (2) has
substantially completed the privatization of state owned
agricultural storage, distribution, equipment and supply
monopolies; and (3) has fully resolved most of the commercial
disputes involving complaints by United States investors to
the Embassy in Kiev as of April 30, 1997 and established a
permanent legal mechanism for commercial dispute resolution.

Independent Agencies

inter-american foundation

For necessary expenses to carry out the functions of the
Inter-American Foundation in accordance with section 401 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, and to make such
contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations, as provided by 31 U.S.C. 9014, $20,000,000.

african development foundation

For necessary expenses to carry out title V of the
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of
1980, Public Law 96-533, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, $11,500,000: Provided, That funds
made available to grantees may be invested pending
expenditure for project purposes when authorized by the
President of the Foundation: Provided further, That interest
earned shall be used only for the purposes for which the
grant was made: Provided further, That this authority applies
to interest earned both

[[Page H6376]]

prior to and following enactment of this provision: Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the
African Development Foundation Act, in exceptional
circumstances the board of directors of the Foundation may
waive the $250,000 limitation contained in that section with
respect to a project: Provided further, That the Foundation
shall provide a report to the Committee on Appropriations
after each time such waiver authority is exercised.

peace corps

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), $222,000,000, including the
purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for
administrative purposes for use outside of the United States:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be used to pay for abortions: Provided further,
That funds appropriated under this heading shall remain
available until September 30, 1999.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer an amendment in this title, and
I am not going to do that at this time. I think I would be remiss as a
Member of Congress and someone who has spoken out about some of the
funding for one of the agencies funded in this appropriations measure
if I did not personally address what I consider a program that has room
for improvement.
I do not mean to distract or to in any way denounce the work of this
Committee on Appropriations subcommittee. I know they have an important
task, and trying to come up with a foreign ops appropriations measure
is a difficult task.
But I had proposed to offer an amendment here and had the support of
many colleagues to reduce AID's administrative costs by about 5
percent, or $19 million. That is just a small, token amount, really,
but that money would have been put in the child survival and disease
program fund, which would establish further protection of children
throughout the world, and eradication of diseases.
Most people do not realize it, but 33,000 children die every day
across the world, and an estimated 12 million children die under 5
years of age across the world every year from various diseases.
Mr. Chairman, I have been around the world and worked in
international trade, and I would not be critical of AID if I had not
seen firsthand some of the problems that we have with that agency.
Again, I know this committee is trying to do its utmost to get this
operation in order. But let me give the Members also my perspective as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, just an idea of how personnel in AID
are stratified.
If Members think we are spending all of our money and funds in
helping children and the needy in foreign countries where there is need
of our assistance for those individuals, just listen to this. AID
staffing has 2,916 employees. Overseas there are 1,096. In Washington,
D.C., or this immediate area, there are 1,717 AID employees.
So those Members who are compassionate, those who are interested in
trying to get our AID dollars going to where they can help the
children, where they can help the truly needy, this budget appropriates
again and will fund 1,717 positions just in the Washington, D.C. area
for this agency.
Overall, AID has almost 8,000 employees, if we count in contract and
foreign nationals that are hired. The entire Department of Education
only has 5,000 employees.
Mr. Chairman, I will not get into all the issues of waste and
mismanagement in AID, but I had met sometime ago overseas with the
president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an eastern bloc country.
This is an American. He said Americans in AID, their AID program is the
laughingstock of some of the eastern bloc and emerging nations, because
the United States spends $100 to give away $1. That is my concern, that
we put money where it can do the most good.
When we have 33,000 children dying every day, we can choose as to how
this money is appropriated. My amendment would not have taken a penny
out of what we are putting into the program, but it would redirect it
as a national policy for these funds to go into child survival programs
that are beneficial. That was the proposal that I had.
I will not offer it because I want the process to move forward. But
Mr. Chairman, I ask the chairman and my colleagues and members of this
panel to look very closely at how these funds are being spent and the
policy that we are establishing: Does the money go where it should go?
Do we take care of folks and children around the world that need help,
or is it going to spend a tremendous amount of money in overhead on a
bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.?
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Department of State

international narcotics control

For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $230,000,000: Provided, That
during fiscal year 1998, the Department of State may also use
the authority of section 608 of the Act, without regard to
its restrictions, to receive non-lethal excess property from
an agency of the United States Government for the purpose of
providing it to a foreign country under chapter 8 of part I
of that Act subject to the regular notification procedures of
the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That none
of the funds made available under this heading may be
provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence to
believe such unit has committed gross violations of human
rights unless the Secretary determines and reports to the
Committees on Appropriations that the government of such
country is taking steps to bring the responsible members of
the security forces unit to justice.

Point of Order

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the
language beginning with ``provided'' on page 24, line 8, through
``justice'' on line 16 violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of
the House of Representatives.
Clause 2(b) of rule XXI states that in general, no provision changing
existing law shall be reported in any general appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the language reported in
this general appropriations bill changes existing law in that it
imposes duties such as the duty to make determinations or decisions on
the Secretary of State, and that these are new duties not required in
existing law.
Although the language is part of the relevant appropriations act for
the current fiscal year, that act would not apply in the fiscal year
covered by the pending bill, and under the precedents of this House, it
is not considered as being ``existing law'' for the purpose of the
relevant rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded.
That portion of the bill is stricken.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in opposition to the point
of order raised against the important counternarcotics human rights
provision in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had ruled on the point of order since it was
conceded by the Chairman.
Does the gentleman wish to be heard further on the point of order?
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I was standing on my feet in opposition to
the point of order.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, is it proper to entertain further
remarks on a point of order after the point of order has been sustained
by the Chair?
The CHAIRMAN. Argument on a point of order is at the discretion of
the Chair. The Chair will entertain the comments of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Torres] and withhold his ruling.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, the bill currently contains the so-called
Leahy provision which was enacted last year. The Leahy amendment
stipulates that if the Secretary of State finds credible evidence
implicating a foreign military unit of gross human rights violations,
and no steps have been taken to bring those responsible to justice,
then the unit, not the whole country, would be cut off from some form
of U.S. counternarcotics aid.

[[Page H6377]]

I supported the effort to have this provision included in last year's
bill. U.S. taxpayer dollars must not be spent on murderers. The
situation today in Colombia is severe. Colombia has the worst human
rights record in the Western Hemisphere, with an average of 10
Colombians murdered every day for political or ideological reasons.
Approximately 65 percent of those killings are attributed to the
military and their paramilitary allies.
Colombian units, military units, responsible for some of the worst
human rights violations and atrocities in recent years were also those
that received U.S. assistance. Joint army paramilitary operations have
displaced thousands of civilians, mostly peasant farmers. Earlier this
year inhabitants of more than 15 municipalities or communities in the
municipality of Choco were forced to leave their communities by
paramilitary groups. They were told they had 5 days, 5 days to abandon
their homes. Otherwise, they would be killed. Several communities were
bombed by military forces. Many people have fled to other regions, to
neighboring Panama. There is reason to believe, and to be seriously
concerned about the safety of the civilian population as these
operations continue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, the Leahy provisions are the very
minimum standards we utilize before releasing $1 million of military
aid to combat narco-trafficking. Using this procedure, making a point
of order to strike the Leahy provision is a back-door attempt to do
away with a critical component of counternarcotics assistance
accountability, and we must not allow that to happen.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair controls the time. The Chair has recognized
the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] briefly to talk on the point
of order.
Is the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] finished on his
comments?
Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not able to yield.

{time} 2030

Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain further brief comments on the
point of order.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to
the point of order. This provision, which was first authored by Senator
Leahy, prevents foreign security forces from using our aid to commit
gross violations of human rights. That is the language. Gross
violations of human rights.
I think we would all agree, Democrats and Republicans, that our
foreign aid should not be used by foreign security forces to kill,
kidnap, or torture their own citizens. That is a principle which I
would think would go unchallenged here today. The bill in its current
form provides that no international narcotics control funds can be used
to provide any aid to any unit of a security force of a foreign country
if the Secretary of State has credible evidence to believe that unit
has committed gross violations of human rights.
It has been suggested, and wrongly so, that any nongovernmental
organization can hamstring our international narcotics assistance by
bringing unfounded allegations of human rights. This is simply not
true. The Leahy provision gives the Secretary of State the right to
determine whether an allegation of gross human rights abuses is
credible. Even if the Secretary of State concludes that such an
allegation is credible, she can allow assistance to flow if she
determines that the foreign government is taking steps to bring the
responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.
Mr. Chairman, where is the problem? This is a carefully, narrowly
drawn provision which gives the Secretary of State the discretion to
assess reports of human rights abuses and to assess the efforts of
foreign governments to control their security forces. Mr. Chairman,
this does not provide or does not place any additional obligations on
this use of money because this use of money or the use of Federal
dollars is also controlled in other forms of Federal dollars.
In other words, we have the Leahy amendment in other types of
assistance so the same type of analysis would be put on this type of
assistance. I find it ironic that the gentleman from Georgia who has
raised this point of order argued in committee that this is an issue
that we should be debating, that Congress should be acting on this
issue. Yet when we come to the floor he wants to completely stymie
debate. This is an issue that should be debated on this floor because
the basic issue, the basic issue again, Mr. Chairman, is whether we
should be giving aid to units of government that commit gross
violations of human rights.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain further brief comments on the
point of order.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman
that has just spoken. It makes no sense to give money or weapons to
militaries without making sure that they are used for the right
purposes. This provision just does that. It is a one sentence
provision. It is totally permissive. It ensures that our resources are
not misused by human rights violators.
I rise as a former member of the U.S. Peace Corps serving in
Colombia. I know that there are human rights violations because a lot
of the paramilitary down there we have no jurisdiction over have been
using the military equipment that we have sent to Colombia. We need to
make sure that we do not throw money at the problem of drugs if it puts
human rights and innocent people at risk because, if we do that, we do
not stand for anything. The credibility of America is gone. The
provision is responsible and fair and should be kept in the final bill.
I urge the Chair to rule against the points of order because this is
made in one sentence that is permissive and does not mandate that
expenditure has to be done as such.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly in opposition to
the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of order
and would like to make two points in regard to it.
First, it is unfortunate that this rule came to the floor this way
not protecting this language as was requested by our committee. Let our
membership debate this issue and vote one way or another. But to leave
this issue exposed this way is, I think, a disservice to the Members of
this House because the actual point of order that the gentleman makes,
I believe, is based on a mistake, the mistaken impression that has been
circulating here that we have been withholding funds from the Colombian
national police. That is not true.
We have been withholding funds from the military but the United
States has been assisting the Colombian national police in the battle
against narcotics. Therefore, we would welcome the debate on the
language that is in the bill which withholds funds from the units of
the military which have committed gross human rights violations. I wish
that the rule would have allowed our colleagues to hear the debate.
Vote it up or down. I urge the Chair to reject the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The provision requires the Secretary of State to evaluate
``credible'' evidence and to make reports not required by existing law.
The point of order has been conceded by the gentleman from Alabama and
the Chair sustains the point of order. The provision is in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI and is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read:
The Clerk read as follows:

MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by
law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red
Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the
International Organization for Migration and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities
to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of
personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service
Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by

[[Page H6378]]

sections 5921 through 5925 of title 5, United States Code;
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services
as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
$650,000,000: Provided, That not more than $12,000,000 shall
be available for administrative expenses.

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT ASSISTANCE

For necessary expenses for the targeted assistance
program authorized by title IV of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 and administered by the Office of
Refugee Resettlement of the Department of Health and Human
Services, in addition to amounts otherwise available for such
purposes, $5,000,000.

UNITED STATES EMERGENCY REFUGEE AND MIGRATION ASSISTANCE FUND

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 260(c)), $50,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the funds made
available under this heading are appropriated notwithstanding
the provisions contained in section 2(c)(2) of the Migration
and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which would limit the
amount of funds which could be appropriated for this purpose.

NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-
terrorism and related programs and activities, $118,000,000,
to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance,
section 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act for the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, section 23 of the Arms
Export Control Act for demining activities, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, including activities implemented
through nongovernmental and international organizations,
section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for a
voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and a voluntary contribution to the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO): Provided,
That of this amount not to exceed $15,000,000, to remain
available until expended, may be made available for the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, to promote bilateral and multilateral
activities relating to nonproliferation and disarmament:
Provided further, That such funds may also be used for such
countries other than the new independent states of the former
Soviet Union and international organizations when it is in
the national security interest of the United States to do so:
Provided further, That such funds shall be subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That funds appropriated
under this heading may be made available for the
International Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary
of State determines (and so reports to the Congress) that
Israel is not being denied its right to participate in the
activities of that Agency: Provided further, That not to
exceed $25,000,000 may be made available to the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) only for
administrative expenses and heavy fuel oil costs
associated with the Agreed Framework: Provided further,
That such funds may be obligated to KEDO only if, thirty
days prior to such obligation of funds, the President
certifies and so reports to Congress that (1)(A) the
parties to the Agreed Framework are taking steps to assure
that progress is made on the implementation of the January
1, 1992, Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula and the implementation of the North-South
dialogue, and (B) North Korea is complying with the other
provisions of the Agreed Framework between North Korea and
the United States and with the Confidential Minute; (2)
North Korea is cooperating fully in the canning and safe
storage of all spent fuel from its graphite-moderated
nuclear reactors and that such canning and safe storage is
scheduled to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1998;
and (3) North Korea has not significantly diverted
assistance provided by the United States for purposes for
which it was not intended: Provided further, That the
President may waive the certification requirements of the
preceding proviso if the President determines that it is
vital to the national security interests of the United
States: Provided further, That no funds may be obligated
for KEDO until 30 calendar days after submission to
Congress of the waiver permitted under the preceding
proviso: Provided further, That the obligation of any
funds for KEDO shall be subject to the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That the Secretary of
State shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees an annual report (to be submitted with the
annual presentation for appropriations) providing a full
and detailed accounting of the fiscal year request for the
United States contribution to KEDO, the expected operating
budget of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
Organization, to include unpaid debt, proposed annual
costs associated with heavy fuel oil purchases, the amount
of funds pledged by other donor nations and organizations
to support KEDO activities on a per country basis, and
other related activities.

TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

international military education and training

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$50,000,000: Provided, That funds appropriated under this
heading for grant financed military education and training
for Indonesia and Guatemala may only be available for
expanded international military education and training:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this heading may be made available to support grant financed
military education and training at the School of the Americas
unless (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies that the
instruction and training provided by the School of the
Americas is fully consistent with training and doctrine,
particularly with respect to the observance of human rights,
provided by the Department of Defense to United States
military students at Department of Defense institutions whose
primary purpose is to train United States military personnel,
(2) the Secretary of Defense certifies that the Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, has
developed and issued specific guidelines governing the
selection and screening of candidates for instruction at the
School of the Americas, and (3) the Secretary of Defense
submits to the Committees on Appropriations a report
detailing the training activities of the School of the
Americas and a general assessment regarding the performance
of its graduates during 1996.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which
further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Royce]; and amendment No. 36 offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Paul].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Royce

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 272, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 346]

AYES--156

Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Blagojevich
Bonior
Boswell
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doyle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Ensign
Eshoo
Farr
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kingston
Klug
Kucinich
Largent
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luther
Markey
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Obey
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sununu
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Visclosky
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Woolsey

NOES--272

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop

[[Page H6379]]

Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Cooksey
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Forbes
Gonzalez
Schiff
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Young (AK)

{time} 2057

Ms. DeGETTE, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. CUMMINGS,
SESSIONS and SAXTON, and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CONYERS, BUYER and GILLMOR changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Paul

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded voted
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 40,
noes 387, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 347]

AYES--40

Bachus
Barr
Bartlett
Burton
Campbell
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Crapo
Deal
DeLay
Doolittle
Duncan
Ensign
Hayworth
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Markey
McIntosh
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pombo
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Smith, Linda
Stearns
Taylor (MS)
Traficant
Wamp

NOES--387

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Forbes
Gonzalez
Schiff
Solomon
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Young (AK)

{time} 2107

Messrs. SANFORD, BACHUS and RYUN changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H6380]]

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2159), making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________