[Pages H6726-H6755]
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 pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 27, 1997, 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} 1302

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 on Wednesday, July
30, 1997, the bill had been read through page 93, line 15.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 31, 1997, no
other amendment shall be in order, except pro forma amendments offered
for the purpose of debate, unless printed in the Congressional Record
before Friday, August 1, 1997.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, just to bring the Members up to date, we are resuming
our debate on the Foreign Operations bill, H.R. 2159. Just to refresh
Members' memories, this bill was well under the allocation that was
given to the subcommittee. In fact, it is some $87,000 under last
year's appropriation and nearly $4.5 billion less than the Senate bill
and the President's request.
So once again, as we continue this debate, we would like for our
colleagues to keep in mind that final passage on this measure will
actually mean another reduction in foreign aid, and I think it is very
important that Members of the House understand this.
Once again, the American people are requesting that we be frugal in
our efforts to assist the President and the executive branch in their
efforts to have an effective foreign policy. But under the
circumstances, the committee felt, and I feel, that the reduction is in
order. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will continue the effort.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California, the ranking
Democrat on the subcommittee.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, once again, I, too, want to remind our
colleagues of the great leadership of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan] in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor. This is
a difficult bill and there are many contentious areas that are covered
in it.
We began the debate, as Members may recall, before the August
district work period. At that time, I said that the gentleman from
Alabama had resolved many of the contentious issues. One area of
agreement that I have with the gentleman on the bill, of course, is the
funding level. I hope to work on that in conference. But, again, in
terms of the issue-by-issue consideration of the bill, I think a great
deal was accomplished because of the gentleman's openness,
accessibility, and spirit of bipartisanship.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman once again for his
leadership and once again separate from the remarks about, yes, we must
be frugal and prudent in all of our spending, subject all of it to the
harshest scrutiny, but I support the larger number of the
administration, a minor disagreement with the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for her kind remarks, and it
has been a pleasure working with the gentlewoman in her first year as
ranking Democrat on our subcommittee. The gentlewoman has been a
pleasure to work with, as has been her entire staff.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a joint effort, both Republicans and
Democrats joining together, to bring to the floor what I consider a
responsible bill. I know the gentlewoman is concerned that it is not
sufficient, but nevertheless, under the circumstances, I certainly feel
that it is.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

assistance to turkey

Sec. 571. (a) Not more than $40,000,000 of the funds
appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Economic Support
Fund'' may be made available for Turkey.
(b) Of the funds made available under the heading
``Economic Support Fund'' for Turkey, not less than fifty
percent of these funds shall be made available for the
purpose of supporting private nongovernmental organizations
engaged in strengthening democratic institutions in Turkey,
providing economic assistance for individuals and communities
affected by civil unrest, and supporting and promoting
peaceful solutions and economic development which will
contribute to the settlement of regional problems in Turkey.

amendment no. 76 offered by mr. campbell

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

Amendment No. 76 offered by Mr. Campbell:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 572. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for ``economic
support fund'', and increasing the amount made available for
``contribution to the african development fund'' (as
authorized by Section 526(c) Public Law 103-306; 108 Stat.
1632), by $25,000,000.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allocate 25 million
additional dollars to the African Development Fund. The amendment is
revenue neutral, budget neutral, and is

[[Page H6727]]

scored by CBO as neutral on all relevant points for budgetary purposes.
It takes the $25 million that we would like to give to the African
Development Fund from the Economic Support Fund.
The Economic Support Fund is the generic fund that is one of the
largest components of this bill and is already funded at $57 million
above the fiscal year 1997 enacted level.
So, there is no question that this money would not add to the size of
the bill, the cost of the bill, or the size of the burden on the U.S.
taxpayers from the deficit.
Why is it necessary to dedicate $25 million more into the African
Development Fund? The United States investment of time, compassion, and
dollars in Africa, in my view, brings the greatest return from the
point of view of our national interests, our sense of compassion, and
what we can do for people who are most in need.
The people who live in sub-Saharan Africa have the lowest life
expectancy of any people on Earth. Americans on average live 48 percent
longer, almost half a lifetime longer than the average person living in
sub-Saharan Africa.
International relief organizations characterize sub-Saharan Africa as
having one half of its population living in absolute poverty.
What does the African Development Fund do? Well, in combination with
the African Development Bank, it assists those individuals,
entrepreneurs, small businesses, who are able and interested in helping
themselves to create the conditions for economic growth from which the
alleviation of poverty will come in a permanent way.
Mr. Chairman, it is not a handout. It is an assist in becoming
economically self-sufficient so that some day when we speak of these
issues again on the House floor, we will not be referring to a life
expectancy so short and infant mortality rate so high and absence of
inoculation for childhood diseases that is so sadly widespread.
The United States has in the past funded the African Development Bank
and the African Development Fund. The African Development Bank offers
assistance for the more creditworthy borrowers. That is an important
area, but it is not the subject of this amendment.
The African Development Fund offers assistance for the poorest of the
poor. It offers loans on concessional bases. In the past, the United
States has had some concern about the management of the African
Development Fund and, for that reason, has not been putting any money
into this for several of the last years. However, the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, the
Committee on International Relations, the State Department, AID, have
all been studying the progress made by the African Development Fund and
have come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to recommit United
States resources to this very important area. The only issue now is the
amount.
Mr. Chairman, here is why that additional $25 million is so
important. Presently, the Senate bill, the other body's bill, has zero.
The President has requested $50 million. The committee's bill requests
$25 million.
If we can go to conference with a full $50 million, I would be very
hopeful and prayerful that we could actually get $50 million, which is
what the President has requested. It certainly puts us in a better
bargaining position than if we go to the conference with $25 million,
which is in the bill.
Several Members of the European Community have announced that their
willingness to assist will be conditional upon the United States
putting forward its commitment. Because whereas we have committed to
assist with the African Development Fund, we have, in fact, not
contributed for the last 2 years, when we said we would. The amount
that is already overdue is $132 million.
Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for that today. I am asking for the
additional $25 million so that we can make a good down payment on
getting this fund started again and thereby engage our European allies
in this most worthy project.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues out of compassion to care for
those who are the most needy in the world, please to support this
amendment. I am proud to say that it is supported by many colleagues,
including the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters].
Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying for those concerned about our
friends in the Middle East, that AIPAC has allowed me to say they do
not oppose this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise, first of all, to
thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of this fine
subcommittee, for his effort and his work, including his work with me
over the years on many issues dealing with human rights, particularly
in Africa.
I also thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for her
forthright and open presentation and commitment on human rights and
issues dealing with foreign affairs in this world. I am proud to be
associated with both of these fine colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, the effort of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Campbell] today is one that I proudly support, and I join the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters] to be able to stand today for what I think is a vital change
and recognition in the policy of teaching someone to fish, rather than
giving them a fish.
Interestingly enough, as the world mourns one of the most dynamic
ambassadors that committed herself to the idea of helping those less
fortunate, Princess Diana, who visited Africa on several occasions and
was not fearful of working with the heads of State, but as well as the
people of those nations in helping them to pull themselves up by their
bootstraps, that we would come today to be able to support legislation
that adds $25 million to the African Development fund.
Mr. Chairman, this does not cause for any increase in spending in
this particular bill, but helps to raise the funding to a level of $50
million; a request made by the President and one that we have not met
at this time.
It is extremely important to recognize what the African Development
Fund stands for. It makes loans on market-based terms to creditworthy
borrowers.

{time} 1315

That is, while the AFDF lends to the poorest members on highly
concessional terms, that means that what happens is those poorest
nations, those poorest individuals, those poorest nongovernmental
agencies are able to receive money that will help lift them and their
constituents up by the bootstraps.
The interesting thing that we should note is that in fact this money
does go to the poorest nations in sub-Saharan Africa. The African
Development Bank concentrates its loans on smaller projects than the
International Development Association, the concessional lending arm of
the World Bank, in areas such as microenterprise, primary education,
preventative health care, agriculture and basic infrastructure.
In fact, as I visited South Africa just a few months ago, I was
delighted to see some of the very examples of what the African
Development Fund is engaged in, complementing those participants in
ideas and programs of which they initiated, which they were the idea
persons for, and which they were able to draw from the very basis of
their soul and see the success that was brought about by these matching
funds.
The AFDF account is funded at 25 million, half of what the President
requested. Interestingly enough, the ESF account is as a full 57
million above fiscal year 1997 enacted levels, which is good, but yet
this does not answer the question when we find that countries like sub-
Saharan Africa or in sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Latin America
receive the lowest United States foreign aid per capita of any
recipients in the world. This is particularly striking because these
regions have the lowest GNP per capita in the world and the lowest life
expectancy on earth. Sub-Saharan Africans die younger than anyone else
by a huge margin.
I believe that there have been great strides in AFDF, particularly,
as has been noted by this committee, that the

[[Page H6728]]

new management of the African Development Bank and Fund have made great
strides in restructuring the whole infrastructure of the organization
so that they have drawn confidence in the way that they handle the
dollars that they were given.
Additionally, I think it is important that the moneys, such as the
ESF funds, that they will not impact Israel or Egypt. This shows a true
combined effort in those seeking to help sub-Saharan Africa to provide
a grass-roots initiative, to enhance those grass-roots organizations
who can show themselves proud and be able to draw in others who would
draw with them and work on infrastructure and education and health
needs. This is the kind of money that the United States can be most
proud of rendering.
I believe that this Congress would do well to support this increase
because this is worth 1,000 times what it is in actual dollars. This is
worth people realizing that I can do something. This is worth people
understanding that I do not have to ask for fish because I can learn to
fish.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I rise to support this
funding amendment and would ask my colleagues to join enthusiastically
to help sub-Saharan Africa stand on its own feet.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
and I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment I am sure is well-intended, but it
ignores the history of the institution that they are trying to help.
Just to refresh the Members' memories as to the history of the African
Development Fund, just 2 years ago this Congress rescinded the $60
million included in the bill for the African Development Fund because
it was unneeded. There was no objection whatsoever 2 years ago.
Now, under new management, we feel like the fund is back on its feet,
that they indeed are moving in a progressive manner by which to help
the very people that the proponents of this bill wish to help. So we as
a committee did insert $25 million to reestablish our confirmation that
they are moving in the correct direction. And now for an amendment to
come to the floor increasing the $25 to $50 million plays havoc with
the entire bill.
The gentlewoman from Texas mentioned that this does not impact Israel
nor Egypt, but she is wrong because it does impact Israel and Egypt
because if we deplete the funds which are very limited in the economic
support fund, we are going to deny the administration the opportunity
to assist Jordan. And if Jordan is not assisted, then Israel and Egypt
both will suffer. So it indeed does impact the Middle East, and I take
issue with her indication that it does not impact either Israel or
Egypt.
The Senate, we understand, has nothing in the bill. The proponents of
this fund came to me early on and requested our assistance, and out of
deference to them, we did include the $25 million to reestablish the
fund. But to come at this moment and to say, let us double what the
committee, I think very prudently and wisely has given, in my opinion,
does great harm to our bill.
So it does impact Israel. It does impact Egypt. It denies Jordan the
full funding that the administration has requested because it subtracts
from a very, very small residue that remains after we give the moneys
to Israel and Egypt. So I would respectfully request that the committee
consider what we did in the Appropriations Committee. I would like for
the proponents of this amendment to recognize that we came a giant step
forward in trying to be of assistance to them. I would like to also
remind the proponents of this measure that we included another $50
million in the Child Survival Fund which will indeed help the needy
people in the country of Africa.
I respectfully request that the Members vote against this amendment
because it just disrupts many portions of our bill and at the same time
sends an indication that we are going to give a fund who just 2 years
ago was deemed unacceptable by this Congress, that indeed we are going
to fully fund it at $50 million instead of the $25 million.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the
chairman and, as I said, his hard work on this issue. I think it is
important to at least understand my commitment and my thrust behind
supporting this increase.
Frankly, this $25 million increase provides the appropriation that
was requested by the President of the United States. Under the
President's discretion, it is clear that Egypt and Israel and Jordan, I
might add, would not have to be impacted and the advocacy groups for
Israel have conceded and feel very comfortable that this would be the
right direction to go. It is worth noting that this is a full $57
million above the fiscal year 1997 enacted level, but I think the
argument is strongest by noting how poor sub-Saharan Africa is and how
low its GNP is and how it is, in the world's economy, the poorest,
almost the poorest area, along with India and other parts of Latin
America.
This infusion of capital under a newly managed African Development
Bank would clearly be the right direction that this Nation should take
in its new policies, or at least its stated policies of making sure
that foreign affairs dollars have a return; that is, foreign affairs
dollars are appropriately invested so that we get the full return.
Investing in sub-Saharan Africa by giving to these nongovernmental
agencies, these agencies that deal with the poorest of the poor,
helping in infrastructure, health care, helping in education, has to be
an investment for the 21st century.
With all due respect to the chairman's opposition, I might say that
Egypt and Israel and Jordan would be protected. These additional moneys
would be appropriately invested and we would get a return on our
foreign affairs dollars that we could be very proud of in helping sub-
Saharan Africa.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Michigan for
his kindness.
Please, let us focus for a moment on this question. AIPAC, the
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, has informed me they do not
oppose this amendment. It took goodwill on all sides and that is the
position. It is not correct to say that this amendment would jeopardize
the U.S. interest or the interests of our friends in the Middle East.
I would like, with my friend's permission, to call on the chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee, if he would be kind enough to engage
me in a colloquy right now, if the chairman of the subcommittee would
be kind enough to engage me in a colloquy.
With all respect and recognizing that we differ on this amendment, it
is imperative that I lay out that there is no opposition from the
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee to this amendment.
May I kindly ask if the gentleman has any information to the
contrary.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, no, and I would not expect that they
would be involved in any appropriation we make to any other country for
any other purpose. It is not the role of AIPAC to be that involved.
My point is that we have a very limited amount in the economic
support fund over and above what we traditionally have given to Israel
and Egypt. If we allow the appropriation to Egypt and to Israel, then
indeed it jeopardizes the possibility of Jordan getting the $100
million they have requested and the administration supports.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
an additional question, if I am laboring, it is only at pains to make
it clear that the gentleman is expressing his understanding and not
that of anyone else, but his own understanding of the impact.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I wrote the bill, and we know how much money is in the economic support
fund.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional question, if I may.
If the amendment to be offered later regarding funds for Cambodia is
adopted, it is my understanding that will

[[Page H6729]]

free up $37 million presently allocated to Cambodia in the ESF account.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Let me correct the gentleman there. There is nothing
earmarked in this bill. We do not earmark money for Israel. We do not
earmark money for Egypt or Cambodia or any place else. There is nothing
earmarked in the bill. We give to the administration a designated
amount of money for the economic support fund. If the administration
wants to give this money to the African Development Fund, they have
that prerogative.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
my last question, is it not the gentleman's understanding and that of
his committee that the total amount would include money adequate to
spend for Cambodia? I completely grant no earmark and, hence, if today
we restrict the amount of money that is going to Cambodia, that amount
of money which was anticipated in the gentleman's total amount for ESF
would be available to go to the Africa Development Fund without
jeopardizing any other recipients?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the administration were to desire to
do that, since there are no earmarks, we do not earmark money for
Cambodia, we do not earmark money for anybody.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful to the gentleman. And
to the gentleman from Michigan, deep thanks for allowing me the chance
to rebut.
Let me conclude, the clarity is apparent that we are not jeopardizing
any of the U.S. objectives in the Middle East, that the total amount of
ESF funds is more than enough to fund this very small amount of $25
million, that it will be even more so if the amendment to restrict
spending in Cambodia is adopted at $37 million.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
support for the Campbell amendment to increase the United States
contribution to the Africa Development Fund [ADF] from $25 to $50
million.
With the exception of the World Bank the ADF is the largest source of
capital for 39 of Africa's poorest countries. The fund, supporting
largely the agricultural, health care, education and economic reform
sectors, reaches the poorest levels of society by supporting macro-
economic development, thereby staving off natural and man-made
disasters.
The ADF has undergone necessary and significant internal reforms to
make the organizations more efficient. Staff has been reduced by 30
percent the net income has increased by $150 million, and procurement
reforms have increased transparency and decreased abuses.
The ADF is a success story. Please support this vital organization by
passing the Campbell Amendment. Thank you.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my
colleagues in the sponsorship of this important amendment to H.R. 2159,
the foreign operations appropriations bill before the House today.
This amendment would appropriate an additional $25 million to the
African Development Fund. This amendment is budget neutral and will
provide the much needed support to the development of stable
democracies on the continent of Africa.
It is important as we grapple with how best to assist the former
republics of the Soviet Union to also provide assistance for the
sustained development of Africa.
The African Development Fund is the largest source of capital for the
39 poorest countries, outside of the World Bank. It is the largest co-
financing partner for IDA in Africa, and in 1997, the fund will lend 4
times more assistance than USAID.
This amendment would reduce the Economic Support Fund by $25 million
in order to provide the level of support that Africa needs in critical
areas of agriculture, primary health care, basic education and economic
reform.
The help offered by United States taxpayers--not to dictatorships,
but to nongovernmental organizations like CARE and multilateral
financial institutions under sound management like the African
Development Fund--will go farther in sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere
else on Earth.
As a supporter of this amendment I am interested in helping the
poorest people in the world.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
24, 1997, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Campbell] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

{time} 1330

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Yates

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

Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Yates:
At the end of the bill, insert the following after the last
section (preceding the short title):

limitation of assistance to the government of croatia

Sec. 572. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II of this Act may be made available to
the Government of Croatia if that government relocates the
remains of Croatian Ustashe soldiers, who participated during
the Holocaust in the mass murder of Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies,
at the site of the World War II concentration camp at
Jasenovac, Croatia.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, there is no Member of the House for whom I
have higher regard and greater respect than the chairman of the
subcommittee and for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the
ranking member. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], our
chairman, has conducted our hearings in an outstandingly fair and
rational manner. It is not easy to disagree with him on any subject,
and there are not many that I disagree with him upon and I am sure that
he and I do not disagree upon the purpose of our amendment.
Croatia's role during the Holocaust was a most despicable one. The
Ustashe, Croatia's soldiers, were Hitler's shock troops to exterminate
the Jews, with whom they came in contact in Croatia. Literally hundreds
of Jews were killed and their remains were buried in the cemetery at
Jasenvoc in Croatia. Now the government has indicated that it will bury
Ustashe killers with their victims in the cemetery at Jasenvoc.
Why is this such an important issue? Elie Weisel has put it very
well, and I quote. ``Such an act,'' he says, ``will kill the victims
twice. The first time was when they were murdered. The second time was
when we murder their memory.'' That is exactly what the Government of
Croatia would do in the event that it undertook to bury the Ustashe in
the cemetery with its victims.
The victims and their killers in death would be used to eradicate the
crimes that were committed during World War II. All that we have to
receive from the Government of Croatia is the absolute assurance that
the Ustashe will not be buried with their victims in this cemetery. As
I indicated, we have asked for such assurances from President Tudjman
and we have not received them. All that we have received is a statement
as vague as we do not plan to bury them together at this time. That is
today, Mr. Chairman. Tomorrow they may decide to do so.
The amendment that I offer will hold up payments to the Government of
Croatia until such time as it gives our Government the assurances that
the Ustashe will not be buried in that cemetery. I urge support for my
amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes that the gentleman from Alabama was on
his feet seeking recognition when the gentleman from Illinois embarked
upon debate. The Chair did not interrupt the debate from the gentleman
from Illinois.
Without objection the gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. CALLAHAN. My point of order I think can be resolved, Mr.
Chairman, and indeed the gentleman I think is going to ask for
unanimous consent to amend his amendment. The original amendment that
was introduced I think would create a point of order, but it is my
understanding the gentleman from Illinois has an amendment that he is
going to request unanimous consent to submit.
Mr. YATES. The gentleman is correct. I concede the gentleman's point
of order, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H6730]]

Amendment No. 51, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Yates

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amended
version of the amendment I offered.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 51, as modified, offered by Mr. Yates:
At the end of the bill, insert the following after the last
section (preceding the short title):

limitation on assistance to the government of croatia

Sec. 572. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II of this Act may be made available to
the Government of Croatia to relocate the remains of Croatian
Ustashe soldiers, at the site of the World War II
concentration camp at Jasenovac, Croatia.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification of the
amendment?
Without objection, the modification is agreed to and the point of
order reserved by the gentleman from Alabama is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken in connection with my previous
amendment. The statement that I made on the previous amendment I now
ask unanimous consent to be made available for this amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi] for their cooperation.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:

limitation on procurement outside the United States

Sec. 572. Funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act may be used for procurement outside the United
States or less developed countries only if--
(1) such funds are used for the procurement of commodities
or services, or defense articles or defense services,
produced in the country in which the assistance is to be
provided, except that this paragraph only applies if
procurement in that country would cost less than procurement
in the United States or less developed countries;
(2) the provision of such assistance requires commodities
or services, or defense articles or defense services, of a
type that are not produced in, and available for purchase
from, the United States, less developed countries, or the
country in which the assistance is to be provided; or
(3) the President determines on a case-by-case basis that
procurement outside the United States or less developed
countries would result in the more efficient use of United
States foreign assistance resources.

Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order on
the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this was placed in the legislation the
last several years. The essence of this is just simple, common sense. I
was under the impression that we had an agreement worked out with the
appropriators on it. It basically says that we give money to these
foreign countries basically to help them in the form of aid, and they
do make purchases with this American money that our taxpayers work hard
to send here to Washington. The amendment says that, ``Look, we give
you that money. If you produce a product in your country and you need
some farm equipment and you have farm equipment, go ahead and buy from
your own people. But when you do not produce a product and you have to
go outside your country to make a purchase and you're using American
taxpayer dollars,'' this amendment says to purchase items made in
America unless they would be so prohibitively costly it would negate
the purpose of our foreign aid to this country in the first place.
The appropriators allowed the amendment the last time it was offered.
I thought we had an agreement on it. I believe that it is absolute
madness that we continue to write checks and give money away and then
they take our money and buy products from other countries. It makes no
sense. We talk about authorizing, but we have not had a reasonable
authorization bill that spoke to any merit or substance at all, and
this is a limitation on the use of American taxpayer dollars when these
countries buy a product that they do not make themselves.
This is eminent common sense. This is reasonable appropriation
policy, it is a reasonable appropriation measure, and I would ask the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee,
if this amendment has been approved several times.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. This amendment has been approved several times. In
fact, the gentleman from Ohio and I have talked about this amendment. I
am not sure that we talked about the language as it is written, but
conceptually I think that I and the committee agree with the gentleman,
that in every instance where we are providing aid to any foreign
country and they are going to purchase some commodity, then they ought
to give preference to U.S. firms. That is the purpose of it.
My reserving the point of order was simply to give me the opportunity
to read the gentleman's language which, as he and I discussed, was one-
sentence, buy American language. This one is a little bit more complex.
I am willing to withdraw my point of order but must advise the
gentleman that we may have to work on the language that has been
drafted in conference, but at the same time to preserve the meaning of
the gentleman's amendment. We do insist that these countries that
receive American aid ought to be, without us making it into law, buying
American goods, anyway. As a matter of fact, it is already in the bill;
the sense of the Congress is already in the bill. It says it is the
sense of the Congress that to the greatest extent practicable, all
equipment and products purchased with funds made available in this act
should be American made.
I have not had time to thoroughly analyze the page-long amendment
that the gentleman has presented and thus the reason I had voiced some
concern.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the distinguished
ranking member, let me say this. That sense of the Congress speaks to
some basic intent, but it does not really do that which should be done
after all these years of foreign aid. I have a number of other
amendments that I feel very strong about, but I have talked with the
gentleman about authorizing and appropriating and I am pulling back all
of those. But I have one sincere effort here in the Congress, I really
do, and that is this type of language. I would be willing to have the
gentleman work on this language. This makes certain specifications that
go a little bit beyond that sense of the Congress, but I would urge the
gentleman, knowing his record, in lieu of that, to accept this language
in general and to tailor where he may need it but leave it to the point
where it is more than that sense of Congress.
I appreciate his having inserted that through my efforts over the
years, but this I think takes us into some policy that appropriators
should be taking on a reasonable limitation in the use of our
taxpayers' dollars on these expenditures.
Mr. CALLAHAN. If the gentleman will further yield, the appropriate
place for this language would be in some authorization bill, not in an
appropriation bill and thus my argument. I or anyone on my committee
that I am aware of has any objection to the destination he is trying to
reach. We all agree with him. Thus, we insert in our bill language that
was a sense of the Congress. But as I have said, we are going to have
to take a look at the language.
I withdraw my point of order, but with the understanding that in
conference we are going to have to work

[[Page H6731]]

with the Senate to get language that is more compatible with an
appropriation bill rather than an authorization bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Traficant was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California, the distinguished ranking member.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I support the
statement of our chairman about the clarification of the language in
conference but support the spirit of the amendment that is put forth by
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and once again call to the
attention of our colleagues the refinement of the amendment, that the
bill may be used for procurement outside the United States or in less
developed countries only if such funds are used for purchases in the
country receiving assistance and such purchases would cost less than
procurement in the United States or less developed countries, and if
such purchases are not available in the United States or less developed
countries, and this is the important point that I think we will work on
in conference, if the President determines that such purchases would
result in a more efficient use of U.S. foreign assistance resources.
The waiver language as well I think is a smart approach to the
gentleman's leadership on this issue.
Again, I associate myself with the comments of our chairman.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statement. Just let me
close by saying this. These authorization bills sometimes never get an
opportunity to see the light of day. This limitation is very important.
I really thank the chairman for withdrawing his point of order, and I
plan to work with and lean on and grab ahold of the chairman and see
what I can do because he has done a great job.

{time} 1345

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if we would keep the spirit and
the intent in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.

Point of Order

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order
against section 539 of the bill found on page 66, line 15, through page
67, line 22, on the grounds that it violates 5(b) of rule XXI of the
rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, clause 5(b) of rule XXI states that it
shall not be in the order of the House to consider a measure carrying a
tax or a trade provision not reported by the committee of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the measure on the floor would preclude
the President from waiving certain import sanctions against Serbia-
Montenegro which are imposed pursuant to certain codified Executive
orders. The provision imposes a new requirement on the President that
an Executive order lifting these import sanctions cannot be issued
until the President certifies to the Congress that certain democratic
reforms have occurred in Kosova. This change of authority over import
restrictions falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and
Means and clearly constitutes a tariff measure for purposes of rule XXI
5(b) of the rules of the House.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the point of order applies, and I urge the
Chair to sustain the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, section 539 of the pending bill would
prohibit the termination of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro
until certain conditions are met. This provision was included in the
fiscal year 1996 Appropriation Act as a result of an amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] on July 11, 1995.
As chairman of the subcommittee, I oppose the amendment; however, it
was made in order under a rule approved by the House on that very same
day by a vote of 236 to 162, and for the record I might remind the
Members that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means voted for
that rule.
I agree with the gentleman that this provision does not belong in
this bill. I would say the same thing about a number of other
provisions. However, lack of an authorization act for many years has
resulted in this bill being used for purposes other than the
appropriation of funds. Since the House has specifically approved this
provision in the past, I believe that it was my duty to include it in
this appropriation bill.
The Committee on Ways and Means does not agree and believes this is a
violation of the House rule, and the Parliamentarian agrees, and I
will, of course, defer to them on this matter, and I concede the point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard on the point of
order, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] makes a point of
order against section 539 of the bill on the grounds that it carries a
tariff measure in a bill reported by committee, Committee on
Appropriations, not having jurisdiction to report tariff matters in
violation of clause 5(b) of rule XXI.
Under clause 5(b) of rule XXI, this point of order may be raised at
any time during consideration of the bill for amendment in the
Committee of the Whole even after section 539 has been passed in the
reading for amendment.
In this respect, the standard of timeliness, this point of order is
unlike those arising under clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI.
Current law authorized the President to waive application of certain
sanctions to Serbia-Montenegro. Among these sanctions are import
prohibitions which affect tariff collections. Section 539 of the bill
constrains the authority of the President on these matters. It,
thereby, carries a tariff measure within the meaning of clause 5(b) of
rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained, and section 539 is
stricken from the bill.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Paul:
After the last section (preceding the short title), insert
the following:

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

Sec. 572. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be made available for--
(1) population control or population planning programs;
(2) family planning activities; or
(3) abortion procedures.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very clear. If the amendment
passes, no funds in this bill could be used for population control,
family planning, or abortion procedures. That will take in about $385
million that we could save by passing this amendment.
The most important part of this amendment would be that we would
absolutely assure that none of the funding would ever be used for
abortion. One of the ways that the funds get to abortion, to the use of
abortion, is that the funds are granted for birth control, and then the
funds elsewhere can be saved, and those other funds can be used for
abortion. In other words, it can be the funds are fungible.
It is claimed that people have a need for birth control, and this may
be true, but we have not been well received around the world. I am not
quite sure exactly when the U.S. Government and the American taxpayer
got involved in the birth control business overseas, but we have been
doing it now probably for several decades. But there is a lot of
resentment toward America imposing our will on other people.
For instance, we have sent over the use of Norplant, a very
controversial medical procedure. I am a gynecologist, and I can attest
to it. It is very controversial, yet it was used on hundreds of
thousands of women overseas. When that procedure was finally brought to
the United States, it was rejected by the American people.
I, as a gynecologist, spent more time taking these Norplants out than
putting them in because of the severe complications with them, but
nevertheless we, as taxpayers, have continuously sent more funding
overseas to support these procedures.
But there is no moral justification for us in the U.S. Congress to go
and

[[Page H6732]]

tax poor people in America, to go over and impose our ideas and our
beliefs on other people's culture, and we have been doing this now for
several decades, and a lot of resentment has been building up. There is
no constitutional authority for programs like this. There is nowhere in
the Constitution where we can find any justification for us imposing
our will on other people in this manner.
But worst of all, if funds are used for birth control and other funds
are saved and then they are used on abortion, it is in a way indirectly
supporting abortion.
Later on we will vote on another amendment to curtail the use of
funds for abortion, and I will support the amendment of the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in this regard because we hope that that
would at least help, but one way where we can assure and not worry
about it would be to pass this amendment and not send any money over in
the first place because it is not authorized, it is not permissible, it
is not moral, and there is a lot of resentment toward us for these
very, very reasons.
The issue that always comes up is that the people need help, but
there are a lot of voluntary associations in this country that are
willing to help. If we feel compelled to help poor nations in their
birth control effort, it can be done through voluntary means, not
through coercion, not taking by force money from people who have
philosophic and religious and social beliefs against these programs
that we are imposing on others.
So this is a program that should be just abolished. It should be
stopped. We should not send any funds over there. This argument that we
can control the way funds are being spent once they are overseas, we
are kidding ourselves when we use that argument. We really lose control
of these funds once they get into the hands of other governments or
agencies that are dealing with these problems overseas.
Typically, programs that are run by governments and international
governments do not work very well, and these programs have done very
poorly. At the same time, there are poor countries around the world
that have car loads, millions, of condoms sitting around that are not
used. They cannot get surgical gloves to do surgical procedures. There
are countries reported in Africa where they do not have penicillin, and
yet they have all the birth control pills that they want.
So I argue that this program is unnecessary, unconstitutional, it is
an abuse of the rights and beliefs of so many Americans, and it is not
well received overseas. The best thing we can do is just take the money
away from these programs, take the $385 million and return it to the
American taxpayers. This would be a far better way to use this money
other than aggravating, antagonizing people in other countries.
What would we think if some foreign government came over and decided
that our inner cities were overpopulated and they wanted to impose some
population controls and some birth control methods on the inner cities?
I am sure there would be a strong objection to that.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the
amendment, as proposed, by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. If
enacted, the Paul amendment would cause death and suffering for
millions of women and children whose lives and well-being depend on the
availability of family planning and health service supported under
USAID's population assistance program. Over 580,000 women die annually,
1 woman every minute, of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.
Family planning can prevent 25 percent of all maternal and infant
deaths by avoiding unintended pregnancies and spacing births.
The Paul amendment would close the most effective avenue to prevent
abortions. Certainly we all consider abortion a failure, and if we want
to reduce the number of abortions, we should support family planning.
The World Health Organization estimates that 40 percent of unintended
pregnancies end in abortion. That is a tragedy. Family planning enables
couples to prevent unintended pregnancies. Large declines in numbers of
abortions have occurred due to the expansion of family planning
services in many countries across the globe, including South Korea,
Chile, Hungary, Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Colombia, and Mexico. This
amendment would end a 30-year program that is recognized as one of the
most successful components of U.S. foreign assistance.
And this is not about the United States going to another country and
forcing anything on anyone. This is a voluntary program that the
countries asked for. And again, to reference the remarks of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], we are not later going to be voting on
any amendment that will curtail funds for abortion. The discussion in
this bill is about curtailing funding for family planning.
More than 50 million couples in the developing world use family
planning as a direct result of this program, and the average number of
children per family has declined more than one-third since the 1960's.
Three out of four Americans surveyed in 1995 wanted to increase or
maintain spending on family planning for poor countries.
I urge our colleagues to reject overwhelmingly the ill-advised Paul
amendment and to support international family planning.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, while I have every respect for the philosophy of the
gentleman from Texas, and I share his views on abortion, I do not think
that is what this debate or this amendment addresses. Indeed, I feel
like I have made a giant and major impact on the elimination of AID
funds for abortion anywhere in the world. As a matter of fact, my bill
says that none of the funds of this bill may be used for an abortion,
period.
So this is not an abortion issue; this is a family planning issue,
because some feel like that if they go into a country and through
educational processes they will eliminate the need for abortions, and
they well may be right.
So do not imply to anyone in this body or anyone in this audience
watching today that the bill that I wrote permits abortion in any
fashion because it absolutely restricts it. Abortions for family
planning purposes cannot be performed with any of the money anywhere in
this bill, period, flat no.
Now when I took this committee over as chairman several years ago,
Mr. Chairman, if I had come to you and said to you and the proponents
of the right to life, said, I am going to cut funding for family
planning by up to half, then I would have been heralded as a hero.

{time} 1400

Now I have done that, only to be addressed on the floor as a
proponent of abortion, which I am not.
So I would submit to this Congress and to the gentleman from Texas,
while I agree with his views with respect to the right to life, he is
absolutely wrong in his allegation that any of this money for family
planning purposes can be used for abortion. It does not, it cannot, it
will not, and never will as long as I am chairman of this committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment,
indicating to the Members that the restriction is already there and
that we have cut family planning significantly over the period of time
that I have used. If you use 1995 figures, we have cut $518 million
from family planning activities.
So I think we have done an outstanding job, and I would urge my
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to imply that the gentleman has
permitted or endorsed or encouraged or the bill says directly there are
funds here for abortion. I will concede that.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman
would answer my question, is there anything in this bill that leads the
gentleman to believe that any of this money can be used for abortion
anywhere in the world?
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am addressing the fungibility argument.
Mr. CALLAHAN. The fungibility and the tangibility of what is in this
bill, you cannot use any of this money for abortions anywhere in the
world. If the

[[Page H6733]]

gentleman would concede to that point, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, that is true directly, but indirectly the
fungibility argument is very important. If you use funds for other
things, you say the governments and agencies can use them for abortion.
So you do it indirectly.
Yes, it might be a little harder to comprehend the fungibility
argument, but it is there. If we support a country or a government or
an agency that does permit and endorse abortion and they can use these
funds for birth control pills, they can use their other funds to do the
abortion.
So, yes, the gentleman is correct that directly there are no funds in
this bill that will provide for abortion. But indirectly it opens up
some funds and makes them available for abortion.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman
admit that we have done a very favorable job in moving in the same
direction the gentleman would like us to move? Would the gentleman not
admit that since when I took over this committee we have saved $518
million? And now we have reduced it, we have reduced it to a level of
$385 million. I think we have made significant inroads and yet
preserved the ability of agencies to go into a country with limited
educational opportunities to give them advice.
Maybe it can be through a church, maybe it can be through abstinence
programs, but I do think education in that manner actually denies the
probability of abortions even being presented. But if they were
presented, none of this money could ever be used under any circumstance
for an abortion anywhere in the world for family planning purposes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, the
efficiency of the programs are to be questioned. If you look at the
Norplant program, they put this Norplant in hundreds of thousands of
women. It is not a good medication. I have personal experience from it.
Then they use that as an example of the reason to promote it in the
United States.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I once again reiterate my opposition to the Paul
amendment and support the statement of our chairman, Mr. Callahan.
As this Congress should know by now, because it has been reiterated
on this floor, no money in this bill can be used for abortion. That is
the Helms language. That is the law of the land. Let us be clear.
So we want to take it to a fungibility place. I hope that Mr. Paul
will support the Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell Lowey-DeLauro-Slaughter-
Greenwood proposal on the floor tomorrow, which addresses the
fungibility issue very directly.
First of all, I do not think it needs to be addressed. But for those
who need that comfort and clarification, I am pleased to be a supporter
of that amendment. In that amendment it says that none of the funds
would go to organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of
family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a
method of family planning. It puts these conditions on receiving the
funds; also, it says, except in the case of organizations that do not
promote abortion as a method of family planning.
So there is nothing about fungibility here. This is about
organizations that promote family planning and discourage the use of
abortion for family planning. So fungibility is not a principle that
applies here.
But if we are going to use the principles of fungibility, we are
opening a door for many issues across the board in this bill and every
other bill that comes along. I do not know that this Congress wants to
go down that path.
But I am pleased to say that the amendment that will be offered
tomorrow as an amendment to the Smith amendment will clarify, once and
for all, this is not about fungibility. It is about family planning,
and none of the money goes to any organization, unless they are
promoting family planning and discouraging abortion as a tool for that.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would also go on
record opposing the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I want to
reiterate, as the gentlewoman from California has said, that I will
support her amendment tomorrow.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].
There are so many reasons to support this amendment, an amendment
whose time has come. This amendment will eliminate funding for all
population control activities overseas. We have spent hour upon hour in
this Chamber debating the many issues surrounding foreign aid, which
includes the funding for international family planning.
There are many problems with the U.S. taxpayer spending nearly $400
million every year for international population control activities. One
very obvious and practical problem that cannot be ignored is that the
taxpayer simply cannot afford this type of program any longer.
I wish I could count the number of times I have come to the floor to
speak out in one way or another against excessive Federal spending and
Government intervention. Every time I implore Members of this body to
consider how we are sabotaging our children's futures, how we slowly
but surely chip away at any prospects for a solid financial foundation
every time we vote to spend more and more tax dollars on inappropriate
and unconstitutional programs without any regard to the reality of our
Federal Government's financial situation.
But there is an even bigger problem than one simply associated with
dollars. This problem is more fundamental to the appropriate role of
the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution.
Some might say that many provisions of this appropriations bill fall
outside of the guidelines given to us by the Constitution. Some might
say that a debate of that nature goes beyond the scope of this
amendment.
I think we should talk about the Constitution more. I think that
every time we consider a bill, an amendment, a motion to instruct
conferees, every time we take any legislative action, we should
remember our oath to uphold the Constitution. This means that
sometimes, even when things sound like a great idea or the perfect
solution to a problem facing our constituents back home, or faceless
and nameless individuals suffering thousands of miles away, we have to
show some restraint, if only because we are not empowered to act
outside the legislative walls erected for us by our Founding Fathers.
Furthermore, I believe that international population control funding
is not even a good idea. What concerns me greatly is that it appears
that many of my colleagues have simply accepted the assertions of the
population control lobby when they constantly and unfailingly contend
that overpopulation is the cause of nearly all of the world's human
suffering.
For decades, we have heard doomsday predictions that the Earth's
population is growing so much, to the point that we will soon be unable
to sustain this rate of growth. Make no mistake about it and do not be
misled. This is not an overcrowded planet. Too many people are not the
problem.
I would assert, however, that those more interested in redistributing
wealth and power have everything to lose if the myth of an
unsustainable population explosion is debunked. I would further contend
that sound public, policy based on real science, not misguided public
and political maneuvers and schemes based on radical environmentalism,
is the answer to the world's hunger and environmental problems.
Flooding Third World developing and developed countries with
potentially harmful contraceptives and family planning information,
while appearing to meet a very humanitarian need, is such a misguided
policy.
There have been numerous reports about the atrocities many women have
suffered, all under the auspices of family planning. We have seen women
in the slums of Bangladesh and Haiti who

[[Page H6734]]

are part of experimentation with Norplant. We have heard accounts of
women in Turkey who were told by volunteers that ``family planning'' is
more important than husbands, tradition, culture or God, and that
sterilization is better than children.
Surely even those who advocate dollars for responsible population
control policy would be alarmed at this information. Surely we should
not force our constituents to contribute to these programs that
undermine the cultures of our neighbors.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply conclude by expressing once again that
we need to reevaluate our priorities, our financial situation, and most
importantly, our constitutional obligations, and support this
amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which will
eliminate USAID funding for international family planning.
The need for family planning services in developing countries is
urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile. Last
February, both the House and the Senate showed their commitment to the
USAID International Family Planning Program by voting for the early
release of the funds for this program.
Eliminating family planning will deeply hurt millions of women and
children.
Nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes related to pregnancy and
childbirth; 99 percent of these women live in developing countries. In
many countries, women are the primary caregivers of children and a
mother's survival is crucial to the survival and well-being of her
children. Our international family planning programs are working to
reduce maternal deaths and illness due to childbirth.
The ability to control the timing and spacing of childbearing helps
mothers, infants, and children thrive. Infants born less than 2 years
after a sibling are more likely to have low birth weight, making them
more vulnerable to illness and death. One in five infant deaths alone
could be averted by the better spacing of births.
In addition, the health of the mother is also put at risk when
couples cannot control the number and timing of births. For example,
very young women and women who have births very close together are at
greater risk for postpartum hemorrhage, a leading cause of maternal
death. And for every woman who dies during childbirth, many more face
injuries and infections, leaving them permanently disabled or
infertile.
This amendment will prevent us from eliminating these tragedies.
Simply put--this amendment will end our family planning programs.
Period.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. We cannot let them
eliminate international family planning--there is too much at stake. I
urge you to continue this vital investment in the reproductive health
and safety of women and children.
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.

Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania:
Page 94, after line 3, insert the following:
Sec. 572. None of the funds made available under the
heading ``development assistance'' may be used to directly
support or promote trophy hunting or the international
commercial trade in elephant ivory, elephant hides, or
rhinoceros horns.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the Fox-Miller amendment, which would restrict funding of the
CAMPFIRE program used to directly support or promote trophy hunting or
the international commercial trade in elephant ivory, elephant hides,
or rhinoceros horns.
Mr. Chairman, for the past 8 years, the Communal Areas Management
Programs for Indigenous Resources, otherwise known as CAMPFIRE, has
implemented many valuable programs which have helped improve the
quality of life for the people of Zimbabwe. Our amendment would do
nothing to interfere with these beneficial programs.
Unfortunately, too much of the funding, however, from the U.S. Agency
for International Development is used to promote the killing of the
African elephant, which remains on the endangered species list.
The organizations to my left, over 200, have supported our amendment,
as well as over 20 newspapers from around the country.
The CAMPFIRE program, instead of becoming more sustainable, has
become increasingly dependent on foreign subsidies from USAID other
international sources. In 1989, USAID spent an average of $1.3 million
per year over 6 years on CAMPFIRE, whereas in 1995, USAID pledged to
spend an average of $5.12 million per year over 4 years on the program.
Additionally, CAMPFIRE relied on funds from countries such as Japan,
the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Great Britain, the European
Commission, Sweden, and Canada, which in 1995 totaled in excess of $1.4
million and which has no ban on its use for the promotion of trophy
hunts.
We are very concerned that U.S. taxpayer dollars have been used by
CAMPFIRE implementing agencies to lobby the U.S. Congress in an ongoing
effort to advocate the ivory trade and the weakening of the foreign
species provision of the Endangered Species Act.
We believe it is inappropriate for the U.S. Government to supply
funds to foreign entities which then use those funds to launch special-
interest lobbying efforts to Members of Congress.

{time} 1415

American taxpayers have footed the bill for these agencies to open
and maintain offices in Washington, London, Brussels, and Johannesburg
in support of these lobbying efforts.
American tax dollars were used to help CAMPFIRE agencies overturn the
ivory trade ban, which undermined the U.S. negotiating position at the
June 1997 Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora.
Since 1989, the United States has officially opposed the resumption
of international trade in any elephant parts, including ivory. At the
same CITES convention, the elephant was down-listed from appendix I to
appendix II.
The American position has been so resolute because the devastation of
the elephant during the 1980's was so severe. There were 70,000 to
100,000 elephants slaughtered a year by poachers feeding the
international demand for ivory. The continent-wide population dropped
from 1.3 million to 60,000 in just a decade's time.
Elephants are still in peril throughout much of their range, and the
resumption of the ivory trade is a grave threat. The Fox-Miller
amendment is pro-CAMPFIRE, maintaining existing funding levels and
allowing USAID to invest in a wider range of revenue-generating
activities that have thus far received insufficient attention. USAID
has provided funds for CAMPFIRE implementing organizations for more
than 9 years. More than $25 million American tax dollars have been used
to a very significant degree to promote trophy hunting and the
international trade in ivory.
Our amendment places a restriction on the use of taxpayer funds for
the 10th and final year of funding. It is past time that a greater
share of USAID funds be used to promote other revenue-generating
activities such as ecologically-sensitive wildlife tourism.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for offering this amendment. I think this is an
important amendment. I rise in strong support of this legislation to
prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to promote or support the African
elephant ivory trade or trophy hunting.
Contrary to what Members may have heard, this amendment does not
prohibit and will not prohibit trophy hunting within the Communal Areas
Management Programs for Indigenous Resources, known as the CAMPFIRE
Program. Nor is the Fox-Miller amendment in any way inconsistent with
the recent decision of the Convention on the International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to permit the limited
resumption of the ivory trade.
The issue here is whether or not United States tax dollars should be
used by organizations and agencies implementing the CAMPFIRE program in

[[Page H6735]]

Zimbabwe to Promote activities that are clearly opposed by the vast
majority of people who pay taxes, our constituents.
A poll completed earlier this year found that 88 percent of Americans
opposed the resumption of the ivory trade. That was also the position
of this administration. That is nearly 9 out of 10 Americans who oppose
the activities that are funded in the bill as it currently exists. That
is why we need this amendment.
This amendment is not aimed at CAMPFIRE, whose programs I have
visited in Zimbabwe and whose mission of rural economic development is
highly admirable. To this point, much of the revenue that CAMPFIRE has
generated for local economic development has come from trophy hunting.
Very wealthy hunters pay $12,000 or more for a permit to shoot
elephants and other exotic animals, and much of that money is
repatriated to these villages for economic development.
CAMPFIRE officials told me over and over again that they are
committed to moving away from trophy hunting as a major source of
revenue for the Program. These officials recognize that while trophy
hunting may provide large amounts of quick money in the start-up phase
of CAMPFIRE, that we are now beyond that stage and a more diverse
program of economic development is needed.
Moreover, there is no need to use U.S. taxpayer money to promote
trophy hunting. That is already done through international hunting
groups, magazines, and others. There has been no difficulty in
attracting a sufficient number of hunters to satisfy the annual quota
of elephants. We certainly do not need to spend millions of taxpayer
dollars to convince hunters to do that which they are already prepared
to journey halfway around the world and pay $12,000 plus all of their
expenses to do; that is, to hunt elephants.
Some might suggest withholding all U.S. aid from the CAMPFIRE
program. I think that would be unwise. I think it would be an
unfortunate action and would deprive the program of critical funds to
assist rural development in Africa.
Instead, what we should do is we should assist the development of a
more diversified economic program promised by CAMPFIRE involving non-
hunting activities such as camping, photo safaris, local craft sales,
lodges, and much, much more. We should target our U.S. tax dollars to
these meritorious and noncontroversial efforts, rather than to continue
to squander our constituents' tax dollars on promoting big game hunting
by very wealthy individuals. That is the goal of this amendment, to
diversify and to stabilize the CAMPFIRE Program.
Our amendment would also end the unacceptable practice of using
United States tax dollars to fund organizations like the British-based
Africa Resources Trust, that lobbies CITES to overturn the ban on the
international ivory trade, that lobbies Congress to weaken the
Endangered Species Act. We should not be sending taxpayer dollars to
these organizations to lobby against positions of the U.S. Government
and to lobby within this Congress for those tax dollars.
Do not let anyone tell you that this amendment would injure CAMPFIRE
or the struggling villages and populations for whom the program holds
so much promise. This amendment puts our tax dollars exactly where
CAMPFIRE is headed, in economic diversification, not a program heavily
dependent upon shooting elephants to generate revenues.
Do not let anyone tell you that the Fox-Miller amendment will
interfere with the recovery of the African elephant promoted by
CAMPFIRE; 8 out of 10 elephants in Zimbabwe do not live in the CAMPFIRE
areas. It is not trophy hunting and culling that has allowed for the
growth in the African elephant herds; it is the international ban on
hides and ivory, which has been weakened due to the vigorous lobbying
of CAMPFIRE and groups it supports with United States taxpayer money.
CAMPFIRE, the local villages, the Zimbabwean Government can all
continue their hunting and culling operations as necessary for trophy
hunting, species protection, and human safety. CITES can go forward
with the limited sale of ivory from existing stockpiles.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, these limited sales from
existing stockpiles can go forward, but not with the dollars that
nearly 90 percent of the Americans do not want expended for that
purpose.
For 8 years U.S. taxpayers have supported CAMPFIRE, and I would hope
that that support would continue. This is a program of merit. But let
us not let it jeopardize our participation in the CAMPFIRE Program
itself by continuing to fund with American taxpayer dollars those
hunting actions that are not acceptable to those very same taxpayers,
and that, if continued, will eventually sour the support for the entire
CAMPFIRE rogram.
I want to say to my colleagues that I had an opportunity to visit
these programs, and a number of other Members of Congress have visited
these programs. It is a very, very exciting program and a program of
merit to bring about economic development in incredibly, unbelievably
poor rural communities.
This money is being used to develop wells for drinking water, to
develop granaries to grind corn into food, and to provide for
electrification in some cases of these villages; the bare, bare
necessities of any kind of semblance of adequate livelihood.
This program is of merit. But what is not of merit is continuing to
use the very few dollars we have to lobby, to come back and to pay for
trips to Washington, DC and to Europe, and to set up offices throughout
Europe to lobby on behalf of GATT and WTO and weaken the Endangered
Species Act; and what is not acceptable is to continue to funnel those
monies into activities that the very participants in trophy hunting are
fully capable of paying for themselves. These are, for the most part,
very wealthy individuals who pay huge amounts of money to go out and to
get a trophy elephant or some other animal.
We ought not to be using these moneys. We ought to be using these
moneys for economic diversification of the CAMPFIRE Program, so it will
have a lasting effect. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Fox-Miller
amendment to H.R. 2159. This amendment, which prohibits the use of
American tax dollars for the purpose of supporting and promoting the
international trade in ivory or rhino horn, is a sensible restriction
on activities that many Americans find offensive.
This amendment is modest. It will not stop Zimbabwe or other nations
from authorizing or conducting trophy hunting, which is their sovereign
right in accordance with international treaties. Our Government has
very sensibly opposed the international trade in elephant ivory and
hides for many years. This amendment will ensure that taxpayer funds
will not be used to undermine that position.
Mr. Chairman, the wildlife of Africa is one of the greatest treasures
of our planet. Accordingly, I urge our Members who care about
preserving these resources to support the Fox-Miller amendment. More
than 80 percent of our constituents throughout the country oppose the
hunting of elephants, according to a recent survey. This amendment
prevents their hard-earned tax dollars from supporting this practice.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Agency for
International Development has been sponsoring a program in Zimbabwe
known as the CAMPFIRE Program. This project, implemented in cooperation
with the government and local authorities, is designed to help rural
farmers and others develop a self-sustaining economy based partly on
tourism.
The project helps curb the illegal poaching of African elephants by
providing the people of the area with an incentive to conserve these
elephants. Part of the incentive is to allow limited legal hunting,
although U.S. funds are not used, and let me repeat, U.S. funds are not
used for this purpose.

[[Page H6736]]

Funds generated from the hunting are used to support economic
development.
Concerns have been expressed that the project has promoted efforts to
allow international trade in elephant ivory. Although that does not
seem to be true, the committee bill includes bill language prohibiting,
and I reiterate, prohibiting the use of any funds in contravention of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
Concerns have also been raised about possible illegal lobbying
activities. The AID general counsel has found no evidence that U.S.
funds were used for lobbying activities, and our committee report
reiterates the obvious: the use of taxpayer funds for lobbying is
prohibited.
We worked with those on the committee, especially the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates], who had concerns about this program, and I
believe we addressed these concerns. I looked to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates] on this issue due to his vast knowledge of foreign
aid issues and due to his position as ranking minority member on the
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. We
negotiated with him in good faith to produce both a good bill and
report language that represented a responsible approach to this issue.
The author of the amendment does not seem to want the U.S. Government
to be involved in any way, directly or indirectly, with a program that
involves wildlife management. However, the people of Zimbabwe have no
choice but to deal with the facts of their existence. Failure to
implement a responsible wildlife management program in that country
will inevitably lead to an irresponsible program, since the people of
Zimbabwe will be forced to deal with the increase in the elephant
population.
The end result will be an increase in poaching and further conflicts
between subsistence farmers and the elephants. This will lead to more
elephant deaths, the exact opposite of what the sponsor of the
amendment is seeking.
I reiterate, the bill prohibits any funds from being used to
circumvent the prohibition on the illegal trade in elephant ivory. It
is a responsible approach. I might add, and we bring this out in the
report language on page 11, since this program has been started the
elephant population has increased from 43,000 to 67,000 in just a few
short years.

{time} 1430

I urge the House to support the committee position and to oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Fox amendment. Mr.
Chairman, I must say at the outset that I have been in this House for
over 12 years, and I cannot think of a more important conservation
measure than that which is referred to as the CAMPFIRE Program. And I
cannot remember a time when a program has been more grossly and greatly
misrepresented than this one has in the last few minutes. Let me
explain where this program came from, why it is important, and why it
ought to be retained as is.
First, let me say that the point made by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] that it is funded through the use of funds that
the gentleman objects to, in an earlier news release this month, the
gentleman indicated that 90 percent of the funding for this program
came from the sources that he objects to. Therefore, the gentleman's
argument falls of its own weight, because if we are going to remove 90
percent of the funding, there will be no CAMPFIRE Program. It is pretty
simple.
Therefore, if we are going to have a CAMPFIRE Program, which the
gentleman from Pennsylvania purports to support and at the same time
purports to withdraw 90 percent of the funding, it seems like a fairly
ridiculous proposal.
Mr. Chairman, in the early 1980's this program was born. It was born
because of concern which came to fruition in 1988 with the passage of
the African Elephant Conservation Act of that year, and that came about
because the population of elephants in the African countries was
dropping substantially.
In 1979, for example, there were about 1.3 million elephants in
Africa. By 1988, there were less than 750,000. In 1973, there were
130,000 elephants in Kenya, and by 1987, there were only 20,000.
In 1977, in the Selous Game Reserve in the United Republic of
Tanzania, there were 109,000 elephants. By 1988, there remained only
55,000.
So the subcommittee which I served on in the old Committee on the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife,
studied this situation and recommends some changes in law which we
thought would be beneficial. And, in fact, the African Elephant
Conservation Act of 1988 was passed in that year and it provided broad
authority for our country to unilaterally take action to save
elephants. We did that under the Bush administration and the same
policies have been followed by the Clinton administration.
Also, the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species,
known as CITES, has enacted international regulations which essentially
do three things: First, Outlaw the international trade of ivory;
second, permit the continuation of trophy hunting as a fund-raiser; and
third, the moneys resulting from conservation efforts such as tourism
and hunting would be used for conservation by African countries.
Huge successes have come from this program which the gentleman from
Pennsylvania would defund. We have seen the African elephant population
increase from 4 to 6 percent a year; a huge springback in the years
since 1989 when this law became effective.
We have also seen a number of very important conservation groups
endorse this program and, in fact, four have written to me, in some
cases as late as today, supporting my position. Those organizations
include the African Wildlife Foundation, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature, the National Wildlife Federation, and the World
Wildlife Fund; all support my position and oppose the Fox amendment.
Mr. Chairman, they do so for a number of reasons. For example, 7
million people in southern Africa have directly benefited from programs
like CAMPFIRE. In Zimbabwe alone, 5,000 to 10,000 jobs have been
created and 33 percent of the land in that country is devoted now to
conservation and wildlife management, which benefits African elephants.
Mr. Chairman, I am beside myself trying to figure out how the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, my friend, wants to defund this program.
The population of African elephants has also increased from 4 to 6
percent, as I said earlier. In Zimbabwe alone, increasing from 45,000
elephants to 66,000 elephants over this same period of time, the
program the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to defund.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Saxton was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, in addition, the number of households
participating in CAMPFIRE has grown from 9,000 in 1989 to 105,000 in
1996.
Our Nation's support for the CAMPFIRE Program is without question,
and it is a misrepresentation to say that CAMPFIRE moneys were used in
opposition to the U.S. position on sport hunting, because our law
provides for the recognition of sport hunting and our negotiation
position has provided for the recognition of sports hunting.
Our Nation's support for the CAMPFIRE Program allows thousands of
people to improve their livelihoods and has created a situation for the
comeback of the African elephants. This is not a program that we should
be trifling with.
Congress, this Congress, is criticized over and over again for doing
things that do not work, and yet this amendment brought to the floor
today would defund one of the most successful programs that we have had
in the area of conservation.
It is not a coincidence that elephant populations have increased
under CAMPFIRE, and it would be a terrible mistake to end the Agency
for International Development's essential involvement and investment in
this program.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
address the Committee for 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request from the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?

[[Page H6737]]

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, let us make it real clear
here. I understand how there may be two sides to the issue, but I want
to be very clear. Whether my colleagues embrace the position of the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], my friend, that the program is
fine and we should allow lobbying money to promote hunting and illegal
trade in ivory, the fact is that no one wants to defund this program.
To say otherwise is an absolute misrepresentation of my position and
those who are advocates for elephants and endangered species across the
globe.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we are all for maintaining the funding
of CAMPFIRE. To say otherwise is an absolute misrepresentation and not
correct. The fact is we want to make sure the funds get to the people
of Zimbabwe, in fact get to the CAMPFIRE Program, and are not used for
the purpose of promoting illegal trade of ivory or illegal hunting.
The fact is that funds are being used to lobby and that is what we
object to, the lobbying portion, and not to anything else. Because
Zimbabwe decides for itself whether there is hunting and whether there
is trade.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of
the Fox amendment. We should not force the American taxpayer to
directly pay for promoting the international ivory trade or elephant
trophy hunting. I believe that the Fox-Miller amendment is a very smart
approach to this very complicated challenge before the House today.
The Fox amendment bars the use of American tax dollars for the
purpose of supporting or promoting the international commercial trade
in ivory or rhino horn. The Fox amendment does not stop Zimbabwe, or
any other nation, from authorizing or conducting trophy hunting.
The Fox-Miller amendment is pro CAMPFIRE maintaining existing funding
levels, allowing USAID to invest in a wide-range of revenue-generating
activities that have received insufficient activities in the past. When
one U.S. agency, USAID, undermines the work of another U.S. agency, the
Department of Interior, taxpayer dollars are wasted and U.S. policy
positions are undermined.
The Interior Department has maintained a firm stand against renewing
the international trade in elephant ivory and hide since 1989. Again,
the Fox amendment bars the use of American tax dollars for the purpose
of supporting or promoting trophy hunting. It does not take the funding
away from CAMPFIRE, but directs it away from lobbying efforts and into
conservation efforts.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] for her statement and for her support of this
amendment and for her clarification.
The suggestion of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] that
somehow this is an effort to defund CAMPFIRE is just outrageous in the
sense that the gentleman understands, if he reads the amendment, it is
a very simple amendment and that is not what it does.
What this amendment suggests is we should not be using taxpayer
dollars to fund an activity that over 88 percent of the taxpayers in
this country find abhorrent and do not agree with. They would agree
with the CAMPFIRE Program, but what they do not agree with is using
their dollars to support trophy hunting of big game. That program, that
component, that part of CAMPFIRE can stand on its own, because it has
centuries of tradition, if you will, and a constituency of people who
seek to do it. More people apply to do it than are allowed to do it
each and every year.
Mr. Chairman, what we ought to now be taking is this risk capital in
USAID and putting it into diversification of these rural economies so
that more and more people in these economies can participate and these
economies hopefully can prosper and increase the standard of living
within those rural economies in Zimbabwe and other countries.
But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey cannot come here and
suggest that somehow this is about defunding CAMPFIRE. That amendment
will eventually come if we keep funding trophy hunting, because the
American people do not want anything to do with trophy hunting with
American taxpayer dollars. Or if CAMPFIRE continues to lobby, then we
will have an amendment that will wipe out the whole program.
What we are trying here to do is to preserve the best of this program
and the use of taxpayer dollars and let that very strong part, that is
a very strong constituency, trophy hunting, stand on its own and then
get on with the diversification of the program.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I once again commend
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the chairman of our
committee, who was very sensitive to the concerns of many of us on the
committee. The bill language is an attempt to correct this situation. I
think that the Fox-Miller amendment goes the committee one better, and
I support the perfecting amendment that my colleagues have put forth.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very wise and smart and addresses the
problem appropriately to stop the U.S. taxpayer from funding trophy
hunting, from subsidizing lobbying efforts to support trophy hunting,
but still maintains the funding for CAMPFIRE. I urge my colleagues to
support the Fox-Miller amendment. It is pro-CAMPFIRE and pro-
environment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and there are a
number of reasons why. I think importantly, if we look at the issue of
taxpayer funding and the whole issue of foreign aid, we are in a period
of time where we are declining the amount of money that we are going to
spend, and I support that. I think that we should spend less money on
foreign aid than we currently are.
But then we have to look at, if we are going to spend money, what are
we going to spend it on? I would argue that we should spend it on
programs that have proven to be successful. This program happens to be
one of the few that has proven to be extremely successful.
Mr. Chairman, I recently had the opportunity to visit Africa and to
visit one of these CAMPFIRE sites. I was amazed at how little I
actually knew about how this CAMPFIRE Program worked, until I was there
on the ground and had the opportunity to see it. We get this romantic
vision of what it is like from TV, and we think the big game hunter is
going out there and hunting elephants and all this stuff.
It is not like that. There are people living in huts who have to
erect big fences around their houses to keep the elephants out. They
are terrified that these elephants are going to kill them. Some wonder
why then we have declining numbers of elephants in Africa. It is
because the people did not care about them. They were killing their
children, they were destroying their farmland, there was no economic
incentive, there was no social incentive for them to maintain a high
number of elephants.
So then we had to come up with a program that actually would give
them that financial incentive and social incentive to protect those
elephants, and this program was devised where a limited number of
elephants would be hunted and it would bring money into these
communities. Then all of a sudden we saw the numbers, as the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] said earlier, we saw the numbers go from
44,000 to 67,000 in Zimbabwe alone.

{time} 1445

And why? Because there was an economic incentive. There was a social
incentive for them to protect these elephants. Now, all of a sudden,
instead of looking the other way when a poacher came in and shot an
elephant, they went after the poacher. They wanted to

[[Page H6738]]

keep them out because these elephants were important to them.
I had the opportunity to visit a school while I was over there. It
was a little three-room school, but those people were so proud of that
school. How did they pay for it? They do not have any money. The
average income is $400 a year. How did they pay for the school? They
paid for it with moneys that came from this CAMPFIRE Program. They paid
for it with the help that we were able to give them. We saw wells that
were put in, and for the first time these people had fresh drinking
water out of a well. These things were important to them. They may seem
like everyday life to us, but when we are looking at the outback of
Africa, these were very important issues to them.
I want to talk a few minutes about endangered species and about the
program that was created. The program that was created in this
circumstance created an economic incentive for these people to promote
more African elephants. They were hugely successful at it.
If you want to look at our endangered species program, you can see
everything that we are doing wrong. We want to look at some of the good
ideas that have come out of this program and we look at a way of
conserving our wildlife that I think we have something to learn from.
It has been hugely successful.
I have also heard Members talk about the CAMPFIRE Program somehow
promoting the illegal trade and poaching of elephants and ivory. There
is nothing that could be further from the truth because what this has
done has stopped the illegal poaching of elephants in these areas,
areas where we still have illegal trade, and illegal poaching of
elephants and ivory are coming from the areas where they do not have
this program. So if we want to do what is right for the wildlife, it is
to vote against this amendment because this program has been
successful. If we want to do what is right for the people of Africa, we
have to vote against this amendment.
We have heard earlier in the debate Members talk about the idea of
getting away from hunting and getting into photographic safaris and
ecotourism, and they are doing that. In fact, while I was there, I had
the opportunity to visit one of the sites where they were conducting
the photographic safaris, and in the safaris they had several camps
that were set up and it was like a mini hotel that they had to set up.
And they had to bring in fresh water and they had to bring in sewer
facilities and they had to somehow develop an electrical system, all of
this in the name of conducting a photographic safari.
And if you contrast that with the hunters that come in where you
pitch a tent out in the middle of nowhere, what is best for the
environment? The development of a hotel on the edge of a river
somewhere so people can come in and take pictures of the animals, or a
small tent that is set up and the people do not do any destruction to
the environment at all?
But they are getting into the photographic safaris and in the future,
maybe some day, that will be a major source of income for them. They
would like to see it go into that and have a greater income and
diversify. But currently that is not there, and 90 percent of the money
that is coming in from this is coming in from the hunts. If we do away
with that, we have killed the program. And whether our intention is to
kill the program or not, that is exactly what we are doing is killing
the program.
I think that even though I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox] had good intentions going into this, I believe that there
were some mistakes made. I believe that this is going in the opposite
direction of what we need to do. I think this is the kind of program we
need to look at and learn from, of some of the right things to do and
the wrong things to do.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I do not claim to know as much as some of the previous speakers, but
from what I can tell, this has been a successful program that has
encouraged conservation and has actually reduced poaching and improved
the situation in Zimbabwe. As I understand it, in Kenya what they have
done is, they have eliminated this type of hunting and the poaching has
increased and conservation efforts have decreased.
And really, Members need to understand what this is about. This is
really about eliminating hunting. It would be the same thing if we said
in the United States that we are going to take the Pittman-Robertson
money and we are going to take the Dingell-Johnson money and we are
going to say that it cannot be used for anything that has to do with
hunting.
And what would happen if we did that? Those programs would fall
apart. They have been some of the most successful programs that we have
ever put together in this country.
Everybody understands that without hunters, without their
contribution to conservation in this country, we would not have the
kind of wildlife that we have at the present time. If we eliminate
hunting in Zimbabwe, which is what we will do with this program, we
will have the results that we have seen in Kenya.
I think we should be very clear about what this is about. This is
about eliminating hunting. And if Members are for that, I guess they
want to vote for this amendment. But if they believe in conservation,
if they believe in approaching this the right way and they believe
hunting is a good way to manage our natural resources, they will oppose
this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this misguided amendment to restrict the ability of the Agency for
International Development [AID] to fund the CAMPFIRE program [Communal
Area Management Programme For Indigenous Resources].
While I am not normally an advocate of foreign aid, CAMPFIRE has been
one of the most successful programs ever funded by the Agency for
International Development.
In fact, it has been so successful that the program, which started in
Zimbabwe, has been adopted by other African countries, including
Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia.
What is the CAMPFIRE program? In short, it is an initiative to
improve the standard of living among Africa's poorest rural farmers by
giving them an economic stake in the wildlife resources of their
country. Under CAMPFIRE, villagers receive a direct economic benefit
from their wildlife and, therefore, a powerful incentive to conserve
those resources.
In some rural areas, CAMPFIRE provides up to 90 percent of the money
villagers use to build and maintain their homes, hospitals, and
schools. Without CAMPFIRE, many Africans and numerous wildlife species,
including elephants, face a bleak future.
Under the CAMPFIRE program, a village receives a percentage of the
money collected from the proceeds from wildlife management. For
instance, if a sport hunter wants to shoot a Cape buffalo or an African
elephant, it will cost him thousands of dollars. Prior to CAMPFIRE, all
this money went directly to the central government in Harare. Today, a
significant percentage of those funds remains at the local level and
the villagers themselves, in a democratic process, decide how this
money will be spent. This is the essence of the CAMPFIRE program is
local control of wildlife and financial incentives, which result in
effective conservation programs.
The CAMPFIRE program is strongly supported by not only the Clinton
administration but also such major conservation organizations as the
African Wildlife Foundation, International Union for the Conservation
of Nature, International Union for Conservation of Nature, National
Wildlife Federation, Safari Club International, the World Wildlife
Fund, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
These entities enthusiastically support this program because they
recognize that:
Seven million people in Southern Africa have directly benefited from
programs like CAMPFIRE.
In Zimbabwe, 5,000 to 10,000 jobs have been created and 33 percent of
the land in that country is now devoted to wildlife management.
The population of African elephants has increased in Zimbabwe from
45,000 to more than 66,000 today and poaching in CAMPFIRE areas has
been stopped.
The number of households participating in CAMPFIRE has grown from
9,000 in 1989 to about 105,000 in 1995.
The number of elephants shot in CAMPFIRE areas has decreased since
its introduction from 300 per year to 130 in 1996.
Our Nation's support of the CAMPFIRE program allows thousands of
people to improve their livelihoods, to provide education and the most
basic health care for their children, and to effectively manage their
wildlife resources.

[[Page H6739]]

In addition, it encourages the growth of democratic ideals.
It is not a coincidence that elephant populations have increased
under CAMPFIRE, and it would be a terrible mistake to end AID's
essential investment in this innovative program. In the final analysis,
CAMPFIRE and programs like it are Africa's best hope for conserving its
wildlife resources and providing its population with a bright future.
I urge a no vote on the Fox/Miller amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my strong support for the
amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Fox] and my distinguished colleague and fellow Californian [Mr. Miller]
to eliminate the use of U.S. taxpayer funds to promote or support the
trophy hunting of elephants under the USAID sponsored program called
Communal Areas Management Programs for Indigenous Resources [CAMPFIRE].
This amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 1997
echoes the sentiment of the American people to eliminate trophy hunting
and to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to lobby for and to promote
trophy hunting.
As elected officials, we are duty bound to uphold the will of our
constituents, the wishes of the American people. A 1997 Penn & Schoen
survey found that 84 percent of Americans oppose trophy hunting,
domestically and abroad. Despite this overwhelming opposition to the
practice of trophy hunting, the USAID-funded CAMPFIRE program uses
trophy hunts to generate funds for the majority of its projects. A
recent study of the CAMPFIRE program showed that 90 percent of the
funds generated from CAMPFIRE districts intended to help the indigenous
populations came from trophy hunting. While CAMPFIRE funds may be used
for the development of many successful and positive programs in Africa,
we cannot condone the methods which are used to generate these funds.
The U.S. Government has consistently supported the international ban
on trade in ivory in order to prevent the destruction of endangered
species. United States conservation policy should remain consistent.
Our foreign assistance should not be funding elephant hunts for ivory
at the same time that we are also supporting an international ban on
trade in ivory. Not long ago, our Government rightly spoke out at the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES] to
express strong opposition to the down-listing of the African elephant
from appendix I to appendix II of the convention. This down-listing
would further dilute the international ban on the ivory trade. The
bipartisan Fox-Miller amendment would bring our foreign assistance into
line with existing United States conservation policy toward preserving
the African elephant.
Mr. Chairman, another disturbing effect of the CAMPFIRE program is
the lobbying efforts undertaken in a number of capitals in support of
expanding the program. CAMPFIRE plans to expand beyond Zimbabwe and has
opened offices in Washington, London, Brussels, and Johannesburg for
the principal purpose of lobbying. CAMPFIRE is a sustainable
development program and should not be engaging in the process of
lobbying on its own behalf with taxpayer dollars.
The argument has been made that the CAMPFIRE program benefits the
people of Zimbabwe, and therefore, we should continue our assistance
because it helps the impoverished villagers of that country.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the assistance has limited impact upon the
population of rural Zimbabwe. Only 5 cents out of every dollar
generated actually benefits rural households in Zimbabwe.
The comments from my constituents in San Francisco and San Mateo
County speak volumes about the public's view of this trophy hunting
program that is supported by the CAMPFIRE program. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to share a few of the comments of my constituents with my
colleagues:

The CAMPFIRE program is an outrageous contradiction that
flies in the face of a government continually professing its
concern for nature and the environment on a global basis.--
Carol Kemski, San Bruno, California.
This cruel and destructive government program should not be
supported by our tax dollars.--Ron Scheinberg, San Francisco,
California.
I am aghast by the fact that the USAID is diverting our tax
dollars into CAMPFIRE in order to enable trophy hunting of
elephants.--Mary Larkin, San Francisco, California.

Mr. Chairman, the Fox-Miller amendment will not stop trophy hunting
in Zimbabwe. The government of that country has the sovereign right to
do what it chooses to do in this regard. But this amendment will stop
U.S. taxpayer funds from being used to support trophy hunting, which 84
percent of the American people oppose.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment
and stop the outrage of U.S. taxpayer funding of trophy hunting.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] will be postponed.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Torres

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

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Torres:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:

prohibition of funds for school of the americas

Sec. 572. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act may be used for programs at the United States Army
School of the Americas located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

(Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my remarks about
this amendment by first thanking the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan] for his efforts to work with me on how we address the funding
elements that are provided in this bill for the U.S. Army School of the
Americas. And while I do appreciate what has been done on this subject
that is reflected in the language in the bill before us, I am compelled
to offer this amendment together with my colleagues on the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] which prohibits any of the funds of
this bill being used for the school.
I think it is important to note that in last year's bill, this
committee directed the Departments of State and Defense to submit a
report no later than January 15 on a number of concerns that the
Members had expressed about the school, such as the screening process
for applicants and monitoring of graduates. This approach was agreed
upon at that time despite our inclination to cut off those funds. This
year, this report was received at the ``eleventh hour'' just prior to
the subcommittee's markup on June 25, nearly 6 months late.
The report, 3\1/2\ pages in length, does not represent what I believe
to be, nor the committee, many of the committee Members, a serious
effort to be responsive to the issues that were addressed. It merely
details how screening is intended to be carried out and contains no
evaluation of how this process is carried out.
It further states that the school, that neither the school nor other
U.S. personnel have the capacity to monitor graduates. The lateness of
the report and its brevity indicate that the school and the Defense
Department have failed to take reforms seriously.
I am offering this amendment today because I believe it is time to
forge a new relationship with Latin America, to mark a new era in U.S.
support for democracy in this hemisphere. The cold war is over, Mr.
Chairman. Rooting out Communist insurgents is passe. Human rights
violations in the pursuit of eliminating the enemy cannot be condoned.
The School of the Americas cannot deny its dismal connection with the
worst human rights violators in the region. The school's graduates who
are human rights violators are not just a bunch of bad apples. The list
of human rights violators connected with the school is long and is
getting longer as names of violators are matched up with those of
graduates.
The Salvadoran Truth Commission cited 19 out of 26 officers for the
massacre of Jesuit priests; 100 out of 246 Colombian officers cited for
war crimes; 6 Peruvian officers involved in the killing of 9 students
and a professor; Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. The list goes on
and on and on and cannot be dismissed as just a few exceptions.
Throughout Latin America, the School of the Americas is seen as a
training ground for repressive militaries and dictators; and its
record, its

[[Page H6740]]

record, I underscore that, cannot be ignored. The recently declassified
training manuals used at the school as lesson plans and reading
materials show that something indeed was wrong with the school's
curriculum. These manuals taught armies to violate human rights, to use
physical abuse, to use blackmail, to use blacklists, to use censorship,
to spy on civilian organizations like student groups, like trade
unions, like community organizations and opposition political parties,
to confuse the boundaries between civilians and combatants and to
ignore the rule of law.
Over and over again the school has tried to downplay rather than
fully acknowledge these problems with its training. It is good that the
school has added 4 hours on human rights in its courses, but this
hardly makes the School of the Americas a school for human rights.
These changes are just far too little, too late.
Let me emphasize that cutting off funds to the school does not
prevent the many forms of conduct and cooperation between the United
States and Latin American militaries. This year alone, over 60,000
military troops will rotate throughout Latin America on various
training missions and assignments. Additionally, the international
military education and training program for military personnel will
come to the United States and study at many of our U.S. institutions.
The School of the Americas is just but one of those.
But it does make an important break with the past. It shows Latin
Americans who have worked valiantly for human rights and civilian
control over militaries in their countries and U.S. religious orders
whose missionaries and priests were killed by militaries trained at the
School of the Americas.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Torres was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I repeat again, the priests that were
killed by militaries trained at the School of the Americas, and that
the United States now is fully determined to chart a new course. We
want to do that. The school represents an outdated approach to a
fragile region that is struggling with democracy, and we only have to
read and watch television every day to see what is happening.
Cutting off funds to the school in this bill sends a clear signal. It
is an important step in forging a new relationship with Latin American
militaries based first and foremost upon adherence to civilian
authority and the respect for human rights.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the School of the Americas was established to heighten
the professionalism of the military establishments throughout the
Americas. Approximately 60,000 young Latin American and Caribbean
officers have graduated from the SOA since its creation in 1946, the
vast majority of whom have served their nations honorably and
responsibly.
Mr. Chairman, opponents of the School for the Americas focus on the
excesses of a few notorious graduates. This Member is the first to
acknowledge that some very unsavory characters have managed to attend
the school. But such criticism overlooks the overwhelming majority,
well over 99 percent, of honest, capable, intelligent officers who
study at the School of the Americas. They return to their homes and
serve their nations honorably and with distinction. And this Member
would remind his colleagues that graduates of the SOA are personally
responsible for the return of democracy in nations such as Bolivia and
Argentina, and many of the school's graduates have lost their lives
while combating drug lords in Colombia and Peru. Focusing on a few bad
apples does a disservice to the commissioned and noncommissioned
officers who have attended the School for the Americas and who
subsequently fought terrorists and narcotraffickers in the jungles of
Latin America.

{time} 1500

While the early focus of the institution was on combating Soviet-
backed insurgencies, in recent years the school's emphasis has shifted
toward combating drug trafficking and responding to rural disease and
environmental degradation. One very positive result of the recent
attention to the school has been a much greater emphasis on human
rights. Every student at the school is now exposed to a rigorous formal
and informal training program in basic human rights. Specific classes
and case studies are used to enhance the training and to make U.S.
concerns unambiguously clear. The roles and rights of civilians, clergy
and human rights observers and U.N. personnel are integrated into the
training program.
While the SOA has rightly increased its emphasis on human rights,
this Member believes that there is a basic value in encouraging
military officers from Latin America and the Caribbean to study and to
train in the United States. An institution such as the SOA, which
annually hosts approximately 1,300 students from almost 20 countries,
provides a level of professional training that is not otherwise
available. Moreover, exposure to the U.S. lifestyle, values, and ideals
offers important lessons for the future military leaders of Latin
America.
Mr. Chairman, opponents have pointed to three manuals that were for a
short time used by the school. It is true that these manuals had short
passages, in one instance less than a sentence, that were inconsistent
with U.S. Army doctrine. When discovered, these manuals were
immediately withdrawn and destroyed. The school now employs U.S. Army
training manuals that are appropriate and which are now being
translated, and have been translated into Spanish.
This Member would tell his colleagues that the School of the Americas
does not employ confidential torture manuals, nor does the SOA in any
way engage in such heinous exercises as training its students to keep
their shock victims alive for interrogation as some have alleged. This
body should not participate in this wrongful demonization of the School
of the Americas.
Mr. Chairman, the training at the School of the Americas does far,
far more good in encouraging appropriate human rights practices than
any possible harm which could come from even a perversion of such an
education program that some former student might practice. It is time
to end this misguided attack on the SOA.
This Member wishes he could guarantee to his colleagues that no
future graduate of the SOA will ever abuse human rights or undermine
civilian government, but obviously this is impossible. What this Member
can guarantee is that every effort will continue to be made to fully
indoctrinate the students on respect for human rights and democracies.
The training at the school undoubtedly does far, far more good than any
hypothetical harm which would come from even a perversion of such an
educational program some future student might practice.
This Member must say, therefore, that it is time for this body and
for certain organizations outside of this body to abandon this
misguided attack on the School of the Americas. I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment and send a message to the organizations, get your
facts straight, catch up with reality. It is time to stop and get off
this hobby horse. The School of the Americas is an important
institution for the United States and for democracy throughout the
hemisphere.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to give a specific example of how the School of
the Americas helps America, the United States of America. The Colombian
National Police, which is one of our frontline combatant units against
the drug cartels in Colombia, gets a great deal of training from the
School of the Americas. The first 40 hours of their training is in the
area of human rights. General Serrano and the Colombian police because
of that have a stellar human rights record. Our State Department has
told us in committee that the Colombian National Police, which is a
recipient, a beneficiary of the School of the Americas, has an almost
100 percent human rights record. I believe it is because of the School
of the Americas, because of the training they are getting there.
The thing that is interesting about this is these people who are
trained in the School of the Americas, the Colombian National Police
that are fighting

[[Page H6741]]

the war against drugs, against the Colombian drug cartel, lay their
lives on the line every single day not just for their people in their
country but for our kids in America who are the recipients of the drugs
that are coming out of Colombia and Latin America and Central America.
For us to close down the School of the Americas and to cut off funding
would be a giant step, a giant step in the wrong direction.
The last point I want to make very briefly is this. We know for a
fact that the people in Colombia who are suffering human rights abuses
go to the Colombian National Police, who have been trained in how to
deal with human rights abuses for protection. I think it would be a
terrible mistake for us to cut off funding for this very important
program if for no other reason because of the Colombian National Police
who are fighting so hard every single day to protect our kids from
drugs and to stop the flow of drugs coming into America.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the
chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. I want to commend the gentleman for focusing attention on
the narcotics training that they receive at the School of the Americas.
They receive first rate instruction on a variety of subjects, but
included very out-front and very positively is their training
countering the illegal drug threat. I am pleased to join my colleague
in opposition to the gentleman from California's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from General Barry
McCaffrey, our drug czar and the former Commander in Chief of the U.S.
Southern Command, in support of the School of the Americas, stressing
the important role in countering the illegal drug trade, as follows:

Executive Office of the President, Office of National
Drug Control Policy,
Washington, DC, July 16, 1997.
Dear Representative Callahan: My purpose in writing is to
ask for your support of the U.S. Army School of the Americas.
The Appropriations Bill for Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs being considered today
contains language that, if enacted, would make this important
institution ineffective.
As Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command, my
responsibilities included furthering the development of
professional Latin American armed forces that promoted and
protected human rights and that were supportive of democratic
governance. The School of the Americas was, and continues to
be, the Department of Defense's preeminent military
educational institution for accomplishing these goals. The
soldiers, sergeants, and officers that come to the School of
the Americas interact with our own soldiers. They are
systematically exposed to the principles of military
subordination to civilian authority and the rule of law. They
also receive first rate instruction on a variety of subjects
including countering the illegal drug threat.
The School of the Americas is closely supervised by the
U.S. Army and U.S. Southern Command. Its curriculum is beyond
reproach. Indeed, it has been at the forefront of the effort
to incorporate human rights training in all military
instruction. It is deserving of your support. Your leadership
will be important in ensuring that this important vehicle for
effective military-to-military relations remains viable.
Respectfully,
Barry R. McCaffrey,
Director.

Mr. Chairman, the war on drugs in Latin America is real. Professional
training to fight narcoguerrillas is critical. The School of the
Americas helps meet that need. General McCaffrey does point out that
the school is closely supervised by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Southern
Command. Its curriculum is beyond reproach. Indeed, it has been at the
forefront of the effort to incorporate human rights training in all of
its military instruction. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his participation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Torres amendment, and I
wish to speak briefly but from the heart on this issue. I have seen
firsthand the work of many of the graduates of the School of the
Americas who served as officers in the Salvadoran Armed Forces during
the recent conflict in that country. I had the privilege of working
with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the honorable dean
of our State delegation, on the House investigation of the brutal 1989
murders of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her 15-year-old
daughter. For those unfamiliar with the case, units of the Salvadoran
Army surrounded the university where these eight people worked.
Soldiers entered their home, forced the six priests out of bed, and
then outside into the yard. The soldiers then forced the priests to lay
down on the ground, put high-powered rifles to their heads, pulled the
triggers, and blew their brains across the grass. These same soldiers
then went back inside the house and found and killed the terrified
housekeeper and her teenage daughter.
Mr. Chairman, I knew these priests. I was privileged to call them
friends. They all had names and family and parishioners, students and
colleagues who loved them. When the 26 Salvadoran military personnel
cited for these murders were identified, 19 were graduates of the
School of the Americas. If this were the only horror story associated
with the School of the Americas, we would not be having this debate
today. But there are hundreds and hundreds of such stories. And tens of
thousands of men, women, and children throughout Latin America have
been tortured or have perished on the orders of or at the hands of
these graduates.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. The little we do know about actions
and atrocities committed by the School of the Americas graduates does
not come from information or surveys carried out by the school itself.
It comes from the hard, often dangerous investigations undertaken by
human rights groups, U.N.- and government-appointed truth commissions
and other dedicated individuals. The school has always taken a posture
of denial, that ignorance is better than knowing the truth.
Mr. Chairman, nothing can bring back my friends to life. Nothing can
fill the intellectual, spiritual, and visionary void left by their
murders. But I have walked on the ground where they died, and I will
not support one more single tax dollar being used to keep open a school
that helped to shape and train these killers.
I want to thank my fellow colleagues, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the gentleman from California [Mr.
Torres], and members of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations who
support this amendment for their leadership on this issue. I urge all
of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Torres amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but I
do have an active interest in this matter and have had occasion in the
past to get myself involved in it in one way or another. As a matter of
fact, my long history goes back to what we then called Benning School
for Boys, which I had the honor of attending in my own training to be a
second lieutenant of infantry. It hurts me to see that school
associated with the kind of record which we now hear with regard to the
School of the Americas. I am not trying to point the finger at
everything the school does. I commend the effort to improve the
training and improve the sensitivity to human rights of the officer
corps of our neighboring nations. But it has not succeeded in
accomplishing that goal in the way that I would like.
It is unquestionably true that over these past 50 years of the
school's existence, a large, very large number of the graduates have
been involved in human rights violations. I would not want to
characterize all of the graduates as being some kind of evil persons. I
am not sure that if we did not have the school, we still would not have
violations of civil rights in those societies which are conducive to or
organized in a way that encourages violation of civil rights. We have
instances in this country of where commissioned officers and
noncommissioned officers are guilty of violating the civil rights of
individuals, both within the ranks and outside the ranks. We do not
blame the entire establishment for those few cases.
But here is a situation where over 50 years, it is undeniable that
the graduates of this school have been involved

[[Page H6742]]

in this kind of practice. I would suggest that the time has come to
acknowledge that we assisted in perpetrating these atrocities through
the training that we gave to these officers. While we should continue
to offer assistance and to provide training, if necessary, in other
ways, we ought to abolish the school and start with a clean slate. Some
of these same officers could be eligible to go to West Point or some of
our other academies. We train the elites from many of these countries
in our most prestigious universities. We should continue to do that.
For those who seek a military career, we could give them the ROTC
course at Harvard possibly or some other alternative to what they are
getting at the School of the Americas. But we need to put this past
behind us. We cannot continue as a nation to condone the fact that
graduates have engaged in the sort of practice that have been described
here, the slaughter of priests and nuns and the disappearance of
thousands of people throughout Latin America.
Let us put that behind us. Let us discontinue the funding of this
school. If we feel it necessary to continue to assist in the
development of an improved military, let us find improved methods to do
that job if it does indeed need to be done.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment which amounts to a
step backward in the war on drugs and two steps backyard in our support
of freedom, democracy, and human rights in our own backyard. In July,
both General McCaffrey, the drug czar, and General Shalikashvili,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs, highlighted the importance of the School
of the Americas in the war on drugs. The frontlines of this war are
found throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Colombia, Panama, and
Bolivia serve as prime examples of countries whose drug interdiction
strategies would be crippled without the benefit of United States
equipment and, most importantly, United States training at the School
of the Americas. The school is a key to preserving democracy in our
hemisphere.
Since 1946, the U.S. Army has trained the Latin American military
leaders who have turned back dictatorship, returning political power to
the people and yielding military authority to civilian institutions.

{time} 1515

In 1972, there are only six democracies in Latin America. Today,
thanks in part to the school's instruction, there are 19.
As civil war in the region has given way to peace, and democracy has
taken hold, the U.S. Army School of the Americas has developed a
military human rights training program that is unmatched anywhere in
the world today.
Just over 1 month ago, I joined almost every other Member in this
body in passing legislation congratulating El Salvador, and much has
been said about El Salvador during this debate, for recent elections
and the country's progress toward full democracy. The resolution passed
overwhelmingly, 419 to 3.
What my colleagues probably do not know is that one of the Salvadoran
government's top officials, a Minister of Defense, Major General
Guzman, is a former School of the Americas instructor. General Guzman
is typical of the vast majority of the school's 60,000 graduates and
visiting instructors who in one very important way, has returned home
to apply his human rights training to remedy his country's problems of
the past.
General Guzman institutionalized human rights training in the
Salvadoran armed forces. Before his program was initiated, human rights
violations numbered more than 2,000 each month, but after 5 years, that
number has dropped to less than 20 per month, and today, under General
Guzman's zero tolerance program, violations almost never occur.
The School of the Americas is not the answer to all Latin America's
problems. There is still work to be done. But I urge my colleagues to
consider the lives that the School of the Americas has saved. Every
year, the school graduates thousands of men and women who return to
their countries to apply the lessons they have learned in a Latin
American environment still plagued by instability and violence.
The stories that we do not hear are those heroes. These are the
military leaders who fought for democracy and yielded military control
to civilian authorities. These are the police officers fighting the
drug lords in the street. These are the men and women who have returned
control of the governments of Latin America to the people of Latin
America.
This is not simply a matter of foreign assistance. It is critical to
our own self-interests to maintain democracies in countries so close to
our borders. The School of the Americas allows us to do so without
deploying our own troops.
The State Department, the Salvadoran and Honduran Ambassadors to the
United States, the President of the Committee of Presidents of the
Central American Legislative Human Rights Commission, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the acting Commander in Chief of the United
States Southern Command, the Under Secretary of the Army, the Director
of the National Office of Drug Control Policy, the authorizing
committee on both sides of the Capitol, and the last Presidential
administration have argued that the school serves vital national
interests through its counterdrug operations and its counterdrug cadet
leadership development courses, its professional military training
program, including unique peacekeeping instruction, and its one-of-a-
kind human rights training initiative. Through these programs, the
school allows the United States to support and defend Latin American
democracies and to encourage responsible government policies without
forward deployments such as those used in Bosnia and in Haiti.
I, for one, am not ready to surrender Latin America and the Caribbean
to drug lords and dictators. I urge my colleagues to take
responsibility of the human rights leadership by opposing this
amendment which would close the School of the Americas, diminishing
opportunities for the expansion of democracy in Latin America.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I agree with my distinguished
colleague's last words about the necessity to fight against drugs. In
Latin America, and around the globe, wherever we find that problem, I
think it is important that all of us in this Congress take a stand
against the drugs which are infecting this country and the entire
world.
So I am glad that there is that kind of support, and it is bipartisan
support for fighting drugs. However we are called upon, and looking at
the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres], to make an
assessment of a school that is operated out of Fort Benning, GA, which
does more than just train people to deal with drugs, and we all agree
that we want drugs dealt with, and there are many ways in which they
can be dealt with, but that is not what the School of the Americas is
about.
The School of Americas in Fort Benning, GA, has a roster of graduates
that reads like a Who's Who of human rights violators:
Nineteen of the twenty-six Salvadoran officers accused in the 1989
massacre of the six Jesuits and their housekeeper and the housekeeper's
daughter were graduates of the School of the Americas.
Ten of the twelve cited in the El Mozote massacre where an entire
village was wiped out without a trace; men, women and children, wiped
out; 10 of the 12 people involved in that were graduates of the School
of the Americas.
Two of the three officers cited in Archbishop Romero's assassination
were graduates of the School of the Americas.
The School of the Americas; of what America is this the school of?
Certainly not the United States of America, because the people of the
United States of America do not support murder, do not support rape, do
not support torture. Yet this is called the School of the Americas, and
its graduates are involved in rape, murder, torture, genocide. The
School of the Americas indeed.
The people of the United States do not support the kind of conduct
which

[[Page H6743]]

has come from this school and which is being done in the name of
Americas.
Four churchwomen, including Sister Dorothy Kazel, a nun from
Cleveland, OH, and someone who happened to be a friend of mine, were
raped and brutally murdered in El Salvador. The U.N. Truth Commission
investigating the murders verified that the School of the Americas
trained three of the five officers responsible for the churchwomen's
deaths.
Now Sister Dorothy was more than a friend to me. She was a friend to
humanity. She went to El Salvador to bring about peace and justice for
those who desperately need it, and she was brutally murdered for her
efforts, along with Jean Donovan and two other nuns. Sister Dorothy
Kazel's sister-in-law asked me to deliver this message to my colleagues
in the United States Congress, and I quote:

``Congress needs to act now. The women were killed by
officers trained at the School of the Americas. I just don't
understand why we are training human rights violators on our
own soil. Why does this school still operate?''

Mr. Chairman, those who oppose closing the School of the Americas
defend it as a haven for human rights protectors. The inversion of
meaning is an ongoing problem in political philosophy. It is something
that the writer, George Orwell, well understood where wrong becomes
right and worse becomes the better reason and where murderers and
rapists become human rights protectors.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Where wrong becomes right, where worse becomes the
better reason and where people who have murdered become human rights
protectors.
Well, I think the American people are well aware of the record of the
School of the Americas. We owe it to them, and we owe it to the memory
of Sister Dorothy Kazel, the other nuns, the Jesuit priests, the
civilians who have been murdered, and to everyone else who has ever
been terrorized by the School of the Americas, to see that this school
be shut once and for all. This is the Congress of the United States of
America, and it should not let anyone defile the name ``America'' in
our own name on our own soil with our own tax dollars. Close the School
of the Americas.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Oh, the outrage is becoming palpable now. The do-gooders are out
there. Pass out the rose-colored glasses, Mr. Chairman. The cold war is
over; we are hearing that today.
Every American citizen ought to grab up their children, close their
doors and take out their weapon, if it has not been taken away every
time the do-gooders get out there and start saying the cold war is
over, because we know what is coming next, another piece of
legislation, another diatribe that we must cut back, cut back, cut
back, cut back.
Well, the cold war may be over in a formal sense, Mr. Chairman, but
there are many very good, productive, positive reasons to deny the do-
gooders this latest opportunity to prove to the world that we can be
more namby-pamby than some other country somewhere in the world at some
point in time.
Mr. Chairman, one thing that escapes me in this latest round of do-
good-ism that we are hearing today is what these folks think would
happen if the School of the Americas were closed and if we then, as
they would have us do, then search out every other program in which we
provide some sort of training, control over foreign military officers.
Do they think that all of a sudden magically, as they had been anointed
with this vision of the universe, that every one of these other
officers would all of a sudden adopt their view of the world, their
view of so-called human rights, their view of what is right and wrong
in the world, their view of what we must do in the world? I do not
think so.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the School of the
Americas provides a very valuable tool not only for this country to
influence foreign officers in a positive way as we have heard from
opponents of this measure today already, but it also provides an
important outlet for the yearnings that these foreign officers have to
learn about this country and what we do that is so good that these
other folks herald and then break down.
There are, Mr. Chairman, other countries more than willing to step
into the breach should we retreat. Communist China; now there is a
country with a stellar human rights record. They are already obtaining
a foothold in Latin America. Perhaps they would step into the breach
and create a School of the Americas.
Would that make the do-gooders happy? Perhaps, I do not know. Some
other country, perhaps Cuba, would step into the breach wanting to
increase its influence in Latin America.
The fact of the matter is, though, Mr. Chairman, somebody would be
there to step into the vacuum that would be created if we were to
suddenly pull out from the School of the Americas.
Mr. Chairman, over the years, and even currently, these officers that
are out there fighting for our kids on our streets in the United States
of America are trained, many of them, both directly and indirectly,
through the process of talking with the other graduates who come back
to their country, and they do teach and they do talk with their fellow
officers. They do learn, and they are equipped, better equipped, with
the tools to fight the terrorists.
Now the cold war may be over, but terrorism is not over. The cold war
may be over, but the war against narcotics traffickers is not. The cold
war may be over, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, there are
narco-terrorists out there in Latin America, and we need to use every
legitimate tool at our disposal, and this is a legitimate tool at our
disposal and the way that we can reach out and influence for the better
these officers.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

{time} 1530

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having to run off the floor to a
meeting, but the points that the gentleman are making are so well
taken. We are fighting a battle today of terrorism. We are fighting a
battle of illegal drugs in this country. These officers that are
trained at the School of the Americas are doing a service by going back
to their countries and teaching people what it is all about as far as
decent human rights for people.
I just wish I had more time to participate in the debate, but I hope
everybody comes over here and votes against this ill-conceived
amendment.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, who
knows whereof he speaks.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me mention the whole process here is
rather bizarre. We see the folks on the other side saying, well,
because these people went to the School of the Americas and sometime in
the future, after that point, they committed these bad acts, therefore
we must close the doors of the School of the Americas.
How preposterous. Should we search out and close the doors of every
school in the United States of America because one of them may have
produced at some point in time a Ted Bundy or somebody else that goes
out and commits an act? Blaming the school for the bad acts of its
graduates in this instance is ill-conceived.
This is nonsense, Mr. Chairman, and it ought to be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Bereuter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Barr was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio just made a very impassioned
statement. It is understandable, given his personal knowledge of a
victim.
But I just would like the gentleman to think about the fact that the
noncommissioned officers and officers that come to this school do not
come with a

[[Page H6744]]

table that has nothing written on it. They come bringing some values
themselves.
What we are attempting to do with the School of the Americas is, in
some cases, a very difficult task of changing the whole culture of a
military in a government. If you had visited Guatemala or El Salvador
like this gentleman in the early 1980's, you would understand about the
progress that has been made and the great difficulty we had in getting
the right kind of people to come to the school in the first place.
I would just like to suggest we have made dramatic progress, and in
the absence this, we are going to have a much deeper problem in the
hemisphere.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to get into this debate until I
heard the previous speaker's comments, and they compelled me to say
what I am going to say now.
I would much rather be a ``do-gooder'' than a stand-byer, while a
school which is supposed to teach American values instead consistently
produces graduates who defile the very values that that institution is
supposed to support and promote.
I do not mind being called a ``do-gooder'' at all in comparison to
being a do-nothinger. I also do not mind being called ``namby-pamby''
because I happen to be offended by the fact that, time and time again,
graduates of the School of the Americas have engaged in conduct that
would make every decent American gag.
If being ``namby-pamby'' is being opposed to instruction manuals on
torture, if being ``namby-pamby'' is being opposed to the consistently
failed record of this institution in turning out graduates who
understand democratic values, if it is being ``namby-pamby'' to object
to the fact that graduates of this institution have systematically in a
number of countries around this hemisphere wiped out innocent women and
children, then call me namby-baby. I do not mind it at all.
You are doggone right, we are opposed to this institution continuing.
This institution has been given the opportunity year after year after
year to demonstrate that it can turn out a different kind of military
for Latin America. So far, there is very precious little evidence that
in fact it has done so.
The gentleman from Nebraska is right: What this institution is
charged with doing is a very difficult thing to do. It is very
difficult to take people from the kind of culture which has produced
many of them, bring them to this country, and in a very short period of
time inculcate the kind of values that we would like to see those
graduates represent.
But the fact is that you have to make a judgment sooner or later
about whether that institution has succeeded or not, and there are a
lot of us in this institution who do not think that it has succeeded.
So I would suggest that to call people ``do-gooders'' or to call them
``namby-pamby'' because we happen to object to the fact that thousands
of individual innocent civilians have been slaughtered by the graduates
of this second-rate institution, is, I think, to do something to the
dialogue in this House that you ought not to do.
I would say one other thing: For years we have heard every
justification dragged up that it is possible to drag up in order to
defend the continued funding for this institution. Now the latest
argument we hear is, ``Oh, they are necessary to prevent the drug
traffic from succeeding in this hemisphere.''
Well, I just have to tell you that drug program administrators who
cannot run an antidrug program without relying on this kind of
institution ought to find themselves another line of work.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being recognized to speak in favor of the
School of the Americas. Not everything is perfect. Unfortunately, the
folks who support this amendment are correct in that in the past there
have been graduates of this school who have abused human rights and
caused all sorts of pain and suffering.
That has been a very, very small minority of student participants,
and the things that they did, they did not learn at the School of the
Americas. They certainly were not trained with that intent by the
School of the Americas.
That was many, many years ago. Some debates, Mr. Speaker, are timely,
and some debates are timeless. This debate seems to be timeless in that
once the side who opposes the School of the Americas has got their
point across and the changes have been made, it is time to stop. But,
instead, we are continuing year after year, rehashing the same ground,
regurgitating the same arguments over and over again.
This debate, rather than being timeless, should be timely, and the
time to debate it was properly in the early 1990's under Secretary
Cheney. Under Secretary Cheney many, many changes were made that threw
out some of the offensive materials which the supporters of this
amendment keep referring to.
It is not the case any more. What we are doing is we are debating
Model T's in the era of 1997 automobiles. It is just that there is a
photograph there. We are looking at the moving picture here, and the
moving picture has gone on and times have changed.
But to be on the safe side, the committee this year has put in some
very strong safeguards. One, the Secretary of Defense must certify that
the instruction and training provided by the school are fully
consistent with training and doctrine provided to U.S. military
personnel, especially, Mr. Chairman, regarding human rights.
Number two, the Departments of Defense and State have improved the
guidelines for screening and admitting students to better avoid
students with records of human rights violations or who may have
tendencies in that direction.
Number three, the Department of Defense completes a comprehensive
report on training activities of the school and an assessment of the
performance of the graduates.
These are three things that are in the bill right now. This amendment
is not necessary.
The abuses that they are referring to that happened are horrible, and
I certainly agree, but they happened many years ago by graduates that
would not be admitted to the school today.
Now, let me say this on a personal basis. I have visited the school.
It is disturbing, greatly disturbing to me, that most of the supporters
of this amendment have not taken the time to visit the school. In fact,
I would challenge my colleagues, if you have been to the school and you
support the amendment, when you speak, please let folks know, and tell
us about the terrorists you saw in the classroom.
I am not going to tell you that I could tell terrorists from a
nonterrorist sitting in a classroom, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you
this: I talked to young idealistic men and women from South America who
had lots of ideas on democracy, lots of enthusiasm about the American
system of government, and lots of enthusiasm for freedom and its noble
concepts.
I have visited them, and I have talked to the students. It makes a
tremendous difference in your opinion of an institution when you have
been there and talked to the students.
If you do not go, maybe if you support this amendment, you should
make it a priority to visit it. I would be glad to help any of my
colleagues who would like to go down to Columbus, Georgia. We could
probably get you in and out of there in a day. It would mean so much to
the students down there, it would mean so much to the institution, and
perhaps it could mean a whole lot to the great cause that we share of
freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to please vote against this amendment,
and support the School of the Americas.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the School of the Americas and in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that most of us here do not
oppose international military training in general. The amendment
addresses only the military training provided at Fort Benning because
of a negative image, or stigma, remaining from a relatively very few
problems from the past. This makes this issue a self-feeding problem to
a large extent because the negative stigma is perpetuated by the very
groups who use it as justification to close the school.
The negative propaganda and baggage that continues to follow the
school is just not a valid argument to shut down the only school of
this kind in the world with such devoted attention to teaching
professionalism, respect for

[[Page H6745]]

rule of law and civilian leadership, and human rights to young officers
and soldiers of Latin America who would not otherwise get this critical
training. In fact, the School of the Americas provides much more of
this kind of training to its students than our own military men and
women receive.
We also often hear lists of human rights abuses committed by Latin
American military personnel who may or may not have received some
varying level of training at the School. These cases--while horrible--
are very rare when compared to the large number of students trained at
the school. To close the school simply because less than one percent of
its graduates haven't successfully applied what they've learned is
inappropriate, short-sighted, and counterproductive.
Let me just ask everyone: If the United States set up a program to
teach Latin American militaries to reject repressive behavior, to
respect human rights, and advance the cause of democracy in our own
back yard, would you support it? What if it were only 99 percent
effective? That's what we're dealing with in plain English. No
exaggerations, no distortions, no feel-good hype. Why would we throw
away the opportunity to teach hundreds of Latin American military
officers to respect human rights just because a few don't get the
message?
I challenge all members of this committee to visit the school before
you take active action, such as this amendment, to close it. With all
due respect, I know very few members here today, including Mr. Torres
himself, have actually visited the School down at Fort Benning. If it's
not possible for you to visit, Colonel Trumbel, the School's
Commandant, is available to meet with any Member one on one here in
Washington to discuss any and all concerns you may have. I ask that you
please get the facts, investigate the school for yourself rather than
relying on second-hand propaganda, before you vote to close this
school.
What can we do here today to improve the school?
The language in the bill regarding the School of the Americas takes
major steps to address remaining concerns of Congress. I remind you
that the bill as it currently stands denies all funds from the school
until: First, the Secretary of Defense certifies the instruction and
training provided by the school are fully consistent with training and
doctrine provided to U.S. military personnel, especially regarding
human rights, second, DOD and State have improved the guidelines for
screening and admitting students to better avoid students with records
of human rights violations, and third, DoD completes a comprehensive
report on training activities of the School and an assessment of the
performance of its graduates.
These are very significant steps to improve any remaining problems. I
ask that you support the very reasonable compromise language currently
in the bill and oppose this amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise as a do-gooder to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, American values are based on doing good for people.
That is the purpose of this bill. This bill proposes to do good for the
less fortunate people of the world and for less fortunate nations.
My good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], talked
about reality. Reality is the story told by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern] as to what happened in El Salvador at the
hands of graduates from the School of the Americas. Reality is what was
described by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] as to what happened
to his friends at the hands of graduates of the School of the Americas.
The fact is that graduates of the school went forth to engage in
activities that were totally inimical to the values of the people and
of the Government of the United States.
Sure, there are some students who are graduates who are good, but
they are not the ones who were in power in the countries to which the
graduates went.
The impression is given that if you close the school, all training
will stop. That is not true. All the universities in this country are
available for training, and a course can be set forth that will permit
this to be done.
The fact is that this school has failed. Its record is one of
failure. The record cannot be dismissed by saying that critics of that
record are do-gooders.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here that was received by the National
Security Archives, the government library of George Washington
University, dated July 17, 1997, fairly current, signed by the current
Ambassador from the Embassy of Honduras. This is what he said:

Thank you for your fax regarding the letter that was
distributed to Members of Congress quoting four Latin
Americans, including myself, on the issue of funding for the
School of the Americas.
In that letter I am quoted extemporaneously. My statement
was geared toward the need to enhance the school's program to
deal with today's challenges, narco-terrorism, violation of
human rights, extreme poverty, suitable development, elements
I consider valid.
Nevertheless, at the time I made that statement, I wasn't
aware of allegations or evidence of the school's programs
that led to violation of international human rights.
Otherwise, I would have mentioned my government and I deplore
any activities undertaken there or anywhere else that would
encourage officers to carry out violations of international
human rights norms.
The negative effect of the school's academic programs have,
unfortunately, been felt in my country, where at least five
military officers trained in the school have been requested
to come before our courts for violation of human rights.
The Honduran Government clearly does not condone any such
activities and is opposed to any academic program the school
had or has in that regard. I hope this letter clarifies our
position.

So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. There is still
the opportunity for training of worthy students from the Latin American
countries, and they should be given that opportunity for training, but
not in the School of the Americas.

{time} 1545

The record justifies the closing of that school.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Torres-Yates-Foglietta
amendment to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas.
I want it to be clear that I do not oppose military to military, or
civil military training, but, I believe the school has too many
negative implications, baggage--as it were--to be an effective tool of
U.S. foreign policy.
I believe the school to be a relic of the cold war. It represents a
severely outdated approach to a fragile region struggling to attain
real democracy and civilian control of the military and should have
been closed years ago.
Some members have told me that the Latin American military respect
our Armed Forces because of the work the school has done over the
years.
Yes, but what about the civilian population of Central and South
America. What about those civilians who refer to the school as the
school of assassins. What do they think of the United States and our
military assistance? Are we really fulfilling our national security and
foreign policy objectives by alienating the civilian population of
Latin America?
I am proud of the young men and women serving in our Army, Navy, Air
Force and Marine Corps. I am proud that their colleagues from Latin
America think so highly of them. But, I do not see how closing the
School of the Americas will diminish this respect.
Closing the school will not put a halt to military contact between
our Armed Forces and those of Latin America.
In fact, I believe closing the school will allow for a more rounded
education. One where the soldiers of Central and South American
countries participate alongside their counterparts in the U.S. military
in the full range of U.S. military training.
Closing the school will allow the students to become exposed to the
total American experience instead of being isolated in one region of
our country.
Additionally, these future leaders will be better prepared to work
with, and more importantly communicate with, our military should we
become engaged in joint military operations sometime in the future.
It would send a clear message to the people of Latin America that we
care about their civil and human rights and are trying to support their
democracies.
In closing, although I have been an opponent of the school for many
years, I have attempted to work with the Army and the Departments of
State and Defense through the Foreign Operations Subcommittee to
resolve the numerous complaints surrounding the curriculum at the
school.
I wanted to come to some kind of positive resolution to this matter,
but, in just the past year it has become very clear to me that my good
faith efforts were to be unrewarded.
The committee previously instructed the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to prepare and submit to the
Committees on Appropriations no later than January 15, 1997, a report
on the School of Americas at Fort Benning, GA.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the gentleman from Ohio started out
listing the who's who of human rights violators in the hemisphere, the
school's roster of graduates. I would like to continue that for a
moment.

[[Page H6746]]

One hundred of 246 Columbian officers cited for war crimes by an
international human rights tribunal in 1993; six Peruvian officers
involved in the killings of 9 students and a professor in 1992; Colonel
Julio Alpirez, linked to the cover-ups and the murders of Efrain Bamaca
and United States citizen Michael DeVine in Guatemala; ranking officers
in notorious Honduran Battalion 3-16; Argentina dictator Leopoldo
Galtieri and Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega.
Let me just stop at this point and say to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, I am absolutely surprised and appalled at the energy
that they are expending to defend the School of the Americas.
I do not know why those who posture themselves as law-and-order
policymakers, I do not know why anybody who gets up time and again
talking about how tough they are on crime and criminals and human
rights violators, would expend so much time and energy defending this
U.S. Army School of the Americas.
We know the list of violators who have been the graduates of this
school. How can we defend them? It is not enough to say, oh, some of
them made mistakes, some of them were not right, some of them killed
some people. What are Members talking about? We are talking about
people who are trained in the School of the Americas who go back to
these countries. They become our direct contacts. These are the ones we
support. We support them in the leadership of those nations.
I cannot believe that some of the Members have forgotten about Haiti
already. We spent a lot of hours in this body about trying to right the
wrongs of Haiti. It took a great threat by the President of the United
States, ready to move in with our own military unless we got rid of the
graduates of the School of the Americas: General Cedras, have Members
forgotten him already? Have they forgotten Mr. Francois in Haiti, who
headed the police force, a graduate of the School of the Americas?
These two gentlemen, if they can be called that, in Haiti were the
ones who built the airstrip where the drug runners were able to come in
and bring their dope into Haiti to be shipped out to America and other
places. These places on the globe that we are discussing are the
locations for the transshipment of drugs right into the United States.
The Congressional Black Caucus has made it absolutely clear that
getting rid of drug trafficking and drugs is our number one priority.
We do not take kindly to those who would call us do-gooders because we
have decided that there must be, at some point in time, a real war on
drugs.
Are Members not tired of the failure of this government to deal with
drugs and the drugs that enter this country? Are Members not tired of
the relationships we have with the Noriegas of the world? These become
our partners in crime. Whether it is Noriega or Cedras or Francois,
they were all supported by our government while they were dealing dope
into our communities.
We are sick and tired of you simply going out on the street corners
of America locking up these young black and Latino males, and even
white, with small amounts of drugs. We want to stop drugs and the big
dope dealers, and those who are allowing their countries to be
transshipment points to bring drugs into the United States. You cannot
defend Noriega and Cedras and these graduates of the School of the
Americas. These are dope dealers who we embraced, that we trained and
sent back.
What is wrong with the School of the Americas? Once they make the
contact in this country they become our leaders. They become the people
we rely on.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we train them and we send them back. Then
we rely on them. We support them. Guess what? Members cannot be
concerned about drug dealing and drug trafficking as long as they are
supporting the very ones who are dealing the dope back to us.
When are we going to be serious about a war on drugs? Yes, we may be
do-gooders over here, but we are do-gooders who are challenging Members
to wake up and smell the roses and stop this nonsense, and get about
the business of getting rid of drug traffickers. Get rid of the work
and manuals and training of the School of the Americas, and that will
go a long way toward getting rid of the real dope dealers in this
hemisphere.
I challenge Members today to stop the nonsense of defense of a school
that you can no longer defend. How can Members get up on the floor year
in and year out and say they are going to do better, leave them alone
for now, give them the American taxpayers' dollars.
It is shameful, it is unconscionable, and Members need to stop it and
support this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, while I have great respect for all of the opponents as
well as the proponents of this amendment, let me say that most of the
debate is not taking place on what the true issue is. I do not think
there is anyone in this entire House, this entire body, that condones
human rights violations. I do not think there is a single person on
either side of this aisle or either side of this debate that agrees
with some of the atrocities that took place.
That is not the point. The point is because some people who are
opposed to the School of the Americas today have brought to the
attention of this body some misdoings, some wrongdoings that have taken
place as a result of some of the graduates returning to their countries
and creating some atrocities, no, no, we do not condone that, nor will
we ever condone that.
The point is, we are now trying to educate, and this Congress and
this subcommittee has dispatched people to the school, to Central
America, to South America, to make absolutely certain that they are
taught to respect human rights. When these graduates return, the
percentile in the high nineties do exactly what we envision that they
would do. They go back and they make themselves leaders in their
communities. They respect human rights as a result of the education
they have received at Fort Benning.
So the debate is not over whether or not we ought to continue
teaching people to go back and commit atrocities, because that is not
the debate. That is over with. The Secretary of Defense must confirm to
the Congress before he can spend one dime that they are not going to
teach anybody to go back and to do harm to any individual.
I took our subcommittee to Armenia and to Azerbaijan and to Georgia
and to Turkey. On the way back we had conversations about, how
fortunate we are in this hemisphere. We have wars that are taking place
between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and happily they are at peace right
now, trying to work out an agreement. We have problems in Cyprus, we
have problems in the Middle East, we have problems in Africa, problems
in Bosnia, but not one war is taking place in this entire hemisphere.
So we are working ourselves into a position of a peaceful community,
where human rights are respected by all people.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the gentleman. There
is a war going on in this hemisphere. Is the gentleman not aware of
what is going on in Mexico? Is he not aware of the drug wars that are
going on? Is he not aware of the war that is going on against our young
people in our neighborhoods and our American cities?
I want to tell the gentleman, this is the war. The war is drug
trafficking in this hemisphere that is killing thousands of people,
that is causing our prisons to explode, that is causing people to be
shot down on the streets of America.
It may not be, in the gentleman's estimation, sir, a war, but this is
the most devastating kind of war. This is the worst kind of war. It is
the kind of war that we are going to have to come to grips with and
begin to see it as a war. As long as we think we are lucky----
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the

[[Page H6747]]

gentlewoman's concern. The definition of war is maybe something we
could debate one afternoon when we have more time. The debate that is
taking place today is whether or not we are going to fund the School of
the Americas.
When we have the President of the United States who sends me a
message and tells me, Mr. Chairman, will you please continue to fund
this; when we have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who calls
me and says, do whatever you can possibly do, because this will help to
create a peace, this will help to solve the war on drugs that the
gentlewoman is talking about; and when we have Mack McLarty call, all
of these very distinguished people that the President of the United
States has placed in a position of responsibility, pleading with me, a
Republican, ``Sonny, go over there and convince your colleagues to
continue to fund this school, because we have corrected every problem
that they contend existed. They have made great progress. We have done
everything this Congress has suggested that we do with respect to this
school.''
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Callahan was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have done every conceivable thing we
can do to ensure that we do not permit any educational process that
would lend to the availability of people going back to their country
and creating any human rights violation.
Certainly, God forbid, even the University of Alabama, one of the
greatest educational institutions in the world, has graduated some
people, probably far below the national standard when we consider
Alabama and California, but nevertheless, we, too, have probably
graduated some people who have gone on to perform some heinous acts,
but we do not close down the university.
Some of our educational institutions that we revere, such as our
academies, have had some problems. When they had their problems, did we
say, close down the institution? No, we said, correct the problems.
That is precisely what the President of the United States has done.
That is precisely what the professionals in Georgia have done. They
have corrected it. They are not teaching these subjects that these
people are referring to. We are doing it in a positive manner.
I know we have not resolved all the wars on poverty, all of the wars
on crime, all of the wars on narcotics, but we are moving in the right
direction, because we are bringing these people to America, we are
teaching them the value of human rights, of civil rights, of free
elections. We are instructing them how to go back and be leaders in
their community, and we are doing it with the only vehicle we have, and
that is the School of the Americas.
Mr. Chairman, I would plead with my colleagues to go along with their
Commander in Chief, to go along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
to go along with all of the people in the administration that have
written to us telling us all of these problems have been addressed, we
are moving in the right direction. Let us preserve the perceived peace
that we have in this hemisphere.

{time} 1600

Let us not turn into a hemisphere of wars. Let us educate our allies,
our friends in this hemisphere. Let us continue this school, teaching
democracy, teaching human rights, teaching men and women how to go back
to their respective countries and to be great citizens.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me make it absolutely clear that if the
President of the United States wrote to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan], called, and insisted on funding the School of the Americas,
then I am opposed to the President and the President is wrong.
Let me make it abundantly clear that if Mr. McCaffrey called, he
should be the first one to understand that it is a war. His life just
got threatened when he was down in Mexico among the drug traffickers
who sent him a message in no uncertain terms. I think he knows it is a
war now.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Torres amendment and commend
him for his leadership, as well as the leadership of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for his leadership, on this important
issue. I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] for
bringing this amendment to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard all different points of view about
versions of the story of our interpretation of what the School of the
Americas has accomplished. Whatever good it has done, it seems that it
is more than just a coincidence that some of the worst violators of
human rights in this hemisphere were educated at that school.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan],
our chairman, has made a very fine effort in the legislation to
recognize that there is a problem that still exists at the School of
the Americas, and I was very pleased to hear the gentleman say in his
remarks that not one dime could be spent on the School of the Americas
unless the Secretary of Defense confirmed certain things, which I would
like to read into the Record, because I believe it is time for us to
understand what the choice is before us today.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, just to briefly say that not only is it
in the Record, but if this bill passes as it is written, it is in the
bill, in the bill on page 29 where it requires that before any money
can be spent in violation of any of the efforts that my colleagues are
contending, that the President must certify that it is not going to be
used. It requires further that the Department of Defense do exactly the
same thing.
So, we have for the first time in history in our bill, under title II
on page 29, implemented into law the prohibitions against the teaching
of anything that would lead to any type of atrocity.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman making that statement and for the work that the gentleman did
to get that language in the bill. But I repeat again that that language
in the bill recognizes that there is a problem. To those who say,
``What is the problem?'' There is a problem.
Because of the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama, the bill
says that,

None of the funds appropriated under this heading may be
made available to support grant-financed military education
and training at the School of the Americas unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that the instruction and
training provided by the School of the Americas is fully
consistent with training and doctrine, particularly with
respect to the observance of human rights.
Further, that 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 the
instruction at the School of the Americas; and, further, that
the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committee on
Appropriations a report detailing the training activities of
the School of the Americas and the general assessment
regarding the performance of its graduates during 1996.

The reason I part company with my chairman at this point is because
we had the request for this study in last year's bill and,
unfortunately, it took a great deal of time for us to get the report
back to our committee. Indeed, it did not even show up until the day
our subcommittee was meeting, and I think that that was long overdue.
We asked for a report on ethics to correct the problems. The report
sat in DOD for months and was delivered the day of our subcommittee
markup. The report itself failed miserably to address our concerns
about the school.
Mr. Chairman, this leaves me no choice but to support this amendment.
I say that with a great deal of respect for our colleagues on both
sides of this issue. I do want to call to the attention of our
colleagues that a problem exists and that this solution that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] is advancing is a reasonable
one. It takes the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan] one step further.

[[Page H6748]]

Mr. Chairman, I call this to my colleagues's attention. It is a
letter from the Jesuit Conference. The Jesuit Conference calls for the
closing of the School of the Americas. It does so because it says:

Jesuits know all too personally the violence perpetrated by
graduates of the School of the Americas. In 1989 six Jesuits,
their housekeeper and her daughter were murdered on the
campus of the Jesuit University in El Salvador. Nineteen of
the Salvadoran officers whom the United Nations cited for
these murders were graduates of the School of the Americas.
This is a celebrated case. However, the death and
disappearance of hundreds of ordinary civilians, such as
those of the village of El Mozote in Salvador--

And I visited that location myself.

Overwhelm our consciences and elicit outrage at the
impunity of the School of the Americas graduates. Their
families silently know, better than we, the effects of State
sanctioned terror.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I agree with the statement in the Jesuits'
letter that it is time to send a strong message that the United States
will no longer sanction or tolerate militaries which declare war upon
their own civilian populations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the point is that the Jesuits are calling
for the closing of the School of the Americas. The gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is asking for a study, a good faith request for
a study and certification. The gentleman from California [Mr. Torres]
splits the difference, and I think it is a very wise proposal.
The amendment of the gentleman from California just cuts off the
funding that is in this legislation. The School of the Americas
receives about $4 million from the U.S. Congress. As the Chairman
knows, $1.2 million comes out of foreign operations and the rest out of
the DOD appropriations bill.
This is not about closing the School of the Americas. This is about
cutting off this funding. It is about sending a strong message that
when we ask for a report, we want it in a timely fashion and we want it
to be appropriate.
I look forward to visiting, at the invitation of Mr. Collins and Mr.
Bishop, the School of the Americas to impress upon them that Congress
does, as the gentleman from Alabama says, universally support human
rights; that we do not associate ourselves with or condone any of the
atrocities that have been performed by people who are graduates of the
School of the Americas, but that indeed the terms that the chairman put
forth in this bill are terms that we expect to be met.
Mr. Chairman, this is what we did last year and they did not come
through. That is what made the Torres amendment necessary. So the
choice that our colleagues have is the status quo, which I believe is
unacceptable and unsatisfactory in light of the response that we
received, or better yet did not receive from the School of the
Americas, and even a better solution than calling for the closing of
the School of the Americas. This is a compromise. This is a smart
approach to it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And I
say in good faith to my colleagues, I look forward to joining them to
visit the School of the Americas to help in any way that we can to
promote the education of people who will promote human rights in this
hemisphere.
Indeed, even if the school were to be closed, there are many other
institutions where military can be trained to promote human rights
values and other democratic freedoms. Mr. Chairman, with that I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, let's decide here and now what we are
going to teach the world.
We have so much to say. For little more than two centuries, we have
shown the world the way to true democracy and most of the world has
followed. In Denver, last month, our President had the opportunity to
show the world's economic leaders the way to the economic boom we are
enjoying.
That's the central message that our School of the Americas should be
teaching.
I am one who believes that instead of the enduring message of the
School of the Americas, we should be helping our Latin American
neighbors follow the course of Oscar Arias and Costa Rica, where the
people there live safely, securely, and economically prosperous with no
military, with no military. I am concerned that this school, as it is
constituted, encourages a culture of growing militarism instead of
growing economies. Some of the students of nations of this school
simply cannot afford its persistent lesson. I am one who believes that,
when resources are scarce, we should be making more butter, rather than
buying more guns. But I respect our disagreement on this issue.
But of course, our neighbors in Latin America are sovereign nations
and it is within their province and power to decide on their own
security needs and military training needs. It is good policy, then, to
have a modest program to help their militaries professionalize and be
respectful of human rights. The School for the Americas is not
achieving that policy.
The lessons we taught in the baddest of bad old days of the School of
the Americas--terrorism, torture, and strong-arm police tactics--were
exactly the wrong ones for our hemisphere. Despite the laudable
improvements of our chairman in the bill, I remain convinced that this
school has no place in the Americas.
Yes, there have been improvements, but not enough.
The school still holds 47 weeks of courses on things like
psychological operations, commando missions, and battle tactics, but
added only two 2-hour lectures on human rights. When our subcommittee
asked for a report on how the school screens applicants and monitors
graduates, the school showed its disrespect with a meager 3-page report
that was 6 months late.
The Torres-Yates-Foglietta amendment proposes to delete the bill's
$815 million for the school. If we want to teach the right message to
help professionalize their militaries, let's focus on that mission, and
also help them grow their economies and fortify their democracies and
teach the sanctity of human rights.
So, as I said at the beginning, we can decide today what America will
teach the world, what message our people have to send to our neighbors.
The mission of this school has flunked. Support the Torres-Yates-
Foglietta amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, many of the abuses in Latin
America can be traced back to graduates of the School of the Americas.
The opposition has circulated dear colleagues highlighting quotes
from several Latin American officials, but we have also heard from the
people. Their voices are smaller and their speeches not as polished,
but these are the people who have suffered from this scandalous school
and they deserve to be heard.
The fact that there are provisions that call for the Secretary of
Defense's approval should not make us feel secure but suspect.
I would hope that we would only fund 50-year-old programs that have
already proven themselves, not ones that need special scrutiny.
We spend billions of dollars on our defense interests, and when that
money is used to keep our military strong and our troops safe, it is
money well spent. But we mock our brave men and women in uniform who
work for peace and justice in our world when we spend even one penny on
this scandal.
The school is not a creative solution to downsizing our military and
it is more than just a waste of taxpayer dollars. Many graduates have
been involved in some of the most brutal atrocities in Latin America
and it is a national disgrace and a blotch on our military history.
If we are to support democracy we must stop the killing of those
people whose welfare we claim to support and the School of the Americas
must fall into the oblivion it so richly deserves.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, 50 years ago, the U.S. Army School of the
Americas opened its doors in Panama to a class of Latin American and
Caribbean military officers to receive training in the art of war.
Half a century later it's time to shut the school down.
Last September, the Pentagon revealed what activists opposed to the
school have been alleging for years--that foreign military officers
were taught to torture and murder to achieve their political
objectives.
According to the Pentagon's own excerpts, School of the Americas
students were advised to imprison those from whom they were seeking
information; to ``involuntarily'' obtain information from those
sources--in other words, torture them; to arrest their parents; to use
``motivation by fear''; pay bounties for enemy dead; execute opponents;
subvert the press; and use torture, blackmail, and even injections of
truth serum to obtain information.
These tactics come right out of an SS manual and have no place in a
civilized society. They certainly have no place in any course taught
with taxpayer dollars on U.S. soil by members of our own military.
These practices, which as we know too well have, in fact, been used
by graduates of the School of the Americas, are part of a totalitarian
playbook. They show complete disregard for the rule of human law and
violate every tenet of basic human rights.

[[Page H6749]]

Yet nowhere in this report was there any apology for the horrific
misdeeds tied to this training.
Nor was there any mention of the poor--any mention of all those who
have suffered so much at the hands of those who were taught to torture
and murder by elements within our own Government.
What about Archbishop Oscar Romero, gunned down in cold blood by SOA
graduates because he stood up for the powerless against the powerful?
What about the Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her daughter,
murdered in El Salvador because their hope for the poor clashed with
the interests of dictators? What about the four Ursuline nuns, ravaged
and mutilated and thrown into a ditch for the crime of teaching
children to read? What about the children at El Mozote--machine gunned
by School of Americas alumni for the sin of living in the wrong place
at the wrong time?
These manuals are the smoking gun. They provide direct evidence that
the school has not only failed to serve its mission, but has subverted
its mission.
It's time to close down the School of the Americas.
Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Torres
amendment, which would help us close the U.S. Army School of the
Americas once and for all.
The School of the Americas has taught some of the most ruthless
dictators in Latin America to torture their opponents, censor the
press, and intimidate their citizens. It must be shut down. But the
issue of what to do with the School of the Americas goes well beyond
the deplorable actions of the school, and right to the heart of U.S.
foreign policy.
The question before us today is whether the United States has the
moral responsibility to encourage other governments to respect human
rights and democracy. Are human rights and democracy just catch phrases
we use, or are they basic principles that we demand of every nation?
We must demand human rights and democracy--in name and in practice--
from our own military and all of our neighbors. That is why the School
of the Americas is an affront to everything that U.S. foreign policy
should be about. That is why we must close this school.
Fifty years ago, the School of the Americas was opened with the goal
of improving U.S. ties to Latin American militaries. The idea was to
educate our neighbors to the South about democratic civilian control of
the military. But over the last few decades, we started to hear reports
of what was actually being taught there. Words like torture, beating,
and execution were increasingly being associated with the school's
courses.
Then some of the school's more distinguished graduates started to
turn up in high positions in Latin American governments. People like
Panama's drug-dealing dictator Manuel Noriega--now serving time in a
United States prison on a drug conviction--and Roberto D'Aubuisson, who
organized many of El Salvador's notorious death squads.
In response, many of us have been calling for the school to be shut
down and for disclosure of the school's curriculum. Well, we got our
second wish last year. In September 1996, the U.S. Army released
portions of a training manual used at the school during the 1980's. The
manual revealed what we have suspected all along: Latin American
military officers were taught to intimidate, torture, and kill to
achieve their political objectives.
According to the Pentagon itself, School of the Americas students
were taught to imprison and execute their opponents. To use motivation
by fear. To subvert the press. And to use torture, blackmail, and truth
serum to obtain information.
This is unacceptable. U.S. foreign policy should not promote these
tactics. And they have no place in a school funded by our tax dollars
and taught by U.S. instructors on U.S. soil.
The United States stands for democracy and respect for individual
rights. Its foreign policy must always be conducted with a commitment
to these principles. The School of the Americas violated this
fundamental tenet. It is time to close down the school for good.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TORRES. 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. Torres] will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:

SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING COSTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR
PEACE PROGRAM AND NATO EXPANSION

Sec. 572. It is the sense of the Congress that all member
nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
should contribute their proportionate share to pay for the
costs of the Partnership for Peace program and for any future
costs attributable to the expansion of NATO.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Stearns] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] that simply, frankly, expresses the
sense of Congress that all member countries of NATO should be
responsible for paying their fair share for the cost of the Partnership
for Peace Program and to future NATO expansion.
Mr. Chairman, let me read my amendment specifically just for those
Members who wish it to be clarified. It says that, ``It is the sense of
Congress that all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) should contribute their proportionate share to pay
for the costs of the Partnership for Peace program and for any future
costs attributable to the expansion of NATO.''
Mr. Chairman, many of us are concerned with recent statements by Mr.
Chirac of France that his nation would be unwilling to contribute to
the expansion of NATO. Now, as all my colleagues know, NATO agreed to
invite Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the organization
last week in Spain. Mr. Chirac is apparently upset that the nations of
Romania and Slovenia will not yet be admitted into NATO and is,
therefore, threatening not to pay for this current expansion.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is our responsibility to send Mr. Chirac
and our NATO allies in Europe a strong message that they must pay their
proportionate share of the defense of Europe. If they do not, the
Congress must look at various options in response. One option would be
refusing the reentry of France into NATO's unified military command
structure, from which France unilaterally withdrew in 1966.
Or perhaps we should adhere to a cap in spending on NATO expansion,
as other Members have suggested. Congress may even debate whether we
should force nations that do not pay for the current expansion to incur
all the costs for the next round of NATO expansion.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, whatever we choose to do in the future,
I believe this is a good amendment for right now that will send a clear
message to certain European allies in NATO that Congress will not allow
the United States to continue paying a larger share of Europe's
defense, while other nations opt out of contributing their fair share.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be a coauthor with the
gentleman from Florida on this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman's
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers have been paying for the
protection of the free world and there was a time when that was
absolutely necessary. But we have rebuilt most of Europe; we brought
Japan back to its feet. Every time there is a problem, there is a phone
call, 9-1-1 and America sends our young people over to fight and our
dollars and our American Express card.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Europe and NATO members in this
expansion should not only pay their fair share, they should be paying
the bulk of it. We are the major support for freedom and we, in fact,
ensure that freedom through a tremendous military appropriation.
So I stand strong for this, but I just want to tell my colleagues
that it is the sense of the Congress.
Now, at some point I am going to offer a very simple amendment that
will either be stricken by a point of

[[Page H6750]]

order or it will have to be defeated. But the amendment that I plan to
offer in conjunction with the efforts here of the gentleman from
Florida will say that none of the funds in this act may be used to pay
for NATO expansion not authorized by law.
Unless there would be some existing law that would authorize the use
of the funds, there could not be an appropriation account that could be
created to provide NATO expansion funds.
Mr. Chairman, that could be a little controversial and I do not want
to do that. But my people have paid taxes all these years and we keep
having all of these accounts, billions and billions of dollars. I think
it is time that these countries who benefit from our taxpayers'
commitments start to pay their fair share.
So, Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Florida, and I am
proud to be associated with the gentleman.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the substance of
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. I
would note, however, that this authorization language should not even
be in our bill. But since the amendment was made in order under the
rule, I will accept his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

{time} 1615

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida [Mr. Stearns] will be postponed.

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

Amendment No. 79 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds in this Act may be used to pay
for NATO Expansion not authorized by law.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is the exact language that was
placed in the defense appropriations bill. There is not a chairman of
the House that I have any more respect for. And when I offered this
amendment originally, the bill was to have been scheduled on a
particular day and it had not been printed in the Record at that time.
I printed it in the Record in a timely manner, and it was printed in
the Record, and I guess we will have to now debate the germaneness and
whether or not it is subject to a point of order.
It is straightforward, as it was in the defense appropriations bill.
It should not be controversial. This appropriations bill has taken
pains to try and remove authorization from, in fact, its line item.
The Traficant amendment basically says none of the funds in this bill
may be used to pay for NATO expansion not authorized by law. This does
not tie the hands of the appropriators. The appropriators could provide
whatever money is necessary, but that money that is provided must have
been authorized by law. If it was not authorized by law, that
appropriation cannot appear.
I would like to talk some business about NATO here. We talk a good
game about NATO. Members go home and campaign about all the money our
taxpayers are putting into NATO and how we have got to stop that and
let everybody else pay their own way. But when we come down to the real
fine print of the law, we continue to leave open an opportunity for
funds to go for NATO expansion.
This is, in my opinion, a strict appropriations bill. It is germane.
It is the right thing to do. If it is authorized by law, we can give it
all the money that you want.
I want to say one other thing: We collect taxes from hard-working
people. We are paying for troops that are stationed all over the world,
falling out of chairs without armrests, regarding borders in Bosnia and
the Middle East.
We just had a debate on the war on drugs. We have got open borders in
America. We have yet to in fact have a reasonable military program and
a responsible drug program in this country. But when we are talking
about NATO expansion, I will go along with what the rule of Congress
is, but I would say this to the distinguished chairman of the
authorizing committee: What Congress authorizes for NATO expansion
should be what is appropriated for NATO expansion.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order, and I accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] withdraws his
reservation of a point of order.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:

limitation on assistance in india

Sec. 572. Not more than $41,775,000 of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act under
the heading ``Development Assistance'' may be made available
for assistance in India.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment be limited to 15 minutes, divided between an opponent
and proponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have
several speakers on this side who would like to speak for 5 minutes
each. We think we have three. So we think we need 15 minutes on this
side.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will amend my request to say 30 minutes
divided 15 minutes for proponents, 15 minutes for opponents.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding there are two
amendments or one?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
this unanimous consent is on this first amendment, 15 minutes on each
side.
Mr. ACKERMAN. We have three speakers on this side. We have two
Members on the gentleman's side who would like to speak on our time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
may I suggest to the gentleman, could not the Members take 4 minutes
each instead of 5?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, does that apply to the gentleman from
Indiana as well?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the time limitation applies to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] as well. If he wants to take all of
it, he can take all of it.
Mr. PALLONE. My question, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, is whether the speakers who are speaking against the
gentleman from Indiana's amendment would be taking up the time on our

[[Page H6751]]

side as opposed to the time on the gentleman's side?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, it would determine who yielded time to
them.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, what we need on our side for our Members
is 15 minutes on each amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in light of that and in light of the
congressional schedule with the House going in at 5 p.m., I think that
it is only appropriate that we take up one of the Burton amendments
today if we are going to have a time constraint at 15 minutes, half an
hour or 15 minutes; or why do we not just go under the 5-minute rule
until 5 p.m. and end at a time certain?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of it is in order that we
could get through today with the debate on the Burton amendments, then
leave tomorrow only the Smith and the Gilman amendments for debate.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's goal and I
think that is a good try, but clearly there is more interest in the
Burton amendments, and it appears that with the interest we are only
going to be able to get through one amendment if we are going to abide
by the House schedule of going back in at 5 p.m., so we will have one
more amendment tomorrow if Mr. Burton decides to offer it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent is then 20 minutes
on each side, and then if there is an objection, there is an objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection,
20 minutes on each side on each amendment, 20 minutes on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve
the right to object or does he withdraw his reservation?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman says ``on our side,'' I
understand there are several Republican Members who want to speak
against the amendment. If that 20 minutes is limited to everyone who
wants to speak against the amendment, we probably do not have enough
time, unless I am missing something.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we have two on this side that I know of.
How many does the gentleman have on that side?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have three that we know of.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, so we could do it in 25 minutes, 4 minutes
each. We could do it in 20 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Would the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Burton be limited
by those same restraints as the rest of the Members of the House of
Representatives?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I think the Rules of the House
on division of time, like this is, the proponents and the opponents
have an equal amount of time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to work it out equitably so
that we can accommodate everybody who would like to speak.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has five Members
against one. I think that is fair odds. But I do not want to give up
time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure there are others who would like
to agree with the gentleman.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has withdrawn
the request.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I read Cyrano de Bergerac as a
boy. And when I read Cyrano de Bergerac, at one point in the play he is
challenged by what he thought were 100 of the opponents. He was in the
bakery shop and his friends came in. There were 100 of the enemy trying
to kill his friends. And he said he thought the lovely Roxanne was in
love with him. And he pulled out his sword and he ran to the door and
said, only a 100. I do not mind if it is five or ten of my colleagues
against me, as long as we have a fair distribution of the time. I feel
kind of honored that I would be put in the same category as Cyrano de
Bergerac.
Let me get to the point of the debate, talking about on this
particular issue.
Mr. Chairman, we talk about tragedies and human rights violations all
over the world. Right now, in the news today, they were talking about
digging up possibly hundreds, maybe thousands of bodies in Bosnia. And
that is a tragedy. That is something we should be very concerned about
because human rights violations, wherever they occur, should be brought
to the attention of the world and should be stopped.
We reprimand China for its draconian abortion policies and we
threaten to stop international military and educational training, IMET,
from Indonesia for abuses in East Timor. We talk about the struggles in
Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia that I just alluded to. We even criticize
longstanding allies like Turkey for its treatment of its Kurdish
citizens without addressing the brutal murders carried out by the PKK,
a Kurdish Marxist terrorist organization.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is one human rights issue that
continues to escape the attention of this administration and this
country and some Members of the Congress and especially the media. And
that issue involves India and its human rights abuses and the
violations against the Sikhs and the Kashmiris and the Christians in
Nagaland and the plight of the untouchables, the lowest caste in
India's caste system.
Mr. Chairman, the Indian Government is one of the world's worst human
rights abusers. You may ask, if that is true, why does not the world
know? It is because Amnesty International and the International Red
Cross is not allowed into the places where they are perpetrating these
atrocities.

{time} 1630

In Punjab, in Kashmir, in Nagaland. Let me just tell my colleagues,
since 1947, over 200,000 Christians have been killed in Nagaland. I
know it is horrible what is going on in Bosnia, and what has gone on in
Bosnia. But 200,000 Christians have been killed since 1947 by the
Indian Government and their troops in Nagaland since 1947. A quarter of
a million, 250,000 Sikhs, have been killed in Punjab between 1984 and
1992, and more since then. Those are the latest numbers we have that we
think are accurate. Fifty-three thousand Muslims have been killed in
Kashmir since 1988.
For the past 15 years, I have been coming to this well to call
attention to Punjab, where the Indian military receives cash bounties
for the slaughter of innocent children and, to justify their action,
these people are labeled terrorists, these kids. According to our own
State Department, the United States State Department, India paid over
41,000 cash bounties to police for killing innocent people from 1991 to
1993 alone. Also in Punjab, Sikhs are picked up in the middle of the
night only to be found floating dead in canals with their hands and
feet bound together, and there is documentation to that fact, and many
are never found.
Recently India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the CBI, told the
Supreme Court that it had confirmed nearly 1,000 cases of unidentified
bodies that were cremated by their military. They just happened to find
1,000 bodies and burned them up. Where did they come from? I submit
they came from the same source that I was talking about just a moment
ago, from the Indian troops in Kashmir and Punjab and Nagaland.
It does not get any better in Kashmir. Women, because of their Muslim
beliefs, are taken out of their homes in the middle of the night and
are gang-raped by Indian troops while their husbands are forced to stay
in the House at gunpoint. This is a fact. This is not just me talking.
It is a fact.
It was hoped that the new government in Delhi and Punjab would stop
the repression which the Indian Supreme Court describes as worse than a
genocide. The Indian Supreme Court

[[Page H6752]]

describes what is going on as worse than a genocide.
Mr. Chairman, opponents will say that the recent election in Punjab
of a Sikh-dominated coalition and the fact that an untouchable is now
the President of India is evidence of the new democratic process. But I
can tell my colleagues that this new government in Punjab is closely
aligned with the authoritarian Prime Minister Gudjaral of India and
India's untouchable President is merely a figurehead.
Mr. Chairman, would democracies continue the rampant campaign of
genocide? There are 550,000 troops, Indian troops in Punjab and 550,000
Indian troops in Kashmir.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, people are afraid to go outside
at night and they worry about that knock on the door that we remember
back during the horrible perils of Hitler in World War II when the Jews
were taken out in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. That
is going on today in Punjab and Kashmir and Nagaland in India. It is
not the Indian people. We are not taking issue with the Indian people.
It is the repressive policies of the Indian military and the Indian
government.
On July 12, 1997, just about a month ago, a month and a half, in
Bombay, 33 Dalits, those are called black untouchables that I would say
to my friends in the Black Caucus, they ought to listen to this, black
untouchables, were killed by the Indian police during demonstrations.
Thirty-three of them were killed. On July 8, 1997, 36 people were
killed in a train bombing in Punjab and 2 ministers of the Punjab
government have blamed the Punjab police. The bombing occurred a day
after 9 policemen were convicted of murder. Nine policemen were
convicted of murder a day after this bombing occurred.
On March 15, 1997, a death squad picked up Kashmir Singh, an
opposition party member. He was thrown in a van, tortured and murdered.
Finally his bullet ridden body was dumped on the roadside. These
military forces operate beyond the law and with complete impunity and
the world does not know because they will not let human rights groups
in there, they will not let the international Red Cross in there, they
will not let TV in there because they do not want the world to see. We
heard about Bosnia, we heard about Somalia, we heard about Ethiopia
when Mengistu was there, but we do not hear about what is going on over
there because they will not let us in.
The Indian lobby has a lot of friends in the Congress who are going
to be their spokesmen today and they will be speaking up for them. I
presume I will be the only one speaking for the people in Kashmir,
Punjab and Nagaland, but I do not mind that. We should not support a
government that condones widespread abuses with our tax dollars. All I
am asking for is to send a signal. Cut 25 percent of the development
aid we are sending to India. We probably should not be sending it there
anyhow, any of it. But at least cut 25 percent to send a very strong
signal that we do not support a government that allows those human
rights abuses to take place.
Mr. Chairman, the Sikhs, the Muslims, the Christians, the
untouchables, and the women of India are desperately looking to this
Congress for help. The time has come for action. It is time for America
to take a stand and to pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has requested $56 million
this year for development aid to India. India already receives $51
million. That means a $4.5 to $5 million increase from last year. My
amendment would not allow more than $42 million to go. That is a 25-
percent cut. That is a fair figure, and it sends a strong signal.
I would like to point out one more thing. We have here a picture, and
this is the latest picture of what is going on in India. This is the
tortured body of an unidentified Sikh. The Indian police have literally
scalped this man. It is a young fellow, the police have seared his body
with a hot iron rod and they cut off his fingers. That is what is going
on today and that is what my colleagues are going to be saying does not
occur. But I am telling Members it is here, it is happening. Women are
being gang-raped in Kashmir because they are Muslim and they know if
they are defiled, they will not be married, because of their religion
and they take them out and gang-rape them and hold their husbands
inside. It is a horrible thing that is going on over there and we keep
giving aid to this country. This country has not been a friend of the
United States in the past. During the cold war they supported the
Soviet Union. They do not vote with us in the United Nations. Yet we
continue to give them support. We ought to send a signal to them, at
least on this one issue. Human rights violations, for God's sake,
should not be tolerated anyplace in the world, and it is going on by
the hundreds of thousands over there. We need to send them a signal.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the gentleman from Indiana, asked
the question, who will speak for the people who are the victims of
violence in Punjab and Kashmir and other places. Let me assure the
gentleman that I do and we all do because we decry violence and we
decry the abuses of human beings anywhere for any reason. But what the
gentleman seeks to do is to punish an entire nation, the largest
democracy in the world collectively, for random acts of a few that take
place. He brings us one picture and cites hundreds of thousands. How do
we condemn a whole nation because of that? That is nothing but India
bashing, Mr. Chairman. Do we condemn our own Government because people
put a bounty on people's heads in Arizona and people moved in and
murdered them? Is that the fault of the whole American Government and
the American people?
I would like to cite an article that appeared in the Hill newspaper.
It is a quote by a gentleman of the House who shows an unbelievable
amount of understanding when talking about the Government of Turkey and
he says, ``When you have military conflicts,'' and the gentleman here
is talking about insurgencies taking place against existing
governments, he says, ``When you have military conflicts, you're bound
to have unfortunate things happen,'' he said. Continuing the quote,
``People get killed, they're bombed and shot. These things happen,'' he
said understandingly and justified, ``incidental and anecdotal things
that happen during these times of conflict.'' Who was the gentleman who
said that, so understanding of the Government of Turkey? It is the very
same gentleman from Indiana who just took the well and offered this
amendment. How can he justify it in the case of one country and oppose
it when it comes to another country?
The gentleman offers up four amendments. Dr. Alukh mysteriously
appears in the Halls of the House, in the gallery, it happens each and
every time, and the India bashing begins. This, Mr. Chairman, is
totally unacceptable. This is not the way two great democracies view
each other or treat each other. The gentleman complains of human rights
abuses, but he ignores the genuine progress that India has made on this
question. According to the State Department report which he only quotes
in part, it says ``India made further progress in resolving human
rights problems.'' The same report notes that newspapers and magazines
``regularly publish investigative reports and allegations of government
wrongdoing, and the press as a whole champions human rights and
criticizes'' whenever there is a government lapse. Beyond this, the
Indian Government has appointed a National Human Rights Commission with
powers to investigate and to recommend policy changes and punishment
and compensation in cases of incidental police abuse wherever it might
happen to take place. Again in the State Department report that the
gentleman quoted only in part, ``The NHRC continued to enlarge its
useful role in addressing the patterns of abuse, as well as specific
abuses.''
In particular, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is concerned
about human rights in the states of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. Last
year there was an election in Punjab where 65 percent of the eligible
voters turned out in a Sikh-dominated government. This is the very
minority that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]

[[Page H6753]]

claims the Indian Government oppresses. There were also elections in
Kashmir which restored elected government there for the first time in 6
years.
I think, Mr. Chairman, what we have discovered, with the unwitting
help of the gentleman from Indiana, is that India is a fully
functioning, mature democracy with a free press, with civilian control
of the military, with an independent judiciary, and very active
political parties and civic associations. It seems to me that the
oldest democracy in the world should not be sanctioning the largest.
That is not the way democracies treat each other.
In addition to India's thriving democratic institutions, the current
united front government led by Prime Minister Gudjaral has pledged, as
has the finance minister with whom the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman] and myself met with only a week ago, has pledged to continue
the economic reforms of the past 6 years. These reforms have provided
enormous opportunities for United States business and, in fact, the
United States is now India's largest overseas investor, its biggest
trading partner and its preferred source of high-technology.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a deliberate and specific attempt to
stigmatize India at a point where the relationship between the world's
two great democracies has flowered. I urge all of my colleagues to
stand and to defeat this amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to the comments by the gentleman from
Indiana. I do not know if he is going to be the only speaker in favor
of the amendment. I certainly hope he is. But if he is the only one, it
is because he is basically giving the House outdated, exaggerated, and
inaccurate information about the situation in India. He said that India
is not a friend of the United States. Just the opposite is true. India
is the world's largest democracy. India, last year, had the largest
democratic election, the largest number of people participating in a
democratic process in the history of the world as far as we know. He
talks about the signal that this might send. What signal is sent by
this body if we were to pass an amendment that chastises the world's
largest democracy, a country that seeks every day to be our friend more
and more, and which at the same time over the last few years has
established a National Human Rights Commission that has been seeking
out any violations of human rights, that has brought people to trial,
that probably now sets an example not only for South Asia and for Asia
but for the rest of the world in terms of its going after and fettering
out human rights violations. It would send a terrible signal to the
rest of the world if this body, the greatest democracy in the world, if
this House of Representatives, were to chastise India for the things
that it has accomplished in the last few years.
I just want to say, in the past the gentleman from Indiana has
criticized India on human rights. Let me give my colleagues some
information. The independent National Human Rights Commission with
unprecedented powers has been in operation now for 3 years. Some of the
members have been here to talk to us as Members of our House of
Representatives. The commission has been lauded by many international
agencies, including our own State Department, for its aggressiveness
and independence. The chairman of India's National Human Rights
Commission has met with representatives of Asia Watch, Amnesty
International and the International Red Cross. The steps taken by India
to remedy human rights problems is far superior to any of the efforts
of India's neighbors, in particular, Pakistan and China which I think
the gentleman from Indiana mentioned.

{time} 1645

Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana is suggesting that his
amendment would put pressure on the Government of India to improve its
record on human rights. In fact, if this amendment were to become law,
it would greatly reduce America's ability to positively influence the
Indian Government in any way. Punitive measures like this amendment
only serve to isolate the Indian Government, give aid and comfort to
political forces in India who oppose closer ties with the United
States, and ultimately set back the process of political and economic
reform in India.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that this debate over human rights in
India is focusing entirely on one side of the issue, and what is lost
is the fact that terrorist organizations operating within India's
borders pose a constant ongoing threat to peace, stability and, yes, to
human rights.
Militant separatist groups often operate with no accountability.
Calling themselves freedom fighters, these organizations reserve onto
themselves the right to strike at civilian targets in India with
impunity. Furthermore, many of the militant organizations receive
support, both moral and financial, as well as arms and training, from
other nations, specifically Pakistan which has frequently been linked
to terrorist organizations in India in a direct attempt to destabilize
its neighbor, and under these conditions imposing punishment by this
House on the Government of India will have the unmistakable effect of
encouraging and emboldening these groups which seek by violent means to
pursue their separatist agenda. This is not the type of behavior that
this House of Representatives should be condoning.
I visited India earlier this year, Mr. Chairman, and I had the
opportunity to see firsthand why this amendment would be a disaster.
First, my colleague from New York [Mr. Ackerman] talked about the
situation in the Indian State of Punjab. Earlier this year the people
of Punjab held elections in which the Sikh-dominated Akali Dal Party
was swept into power. Voter turnout was 67 percent, better than we
generally do here in the United States in most of our elections.
In the Punjabi capital of Chandigarh, I met with the newly elected
Chief Minister of the State of Punjab, Mr. Prakash Singh Badal. He is a
staunch defender of the Sikh people, but he is also deeply committed to
working within India's democratic political system to advocate the
political, economic, and social interests of his state and of the Sikh
people.

He expressed his rejection of the separatist movement which has
caused so much violence in recent years. His governing coalition
includes a predominantly Hindu party, an indication that the Indian
people want to work across ethnic and religious lines for the
betterment of their entire society. This is the reality in today's
Punjab. This is the reality in today's India. Everyone is working
together to try to improve the situation. Human rights violations are
being fettered out.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana's statements are not based
on the accurate information of India today.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the people of India have just
celebrated their 50th anniversary of independence and democracy. It
takes a special effort for Americans to imagine when our democracy was
only 50 years old and the great hurdles we had to overcome to perfect
our legal, political, economic, and social system.
India today is the world's largest democracy--950 million people.
India is a multireligious, multiethnic society actively seeking to
build a common national identity and overcome religious and ethnic
conflict. In that half century India has struggled to overcome the
legacy of feudalism followed by colonialism and all of the problems of
underdevelopment and unequal development, including problems of
population growth, capital formation, technology development, and
infrastructure. They have shaped all of the basic institutions of a
democratic system including, perhaps most significantly, many
independent, nongovernmental institutions and organizations dedicated
to involving and empowering people.
I rise here today in support of aid to India. Throughout my public
career, I have worked with the Asian-Indian community.
My strong relationship with the Asian-Indian community in Chicago has
afforded me the opportunity to meet with Indian officials who have
visited Chicago and this interaction has helped me to understand how
important democracy, economic development, and human rights are to
India.
While the cold war no longer exists, our relations with South Asia
must not be tainted by the cold war legacy.

[[Page H6754]]

There is a constant state of tension with neighbors like China and
Pakistan--who have large and powerful militaries. Several states in
India including Punjab and Kashmir have, in essence, been involved in a
low-intensity war involving terrorism with foreign support as evidenced
by the recent bombing of a train in Punjab resulting in 36 deaths.
Despite the difficulties, India has proven that she will not tolerate
violations of democracy and has acted to punish those guilty of
violations of law and to reduce any such violations in the future.
The United States has become India's largest trading partner--now
approaching $9.5 billion per year--and her largest investor. India has
adjusted her tax policies to further encourage trade and has become a
significant player in many fields including computer science.
Yet India is still a country in need of assistance and development
especially in the most underdeveloped regions needing assistance with
health and educational programs. These programs involve financial and
technical support from the United States which is matched by volunteer
equity on the part of the people of India. These program have proven
themselves to be successful in addressing the problems of
underdevelopment and also as powerful instrument of international
understanding, communication, and trust.
It makes sense to continue our commitment to India. India is proving
a success in its economic development and is a role model for other
developing countries. We can take this opportunity now to improve our
foreign policy relations with India. We can illustrate how the United
States is a reliable friend and model.
A vote against India in this House, is not in the best interest of
the United States and its reputation as a world leader. Therefore, I
urge that we oppose any and all amendments that would single out India
for a limitation on development assistance.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Burton
amendment.
Since its independence 50 years ago, India has made tremendous
progress in a number of key areas of United States foreign policy
interest. First of all, it shares with the United States the values and
institutions of free and democratic nations. Just last year, India held
the largest democratic election in world history, an election that was
universally regarded as free and fair, was contested by multiple
political parties, and was scrutinized by an extensive free press.
Since the end of the cold war, India has embarked on an ambitious
program of economic liberalization and market reforms. These reforms
have helped bring the United States and India closer together in a
cooperative spirit and have helped the United States to become India's
largest trading partner.
In addition to progress at home, India also continues to improve its
relations with its neighbors. Over the past year, Prime Minister
Gujral, in an outreach effort begun during his tenure as Minister for
External Affairs, has been at the forefront of initiatives to improve
bilateral relations between India and its neighbors Bangladesh, Nepal,
and Sri Lanka.
There also has been an important breakthrough this year in improving
bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, a major goal of United
States foreign policy in South Asia. In March, the Prime Minister of
each country agreed to resume high-level talks which had been cut off
since 1994. I was pleased that Prime Minister Gujral took the
initiative to embark on such discussions so soon after assuming office.
The two Prime Ministers met during the Asian summit in May of this year
and agreement has already been reached on the establishment of working
groups to explore solutions to the outstanding disputes between the two
countries. Instead of undermining this important progress, U.S. foreign
policy ought to be aimed at extending support for and encouraging the
efforts being made by the prime minister of each nation to seek
solutions to longstanding bilateral disputes.
Far from withdrawing from our growing cooperation and increasingly
improving relations with India, as the Burton amendment would have us
do, now is the time for the United States to deepen its commitment to
strengthening relations between our two countries. As we commemorate
the 50th anniversary of India's independence this year, United States
relations with India should move forward, not backward. I urge all
Members to vote against this amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Burton
amendment, which would limit development assistance to India.
Mr. Speaker, it is 1 year later and we are still fighting the same
fight. We defeated a similar amendment last year by an overwhelming
margin--296 to 127.
I am proud to be a member of the Congressional India Caucus, and was
pleased to travel to India recently.
On August 15, we celebrated India's 50th anniversary of democratic
self rule. Passage of this amendment will have a devastating effect on
the growing relationship between India and the United States.
The United States is now India's largest overseas investor and its
biggest trading partner.
Since 1991, major Fortune 500 companies have invested in India. The
Commerce Department has designated India as one of the most important
``Big Emerging Markets.''
Mr. Speaker, American businesses recognize the importance of a strong
relationship with India.
The gentleman from Indiana appears to have a noble purpose--to focus
the attention of the House on human rights abuses. But despite his
intentions, the amendment will do great harm to the very people it
purports to help.
Yes, India has had problems with human rights in the past. But this
nation--this great democracy--has taken exceptionally strong steps
forward.
In fact, India's Human Rights Commission, headed by a former Supreme
Court Justice, has been hailed by the State Department for its
``significant progress in resolving human rights problems.''
Freezing developmental assistance would hurt the poorest of the poor
in India. The amendment would directly undermine the stated objectives
of India's democratically elected Prime Minister to improve the living
conditions of the country's poorest citizens. And finally, this
amendment would be an enormous blow to United States-Indian relations
at the very moment when we should be strengthening ties between our two
democracies.
Last year, India held a critical and historic election--300 million
people went to the polls in what the New York Times' William Safire
called ``the most breathtaking example of government by people in the
history of the world.''
The world's most populous democracy proved that its most powerful
weapon is the ballot, not the bullet.
We must not pass a punitive anti-India amendment on the heels of this
election.
United States-India relations are strong. American businesses are
flourishing in India.
Let's send the world's most populous democracy the right message.
Let's vote for progress in India.
Let's vote for democracy.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition today to
the amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana. I must admit that I
fail to understand why this esteemed Member, who has not even taken the
time to travel to India to see her progress first hand, insists on
demonizing an important ally.
I was fortunate, over the August recess, to join Chairman Gilman on a
House International Relations Committee Codel to Asia. We were in India
on the 50th anniversary of her independence. I saw first hand India's
thriving democracy, independent, nongovernmental institutions, a
raucous free press, an independent judiciary, a welcoming, albeit
suspicious economic sector, and a friendly, English-speaking people who
are schooled in democratic values and who both value and demand their
personal liberties. I saw a country of almost a billion people
virtually begging for closer ties and friendship with the United
States.
I realize that India is not perfect. I continued to be concerned with
India's nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses, strife in Kashmir,
and the occasional lack of hospitality toward foreign investment and
infrastructure-building projects.
But as I have said many times in the past, we can have more influence
using a carrot with the Indians than with a stick. Considering some of
the other countries in the region with whom we are seeking better ties,
India looks like a bargain to me. Oppose the Burton amendment.
Ms. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rose before this committee over a year
ago and I now stand before you today, once again to strongly urge a
vote against this amendment.
The Burton amendment, whether it freezes, cuts, or caps foreign
assistance to India, is a step in the wrong direction. The new
Government of India is moving at a rapid pace to strengthen its ties
with the United States and the world.
The economic and diplomatic relationship between the United States,
the world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest democracy,
would receive a harmful blow with successful passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Government of India has been on a constant pace of
change since

[[Page H6755]]

1991. The 1996 election featured the world's largest voter turnout,
practically free of violence. The 1997 election featured the victory of
Prime Minister I.K. Gujral, who is of Punjabi descent, the very region
that Mr. Burton claims human rights violations are taking place.
On the subject of the State of Punjab, the Sikh minority dominated
the ruling party in open democratic elections. Voter turnout was 65
percent.
Prime Minister Gujral, in his first month of leadership, engaged in
direct talks with newly elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of
Pakistan. A hotline phone system was established in a commitment to
bring peace to the two nations.
So let us as Members of Congress not view the Government of India as
being callous to these alleged human rights violations. India has made
great strides in their battle to bring together the States of Kashmir,
Jammu, Nagaland, and Punjab.
Recent reports by the U.S. State Department declare that India has
``made further progress in resolving human rights problems.''
It would be false and misdirected to say that India is not our
friend. U.S. business in India has grown at an astonishing rate of
nearly 50 percent a year since 1991, with the United States becoming
India's largest trading partner and largest investor.
As India prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary of democratic
self rule, let us not break the ties that we have so diligently strived
to assemble. Vote ``no'' on the Burton amendment.
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.
Snowbarger) 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.

____________________