[Pages H7946-H8013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 542 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 4569.

{time} 1323

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 consideration of the bill (H.R.
4569) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing,
and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am pleased to open general debate today on H.R. 4569, the fiscal
year 1999 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs
appropriations bill.
This will be the last appropriation bill, Mr. Chairman, for two
distinguished members of our subcommittee and the Committee on
Appropriations. I am speaking of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Yates) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres), who are leaving
after this session of Congress and going on to retirement.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but point out that these two Members have
not only served with distinction on this subcommittee, but with the
entire Congress throughout their careers.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for example, has been a
member of this subcommittee since its inception. He was here when they
debated the Marshall Plan, and he has made a tremendous contribution to
this committee and to the people of the United States and, indeed, the
world, with the many contributions he has made. So I am sure that my
colleagues join with me in expressing our best ever to these two
gentlemen who are retiring and will congratulate them for their
tremendous contributions.
I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, with some basic figures. This bill is
$3.5 million below the subcommittee's allocation of $12.4 billion in
budget authority and within our outlay allocation. We also have brought
a bill that is $315 million below last year's level and $1.1 billion
below what the President has requested to run foreign operations for
the fiscal year 1999.
There are some who might rightfully argue this is not a sufficient
amount of money for the President, and I regret that. However, I do not
determine the amount of money that will be made available. This is done
by other authorities, and they have allocated a designated amount. But
it is a responsible bill with the amount of monies we had to work with,
and I regret that we cannot fulfill the President's request for all the
monies he wants for all of the programs he wants. But the President and
the executive branch of government ought to be happy that this
subcommittee has not tried to tie their hands, have not dictated to
them how every penny will be spent.
There is not one dime in this bill earmarked, and I think that is a
compliment to the committee and to the full committee, and I think it
is the right way to go in making certain we give the executive branch
the constitutional authority they need by not telling them how every
penny will be spent.
For the first time in history, Mr. Chairman, we are reducing aid to
Israel. Many would say, why are we doing that? We are doing that
because Prime Minister Netanyahu informed us here in this body that the
economy of Israel is such that it is time to look at responsible fiscal
policy and recognize that the United States is not in an entitlement
position for Israel. The government has cooperated, the government of
Israel has cooperated in this first-time ever reduction in economic
support to Israel. So it does include the first reduction to Israel,
and I am happy to have received the cooperation of so many people, both
in the Congress and the Israeli government, in making certain that we
handle foreign operations in a very fiscally responsible manner.
I might also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the appropriation is less
than 1 percent of the total amount of money we will appropriate for
1999. Many people in this country think maybe we spend 20 percent of
our money on foreign aid, but that is not the case. Next year it will
be somewhere below 1 percent. So we are not spending a lot of money for
foreign aid, but we are doing it in a very, very responsible manner.
Also Members will note that we have not included the President's
request for the full $18 billion for the IMF. We have included the $3.5
billion. We have also included some reform measures that we and the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services felt were necessary, a
message being sent to the International Monetary Fund that business can
no longer be transacted as it has been in the past.

{time} 1330

And they are going to have to be more accountable. They are going to
have to be more transparent. But we have denied the President's request
for the additional $13.5 billion for the International Monetary Fund.
Now, I do not have to remind Members that the United States is facing
a series of profound policy changes at this time. The economies of Asia
and Russia are in disarray and, as we have seen in the last couple of
days, the economy in South America, with Brazil and Peru and others, is
beginning to have some problems. And we are going to have to be a
participant in the salvation of this economy, a participant that will
allow them to keep their dollar afloat and to act in a responsible
manner. But without giving them indication that there have to be some
changes in their fiscal policies, they are not going to have a
sufficient amount of money in which to do it.
We do not dictate, as I said, to the Secretary of State what she
should do. We did not tell the President exactly what he should do with
every penny. We give him as much latitude as we possibly can. There are
some areas we have taken extreme disagreement with. For instance, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and I are firmly convinced
that we ought to move beyond the current policy of the Korean Energy
Development Corporation, KEDO.
I have said from the beginning that KEDO is an irresponsible policy
that we never should have entered into in the first place. But the
administration chose to do it, and we have funded it for the last 4 or
5 years, but it is time to take a serious look at KEDO, especially in
light of the fact they are now shooting missiles over Japan and
indications are that they have missiles that very possibly could reach
Alaska.
With respect to some of the problems taking place in the Caucasus, we
want to help Armenia, we want to help Georgia, but we recognize there
is a policy in effect, called the section 907 policy, that is causing
tremendous problems to Azerbaijan and to people in America who are
trying to do business in Azerbaijan. And I am happy that the chairman
of our committee offered an amendment in full committee which passed
with a pretty good vote which lifted the 907 restrictions.
So we have a good bill. And I know that many Members had many
amendments they wanted to offer today, but I am pleased that the
Committee on Rules gave us a rule which I think is fair, to pass a bill
that I think is fiscally responsible.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record documentary materials regarding
this bill.

[[Page H7947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE98.001

[[Page H7948]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE98.002

[[Page H7949]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE98.003

[[Page H7950]]

Tables printed on page 98 of House Report 105-719, the
report to accompany the FY 1999 Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Program Appropriations Bill, were
printed with errors. The following are corrections to those
sections of the report:

comparison with budget resolution

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), requires
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority
compares with the reports submitted under section 302(b) of
the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution
on the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:

FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 302(b):
Discretionary................................... 12,475 12,525
Mandatory....................................... 45 45
-------------------
Total....................................... 12,520 12,570
This bill:
Discretionary................................... 16,184 12,546
Mandatory....................................... 45 45
-------------------
Total....................................... 16,229 12,591
------------------------------------------------------------------------

five-year projection of outlays

In compliance with section 302(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344 as
amended), the following table contains five-year projections
associated with the budget authority provided in the
accompanying bill.

Fiscal year 1999 appropriations

Millions
Budget authority.................................................16,229
Outlays..........................................................12,591
Fiscal Year:
1999..........................................................4,896
2000..........................................................3,065
2001..........................................................2,319
2002............................................................914
2003 and future years.........................................1,562
Since the submission of House Report 105-719, the Chairman
of the Committee on the Budget has provided an increased
section 302(a) allocation consistent with funding provided in
H.R. 4569 for New Arrangements to Borrow and arrearages for
multilateral development banks. House Report 105-722,
submitted by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
subsequently increased the section 302(b) allocation for the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The following table shows
that the bill is within the revised allocation:

FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 302(b) (Revised):
Discretionary................................... 16,188 12,546
Mandatory....................................... 45 45
-------------------
Total....................................... 16,233 12,591
This bill:
Discretionary................................... 16,184 12,546
Mandatory....................................... 45 45
-------------------
Total....................................... 16,229 12,591
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, and with the greatest
respect for my chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). At
the start, I want to commend him for the manner in which he put the
bill together. Although we disagree on some of the provisions in the
bill, he was very open and accommodating whenever it was possible for
him to be on some of the initiatives from our side of the aisle.
I also want to commend our chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), for the manner in which he
conducted the full committee on this legislation and his openness. But
we have some very serious policy disagreements that I will discuss in a
moment.
First, in addition to praising my distinguished colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, I want to join the gentleman from Alabama in
commending our two Members who have served so well and who will be
leaving the Congress this year. This will be their last foreign ops
bill.
First of all, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates); Chairman
Yates, Ranking Member Yates. In the full committee I mentioned that he
has been hailed as a great mentor, legislator, leader, thinker,
intellect. But I wanted to commend him as a great patriot because of
his work as chair of the Interior Committee and then as ranking member
on the subcommittee. He was a great patriot in protecting the natural
resources of our great country, the cultural heritage of our country,
and the freedom of expression of our constitution. For all of that, we
are most grateful to him.
And the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) had a resume before he
came to Congress that served him well here, and indeed served our
entire country as a diplomat; an ambassador. He also brought the
fighting spirit of the labor movement and the commitment of a strong
Democrat. His diplomatic skills as an ambassador and as part of our
delegation will be missed greatly. This Congress will miss his
expertise in many areas, including his knowledge of this hemisphere and
his leadership on issues of concern to our country.
Mr. Chairman, the service of both of these gentlemen will be missed
and I will certainly miss their votes on our committee.
This bill, I think, should be what it has been in the past, an area
where we come together in a bipartisan spirit to promote democratic
values, to give expression to the compassion of the American people,
and to make very hard-nosed decisions about what is in our national
interest. I do not think that many of these issues are partisan issues.
Indeed, the luxury of our committee is that very often we are the
kaleidoscope. We are in different designs on different issues.
Many of us for example on both sides of the aisle support 907 and
many on both sides of the aisle oppose 907. I join with my Republican
colleagues in opposing the initiative of the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Livingston).
We also have strong human rights' advocates on the committee from
both sides of the aisle.
We have issues like IMF, where there are Democrats and Republicans on
one side of the issue and on the other side of the issue as well. So we
are used to working cooperatively in a bipartisan manner.
Our chairman traditionally likes to give to the executive branch, to
the President, the prerogative to have as much flexibility as possible.
At least that is normally what the practice has been. Not so in this
bill.
First and foremost, I oppose the legislation because I do not think
it rises, in terms of its vision and its resources, to the challenge
that our country faces as the sole global leader of the world. I also
think those resources which are, as the chairman mentioned, $315
million below fiscal year 1998 and a full $1.1 billion below the
President's request, greatly reduces the President's flexibility with
the narrowing of those resources.
I am concerned that just $3.5 billion instead of the full $18 billion
for the IMF has been included in this legislation. And as I mentioned
during the debate on the rule, I am very concerned about the lack of
opportunity for us to debate the IMF. There were 12 amendments coming
from both sides of the aisle on the IMF, and the Committee on Rules
rejected every one of them.
The whole world is wondering how we are going to deal with the
economic crisis in Asia. Is the IMF the appropriate way to go?
Regardless of what side we are on on that issue, this House should be
debating that issue. And the idea we can put $14.5 billion into the
bill in conference, I think is really unfair to the Members. And,
really, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people that
this body cannot have a debate on a subject of grave concern, that is
the economic stability of the world.
As far as the allocation of funds, my concern about the number, the
$315 million below last year's request, springs from some of the unrest
that is out there in our fragile new democracies. As we all know, the
economy of Russia is in a very depressed state. Russia happens to be
the leading market for exports from some of the new independent states;
for example, Georgia.
The country of Georgia, with President Shevardnadze who is a leader
in that region as well as the President of his own country, has worked
hard to democratize Georgia, to implement the market reforms, to reform
the economy, and he is losing his export market--Russia. Georgia is
being flooded by cheap products from Russia now, undermining its
economy. And we further exacerbate the situation by reducing the aid
that we give to Georgia, giving a real lever to his opponents there who
are not the democrats of Georgia, thereby undermining his leadership.
He did what we asked him to do

[[Page H7951]]

and we lowered the assistance we are giving him. And that is just one
example.
I am also concerned, and I have an area of disagreement with some of
my Republican colleagues, that the bill denies all funding for the
Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. The agreement between
the U.S. and North Korea provides the only basis for U.S. access to
troublesome sites in Korea. Ending the program eliminates any
possibility of ending North Korea's nuclear ballistic missile programs
and may, in fact, jeopardize the security of U.S. troops in the region.
My request to at least debate the issue was denied by the Committee
on Rules. And further into the debate today, I will suggest what my
amendment would have been.
We have discussed the fact that the bill has language restricting
international family planning organizations from using their own funds
for purposes that they deem worthy of their mission. And the bill
shortchanges the global environmental facility of the World Bank to the
point where it will literally run out of funds this year.
I am disappointed that we could not get greater funding for the Peace
Corps, but I salute the chairman for the figure he did put in, and his
willingness, if we have any more money at the end of the day, to put
more funds in for the Peace Corps.
And I salute Chairman Callahan for his leadership on the child
survival and disease account. He is truly a champion in the world. And
his initiatives were met with some resistance along the way, so I
commend him for his vision and for his perseverance and for his success
on behalf of the children worldwide. I just wish the bill had a bigger
allocation so child survival could be funded higher.
And, again, I personally thank him for the HIV/AIDS prevention
control money and the UNICEF funds.
The funds for the Middle East have been reduced, largely under the
leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). And as we all
know, the Middle East, regardless of the fate of this bill today, the
Middle East funds will be there. They are the safest appropriation
allocation in this bill.
So I again thank the chairman for some of the initiatives that are
there and for his leadership, but I regretfully must oppose the bill
because it is inadequate to the task.
Everyone in America is familiar with President Kennedy's statement in
his inaugural address, ``My fellow Americans, Ask not what your country
can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' But the very
next line of that great speech is, ``And to the citizens of the world,
ask not what America can do for you, but what we can do, working
together, for the freedom of man.'' I do not think that the allocation
for this bill and the priorities and the opportunities that are missed
in this bill are a match for those great words.
I hope, at the end of the process, that they will be, and that we can
all join in supporting this bill, making it the bipartisan package that
it traditionally has been and hopefully will be.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the gentlewoman from California for her kind words and for
mentioning the child survival account.
I am very proud of the child survival account. And, yes, we did have
a rocky road in the beginning, but I am pleased to say that the
administration has seen the light of day and included this in their
budget request for the first time this year, and we are happy to grant
the administration's request in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter), one of the most distinguished members of our subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
for his tireless work in developing this bill. He and his outstanding
staff have dedicated many hours to stretching our limited foreign aid
dollars and to trying to accommodate and reflect the concerns of many
Members, including this Member.
As we review the events of the past fiscal year, the importance of
our foreign assistance has never been clearer. We are living in a
global community. Our economy, our health, our environment, are all
interconnected with those of our immediate neighbors and with those
half a world away.
The United States' international activities at both the bilateral and
multilateral level have an impact on every American citizen and every
person in the world.

{time} 1345

Because of the importance of our role in the world, I wish that our
allocation could have been greater. However, recognizing the need for
fiscal austerity to maintain a balanced budget, I support this
legislation as it was reported by our subcommittee, with the exception
of funding for arrearage payments to multilateral financial
institutions. However, my support for the bill is tested by some
changes made by the full committee.
I supported the gentleman from Alabama's decision not to include any
legislative language which would condition funding for international
family planning. Authorizing language has already been included in the
State Department reform bill that is awaiting the President's
consideration. An authorizing bill is the proper vehicle for this
language, and I am strongly against this addition which for the fourth
year in a row will jeopardize the enactment of this bill into law.
In addition, I supported the gentleman from Alabama's decision to
maintain current law with regard to assistance to Azerbaijan in the
subcommittee bill. Although there were some elements of the package
that the subcommittee agreed to on the Caucasus that I did not
necessarily agree with, the overall package for assistance to the
Caucasus was a balanced approach that provided positive incentives to
the parties in the region to resolve their disputes and begin working
together. The action of the committee in repealing section 907 in my
judgment destroyed that balance and serves to undermine the careful
efforts of the subcommittee to encourage solutions to problems in the
area. I will support the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Radanovich) in attempting to repeal this misguided and improper
authorizing provision.
Again, on the whole, I want to support this bill and the excellent
work of my colleague from Alabama. I hope that we can resolve these
issues favorably and then work with the Senate to provide the highest
possible funding level in the bill within necessary overall fiscal
constraints.
Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by paying tribute to two of our
colleagues who will be leaving the subcommittee, retiring. One, of
course, is my neighbor and friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Yates). His district and mine abut. Today he actually represents the
town in which I was born and grew up. We do not always by any means see
things eye to eye on policy but I think you will never find a harder
worker, someone who has been on top of the issues for 50 years of
service to this Congress and to his country, questioning, raising
issues, fighting for the things that he believes in. The gentleman from
Illinois has provided a tremendous example of someone who is committed
and serving in a way that does great credit to the United States
Congress. We are also going to miss our colleague and friend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres). We have worked together on many
issues. I have a tremendous respect for his resolve in standing for the
things that he believes in, and he has always been there serving in a
way that has brought credit to himself, to his State and to our
country, and I am very proud that I have had the opportunity to serve
in Congress with the gentleman from California as well.
I commend this bill to the Members. I would like to make some changes
in it. I am hoping we can see those changes made. But overall it does
the kind of work that we expect of our committee and I commend our
chairman for his fine effort.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip of the House
and a champion on international issues relating to the American worker.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her kind remarks
and for the job that she and the gentleman

[[Page H7952]]

from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and others have done on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to support an amendment
later today that would restore section 907 prohibiting aid to the
authoritarian regime of Azerbaijan. For nearly a decade, Azerbaijan has
used tanks and soldiers to blockade its democratic neighbors, the
Republic of Armenia. This illegal blockade has cut off the transport of
fuel, of food and of medicine. This blockade is a roadblock to regional
peace and it is a chokehold on democracy. That is why the United States
has refused to spend our tax dollars to prop up the Azerbaijani
government. It has always been our stated policy to reward those who
work for peace and democracy and punish those who do not, until now.
This bill undermines our commitment to democracy. It abandons support
for the people of Nagorno-Karabagh who are struggling for self-
determination. And it completely undercuts regional peace talks that
have just this week shown some promising signs and hints of progress.
Why would we do this? Why are Members of this House being asked to
overturn an effective, long-term commitment to peace and democracy? Why
would we hand out a big sack of carrots to an anti-democratic regime?
Sadly, the answer can be summed up in one word. Oil. Put crudely, the
oil lobby has dollar signs in its eyes. The big corporations cannot
wait to start pumping oil from beneath the Caspian Sea, even if that
means selling out a democratic country, even if that means abandoning a
landlocked Nation whose freedom depends upon open borders, and even if
that means sacrificing our own principles of justice.
America's interests in the Caucasus lie with the development of
democracy and human rights, not just the development of oil fields.
This bill guts our long-standing policy and it mocks our deepest
values.
I urge my colleagues to support democracy and to support the
amendment that is going to be offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Radanovich) and supported by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) on this side of the aisle and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) and others on our side of the aisle.
Support the amendment to restore section 907.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) the chairman of the full
committee.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am interested in some of the comments
that have just transpired about this ominous lifting of section 907. It
applied sanctions against one of what were two warring parties only a
few short years ago, Azerbaijan versus Armenia.
The fact of the matter is that these are both countries emerging from
what was the Soviet Union, clearly they were at war with one another,
and clearly in 1992 we levied sanctions on Azerbaijan, a Moslem
country, while attempting to assist Armenia, an orthodox country, for
legitimate reasons. Azerbaijan, by some reports, started the war, and
there was a conflict that spread over a long period of time. People on
both sides were killed; there was incredible devastation and misery
reaped from that conflict, but Armenia won. Armenia moved over to help
and Armenians took over Nagorno-Karabagh, expelling all of the Azeris.
There are no Azeris in Nagorno-Karabagh. There are some 700,000 Azeri
refugees in their own country, in Azerbaijan. Yet we still have the
sanction imposed upon Azerbaijan by the United States which is supposed
to be a neutral party.
My friend who just preceded me said it is to help the oil companies.
Is it to help the oil companies that we attempt to repeal section 907
which is a strenuous sanction on one of the parties but not the other?
No. It is so that the United States can simply take a balanced view
towards a very important strategic part of the world. Kazakhstan has
tremendous oil supplies. Turkmenistan has tremendous natural gas
supplies. They are across the Caspian. If those supplies go west
through Azerbaijan, possibly through Armenia, possibly through Georgia,
into Turkey, then the fact is that the United States may benefit, but
certainly the western industrialized world could benefit. If the oil
supplies only go north to Russia, if the oil supplies only go east to
China or south to Iran, the industrialized world does not benefit, and
perhaps others who do not share the civilized goals that we in the
United States espouse will benefit.
The fact is that this is a conflict that must come to an end and it
has not. Recently a proponent of maintaining section 907 said that we
have not succeeded at all in bringing peace to this region, and,
therefore, that is a reason to maintain section 907. He said it is a
failed policy and since it has continued to fail, we should not lift
907. I say exactly the opposite is true, and it is borne out by an
article in the New York Times dated September 14, 1998 in which the
lead says, ``Ethnic Conflict in Caucasus Shows Its First Glimmer of
Hope.'' That is a few days after our full committee met and we lifted
section 907 out of this bill. The first glimmer of hope evolved after
we took the section out.
We have been in the position of sanctioning one party to a conflict,
continuing to beat them over the head, and then saying, ``By the way,
we want your friendship to bring this oil west, why don't you help
us?'' And they have not been entirely cooperative until we finally
lifted this sanction. The time has come to lift it.
Do not let the people tell you about the blockade. Azerbaijan
represents 20 percent of the border with Armenia. Eighty percent is
with other countries like Iran and Georgia. The fact is this blockade
is a false issue. Most of the other issues referred to by the gentleman
who preceded me are false issues.
We should not side with the Armenians. We should not side with the
Azeris. We should side with a balanced approach to two prospective
friends. That means whether you are Armenian-American or whether you
are Azeri-American, you should be in favor of the American point of
view which is a balanced view and the lifting of 907. Let us get rid of
this outrage which is totally slanted against one party.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 1998]

Ethnic Conflict in Caucasus Shows Its First Glimmer of Hope

(By Stephen Kinzer)

Yerevan, Armenia, Sept. 11--In a week that saw the first
high-level contact in years between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
leaders of both countries said they were eager to resolve an
ethnic conflict that threatens to ignite the Caucasus.
The conflict is over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-
Karabakh, which the world recognizes as part of Azerbaijan
but which has been held by its ethnic Armenian majority since
1994. Fighting that ended that year took more than 35,000
lives and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes.
A resumption of fighting could be disastrous, because the
Caucasus today is delicately balanced between prosperity and
chaos. Huge amounts of oil have been discovered under and
around the Caspian Sea, but ethnic conflicts in places like
Nagorno-Karabakh could abort the expected boom and plunge the
region back into the anarchy of the early 1990's.
There has been no substantial movement toward a settlement
of the conflict, and the sides remain so far apart that some
fear another war. But last Monday, the Prime Minister of
Armenia, Armen Darbinyan, flew to Azerbaijan to attend a
regional trade conference.
Before meeting privately with his guest, President Heydar
Aliyev of Azerbaijan told reporters that he looked forward to
``the restoration of friendship between Azerbaijan and
Armenia in the context of a peaceful resolution in Nagorno-
Karabakh.'' It was the first time in memory he had made such
a statement.
A team of diplomats from Russia, France and the United
States has been searching for a solution to the Nagorno-
Karabakh dispute. They want the mountainous enclave returned
to Azerbaijan but given ``maximum possible autonomy.''
Armenia has rejected that framework, vowing never to allow
Azerbaijan to rule there again.
In an interview here after Mr. Aliyev's remarks, President
Robert Kocharian of Armenia said ``nonstandard approaches''
could produce a ``unique solution'' in the enclave.
He mentioned several possible models: Northern Ireland,
which has broad powers to run its affairs but remains under
British sovereignty; Bosnia and Herzegovina, where a joint
presidency represents the three principal ethnic groups; New
Caledonia, a self-governing ``overseas territory'' of France,
and Andorra, a principality that holds a seat in the United
Nations but whose nominal rulers are the President of France
and the bishop of Seo de Urgel, Spain.
Mr. Kocharian said he could accept a token role for
Azerbaijan in the enclave to allow it

[[Page H7953]]

a measure of ``face saving.'' But Azerbaijan, which is posted
to earn billions of dollars from oil exports, is seeking to
save much more than face. It wants Nagorno-Karabakh back, and
could use its coming wealth to build an army capable of
retaking it.
Mr. Kocharian said he is not worried about such a
counterattack.
``Are you sure the rich man fights better?'' he asked. ``In
10 years, who will be ready to fight and die, and for what?
In 10 years, any attack on Nagorno-Karabakh would be viewed
by its residents as an aggression against their country. For
the Azerbaijani Army, Karabakh will be just a memory. Who
will be more willing to give their lives?''
Mr. Kocharian rose to power on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
He is a former leader of the enclave, and was elected
Armenia's President in March after the army forced his
precedessor, Levon Ter-Petrosian, to resign. Military chiefs
suspected that Mr. Ter-Petrosian was preparing a compromise
with Azerbaijan.
``We cannot accept anything less than Karabakh being de
facto Armenian,'' said Armen Aivazian, a historian and
foreign policy expert. ``It should be under unchallenged,
permanent Armenian military control. After that, Andorra
could be negotiated. All kinds of solutions are possible.''
Mr. Aivazian acknowledged, however, that there seemed
little prospect of Azerbaijan's accepting such a formula.
``I personally don't see any solution in the time ahead,''
he said. ``If the situation continues as it is, the chance of
war is not 100 percent, but certainly more than 50 or 60
percent.''
Any peace accord would have to be accepted by leaders of
the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, and because Mr. Kocharian is
considered one of the enclave's heroes, he would presumably
be able to influence them.
``He has a lot of sway over Karabakh opinion,'' said a
European diplomat in Yerevan. ``He is an astute politician
and an astute string-puller, and as time goes on, he may have
a chance to be a statesman.''

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Torres) who was praised by many of the previous
speakers.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
I believe that this policy of lifting section 907 is simply a question
of rewarding Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan does not deserve to be rewarded.
Their government has blockaded Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh for 9
years. The blockade has cut off the supply of food, of fuel, of
medicine and other vital goods and commodities. Azerbaijan's blockade
has precipitated a humanitarian crisis requiring the U.S. to send
emergency life-saving assistance to Armenia. Azerbaijan has blocked
U.N. humanitarian aid to Nagorno-Karabagh. It has refused to allow the
U.N. to operate in Nagorno-Karabagh and has even blocked the U.N. from
conducting a humanitarian needs assessment.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when Armenia is introducing market reforms
and integrating its economy with the West, at a time when Armenia is in
dire need, the blockade has virtually isolated Armenia from the rest of
the world. Armenia is landlocked, and 85 percent of all Soviet-era
goods destined to Armenia went through Azerbaijan.
Mr. Chairman, this blockade has strengthened another nation, Turkey,
in imposing its five-year blockade of Armenia on assistance from the
West. We must resuscitate, we must put back into legislation section
907 as will be proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Radanovich).
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) who certainly is a member who is so
interested in this committee and so knowledgeable on many of the areas
of the world that are so important to the contents of our bill.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill,
H.R. 4569, and I wanted to obviously thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) for yielding me this time. He has been, I think, an
outstanding individual in terms of shepherding this particular
appropriations bill through the process. That is not an easy task. He
has done it with diligence, impartiality and I believe with absolute
fairness. I commend the gentleman from Alabama. I want to thank the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her work in coming
together on a host of important issues, and the staff for all the work
they have done to create this bill. Each member of this subcommittee
has worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft a foreign aid bill that
reflects our Nation's international priorities while maintaining a goal
of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. The chairman spoke to
that.
This bill holds the line on foreign aid spending while maintaining
funding for our most important foreign aid priorities. By supporting
continued funding for Microenterprise and other development assistance
programs, Congress reaffirms our country's crucial role as a leader in
strengthening the ever-growing community of prosperous, democratic
nations.
The bill also maintains the U.S. commitment to the Middle East
process and our long-standing ally Israel. It provides $70 million for
the resettlement of former Soviet, East European and other refugees in
Israel. And while U.S. support for peace in the Middle East is
reaffirmed, the bill takes an historic first step toward eliminating
the region's long-standing reliance on U.S. economic aid.

{time} 1400

Furthermore, the committee has ensured that whenever necessary, U.S.
funds are focused on reinforcing our vital national security needs.
First, the bill contains our strong commitment to the democratization
of Russia that addresses my concerns about Russian exports of nuclear
and ballistic missile technology. This grave situation is addressed by
stipulating that aid to Russia is contingent upon stopping the
development of any nuclear program or ballistic missile capability. We
are sending a powerful signal to Russia that its interaction with
dangerous rogue states like Iran is unacceptable.
The bill also highlights congressional concern about the recent
activities of another dangerous rogue state, North Korea. Given the
very frightening revelations in recent weeks regarding North Korea's
offensive capabilities, we must take action. The U.S. must send a
signal of its strong disapproval by suspending aid to North Korea until
we have real proof that it has ended its dangerous ballistic missile
and nuclear weapons program.
And finally I would like to add concerns with respect to one
particular issue. The bill does contain language repealing Section 907,
a provision of law passed by this body, signed into law by President
Bush in 1992. Section 907 prohibits direct economic and military aid to
the government of Azerbaijan while it continues to blockade its
neighbors and has been the centerpiece of U.S. Policy toward the
Caucasus for the last 6 years. I am concerned that its repeal may
compromise the U.S. role as an unbiased mediator in negotiations to
settle the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. This issue will undoubtedly
surface again during the bill's consideration. I look forward to a
spirited debate, and I hope we will be able to convince some of my
colleagues that this may be an inappropriate move at this time. Only
through balanced support from the U.S. will we finally see this region
free of bloodshed and conflict and rich with prosperity and
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, the subject of foreign aid often sparks heated debate
on this floor. While we all have strong opinions about a number of
programs, I ask my colleagues to not let heated discussions about
details keep us from the business at hand. We need to unite behind this
fair bill to maintain U.S. leadership and strengthen our influence
across the globe.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members to support this bill, and I thank the
gentleman again for yielding me time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the also reknowned
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) in this, the line up of champions.
We heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) who was much
acclaimed on the floor earlier, and now the much acclaimed gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Yates.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, may I express my very profound thank you to
my good friend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) the chairman
of the Committee, to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for many nice things they
said about me. I think perhaps my absence from the floor at that time
may have helped. However I am grateful. They were very generous in
their statements, but I want them to know that I am very thankful for
the many nice things they said about me.
Mr. Chairman, November 2, 1948, I was elected for the first time to
the

[[Page H7954]]

Congress of the United States. I was away from my representation in
this House for 2 years when I ran for the Senate unsuccessfully. I came
back the next term. And in all that time I have been a member of the
Committee on Appropriations, luckily I believe, because I think it is
one of the great committees of the House, and in all that time I have
been a member of the Foreign Aid Subcommittee. First, it was called the
Marshall Plan Subcommittee, and gradually, as the years went on, it was
called the Foreign Aid Subcommittee. The opportunities were presented
many times to get off that subcommittee and move to another one, but I
considered the foreign aid program so important that I never seriously
attempted to leave that subcommittee. I believe it is extremely
important that adequate funding be given to the Foreign Aid
Subcommittee in order to carry out our purposes throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, in all that time I doubt that I voted against more than
1 or 2 of the bills, and I hate to say it this time because I hold
Chairman Sonny Montgomery in such high regard. I have been associated
with many chairmen during that period; none was better than the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I think he was the best of all
of them. And of course it has been a honor and a privilege to serve
with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and my good friend
and neighbor to the north, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
I find this bill, however, lacking in so many instances that I think
I will have difficulty in supporting it. In fact, I think I probably
will vote against it unless it is corrected in the course of the debate
and in amendment.
Mr. Chairman, during the almost 50 years that I have served on this
subcommittee, foreign aid has seen a major transition in both the
political situation in the world and how foreign assistance and export
programs can best address these changes.
Foreign aid, like defense spending, helps preserve our national
security. But, unlike defense spending, where we continue to allocate
one out of every five dollars of our Federal budget, foreign aid, which
is currently less than one percent of the overall Federal budget, has
continued to decrease.
The ironic truth about foreign aid is, that it is much cheaper than
most Americans think and it does things that most Americans may not
realize. Yet, this bill continues to cut the most cost effective
portion of our national security budget, foreign aid.
The total amount in the bill is slightly below the amount provided
last year. It is well below the request by the administration. More
significantly it is below our committee's 302(b) allocation.
As former Secretary of Defense, William Perry and the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, said in their May
23, 1995, article in USA Today: ``This is no time to be penny-wise and
pound-foolish. Our foreign assistance program helps finance the
building blocks of a new international structure that is more peaceful
and more stable than the one we left behind.''
In my tenure in this House, I have seen firsthand the effect foreign
aid can have on bringing economic restoration to a war-torn or
undeveloped country. I guess it is safe to say that I am a strong
supporter of foreign aid. In fact, in all my years in the House, I do
not think I have ever voted against a foreign aid appropriations bill,
but there is always a first time.
Mr. Chairman, if asked, I would not be able to characterize this as a
good bill. I feel that in its present condition the President would be
forced to veto the bill. I hope my friends on the other side of the
aisle will agree that we do not want to see this bill and this Congress
again caught up in a continuing resolution.
There are many funding level and policy issues which still need to be
addressed before this bill would be worthy of my support. I hope my
colleagues will accept amendments in order to find tune this bill
before we go to conference with the other body.
I still believe we can get a good bill, one with wide bipartisan
support and one the President will be happy to sign.
The first area I feel we need to address is the development
assistance account. Bilateral and multilateral development assistance
accounts have been cut much more deeply than any other area of the
foreign operations budget over the last four years--cut on average by
more than 30 percent out of overall cuts of about 11 percent, these
cuts have harmed a wide range of programs including family planning,
micro enterprise, IDA, and UNDP, to name just a few.
The foreign policy challenges and opportunities facing the United
States on the eve of the twenty-first century require greater attention
to and investment in developing countries than ever before.
It is in developing countries where issues such as rapid population
growth, environmental degradation, food insecurity, ethnic conflict and
widespread poverty must be addressed if we are to realize the goal of
peace, democracy, prosperity and new export markets.
I ask my colleagues, wouldn't logic tell you that if you increase
development assistance and thereby provide a better standard of living,
such a commitment would address the root causes that plague developing
communities. Yet, this bill continues to ignore and dismiss the role
development assistance can play in accomplishing our foreign policy
aims and achieving our overall national security objectives.
Another major concern is that this House is not addressing the
shortfall in the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and insisting on
relying on the conference committee and convoluted procedures to
achieve complete funding before we adjourn for the year.
In the almost 50 years since I became a Member of this House I have
never been a part of a Congress that ignored a world financial crisis,
and I am deeply disappointed that in the last year of my last Congress
this is just what we are doing. If this funding is not addressed before
we adjourn, American suppliers, business and finally the American
people will suffer from the short sightedness and convoluted
restrictions of the leadership in this House.
We are the leaders of the world, and that should include being the
leader in foreign assistance. Foreign aid is critically important to
our position in the world community and the United States cannot
continue to lead without the institutions funded by this bill.
The business community in the United States--who rely heavily on such
foreign aid institutions to create an environment favorably to
business--request we increase our foreign aid to approximately $18
billion.
They see first hand how adversely affected the economy is by the
diminished role the United States plays in the developing world, and,
you can be sure, their foreign competitors, armed with the support of
their government's, are ready and waiting to step right in.
If we do not increase our level of foreign aid, the long-term
economic impact will be unfavorable to American business, the American
people and our national security interests.
Mr. Chairman, Let's work together to take this bad bill and craft a
great bill.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) who is also a member of our subcommittee
whom we have to lean upon from time to time for expertise primarily in
the area of the finance of this world, the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund. He is a true expert and a value member of
our subcommittee.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I understand that in the course of my
meandering discourse I referred to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) as Sonny Montgomery. I made a mistake. I want to correct that
immediately.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I take no offense. Former Congressman
Montgomery might.
Mr. YATES. He was a good friend; I doubt that. I think he would
consider it a compliment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a pleasure
to have yielded to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). I was two
years-old when he became a Member of Congress, and it is a pleasure to
be in the Chamber with him.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it
was a pleasure to serve with the gentleman's father, may I say, of
course when he was a Member, as well as with his son.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois,
and, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the foreign operations
bill, and personally I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) for his leadership as well as the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) and our very excellent staff for all the good
work they do.
The challenges we face, Mr. Chairman, around the globe are
increasingly complex: the struggle to find peace in the middle east and
in the Balkans, the

[[Page H7955]]

challenge of supporting emerging democracies in Eastern Europe, in
central Asia, increased threats of nuclear proliferation and terrorism
around the world and economic deterioration in Asia and elsewhere; that
has a big impact on American jobs and prosperity. With this bill we
provide some of the essential tools to promote and protect America's
leadership and interests, and we do so within the confines of our
balanced budget agreement.
Particular items worthy of note in this bill include the fact that
with the full cooperation of Israel and Egypt this bill marks the
beginning of a multiyear plan to reduce the level of assistance to Camp
David countries, and, as our report reflects, our committee encourages
other traditional aid recipients to follow the bold path undertaken by
Israel.
Under the chairman's leadership we have also restored critical
funding for child survival programs and disease prevention and
eradication. I am particularly appreciative of the chairman's
supportive efforts to combat tuberculosis and other infectious diseases
that have emerged as major threats around the world.
We also continue America's longstanding support of development
assistance for the poorest of the poor including international family
planning programs. We also placed increased emphasis on important
priorities in our own hemisphere, especially addressing the scourge of
illegal narcotics traffic. Further, we maintain our efforts to protect
export-related American jobs for providing resources through the
Export-Import Bank, OPEC, TDA to help American companies enter and
succeed in international markets, and when our American companies
invest in developing economies, particularly in countries that receive
U.S. taxpayer assistance in this bill, we make it clear that we expect
these countries will provide no less than full legal protection for
these investments.
Finally, our subcommittee has spent a great deal of time and
deliberation on the issue of resources for IMF. In this bill we do
provide for the new arrangements to borrow, and the Senate has provided
the full administration requests so that I anticipate that this issue
will remain one for vigorous debate as our work is completed. We sought
and continue to seek cooperation support of the administration for much
needed reforms at the IMF in order that all Members can be confident
that this is an investment worthy of our support. A lot more work needs
to be done by all of us to educate the public and promote a greater
confidence in all of our foreign aid activities as well as IMF.
Finally, a note of personal thanks to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) and our ranking member for including language in our report
on behalf of the families and victims of Pan Am Flight 103 who have
never received proper justice.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It is a very distinct privilege to recognize the
ranking member of the full committee and a person who served for many
years at ranking member of this subcommittee. It is a intimidating feat
to have to follow in his footsteps as ranking on this committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me, and she has done a terrific job on this bill as she does on
virtually everything else she deals with, and I also want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his
efforts this year and through the years to try to produce a decent
bill.
Having said that, I very much regret what I am about to say. I have
supported this bill for years, but I do not believe that I can any
longer do so.
Since 1989 we have really had euphoria in this country. The Iron
Curtain collapsed, democracy was restored in a good many countries in
central Europe, South Africa is a far different country than it used to
be, we have many more democracies in Latin and Central America than we
had a decade ago, and I think we have almost come to expect that to be
the norm. Unfortunately the real normalcy seems to be raising its ugly
head in many parts of the globe, and I do not believe that this bill
meets the task of dealing with those problems.
It is first of all, Mr. Chairman, terribly inadequate in terms of the
way it deals with our international economic situation. We have a
crisis in terms of what is happening in the Asian economy, and that
sooner or later is going to collapse in on us, ruin our ability to
export, and take away American jobs. And yet the majority party has
refused to even allow us to vote on the question of providing full
funding for the IMF, and this issue has been hanging around for a year.
We cannot afford to wait any longer.
If my colleagues will take a look at the former Soviet Union, first
of all this bill does not provide sufficient resources to meet the
problems in dealing with those states and then, after it has cut
substantially the funding for those states, it then has the functional
equivalent of earmarks which tie the President's hands in responding to
any change in circumstances in that part of the world. We should not be
requiring the President to spend specific amounts of money in any area
in the former Soviet Union unless the situation on the ground warrants
it. And yet that is what this bill unfortunately does.
As far as Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, Azerbaijan are concerned, I am
not at all convinced that the solution that this bill has produced is
not more in the interests of American oil companies than it is in the
interests of the American people.

{time} 1415

I do not believe that this is a healthy outcome.
I also have to simply say that I think more and more, this bill has
become a bill that satisfies the needs and desires of virtually every
country in the world and every special interest in our own country. The
only thing that seems to be left out is our national interests. That I
think is no reflection on anyone who has tried to work on this bill,
but it is a reflection on the shortsightedness of many of the groups
that make up this body and force the committee to produce a bill which
is essentially a political accommodation rather than a package that
meets our real, substantive needs.
Then finally we come to the issue of Korea. In Korea we have the most
reckless, irresponsible and dangerous regime in the world in North
Korea. We have 5 different foreign policy goals that we are trying to
reach in dealing with that outrageously out-of-line regime. We have
only been able to achieve one of those goals: the shutting down of the
Yongbyon reactor complex which is capable now today of producing
weapons-grade fuel to produce several nuclear bombs a year. And yet,
this committee has produced a product which blows apart the one success
that we have had in the midst of a lot of failures in dealing with
Korea. It is highly dangerous to the national interests of the United
States, and I therefore urge a ``no'' vote on the entire bill.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of this committee,
although I am a member of the full committee, and I came to seek time
because there is an increasing problem, and I have heard the same
problem from both sides of the aisle. With increasing trade agreements,
we have more and more American investors investing abroad, and our
American citizens are getting ripped off by the same countries that we
are giving foreign aid to.
A good example, in Bulgaria, one of my constituents invested $4
million, and the bank acknowledges receipt of the money. But yet, one
of their employees took off with the money and they do not want to take
responsibility for it. It has to go into the courts. Three years later,
nothing has happened.
Dr. Raffee, known worldwide as a computer expert, was asked under
Prime Minister Zia in Bangladesh to invest in a high-tech company in
Bangladesh. Well, to give my colleagues an idea, Bangladesh was
established by 2 men, 1 civilian, 1 military. The civilian was the
first President, the military was the second President. The civilian is
the father of the current prime minister, the military gentleman is the
father of the previous Prime Minister Zia. Each feels that the other
woman had their entire family murdered.

[[Page H7956]]

So my colleagues can imagine the situation that exists there. It is a
blood feud paralleled not even close to the Hatfield and McCoy blood
feuds. And our businessmen are getting caught right in the middle of
it, and that is wrong.
What I would say is that when we have our trade agreements that there
be a rule of law established and enforced that maybe the State
Department could have an antiAmerican business alert, and even this
committee, in extreme cases, review and take a look to make sure that
our American interests are secured in these extreme cases, because
there is an increasing problem. I have talked to many of my colleagues
on the other side, and they have constituents with the same problems.
I would appeal to the committee and the subcommittee to take a look
into this area and withhold funds not only in human rights, but
American rights, just as we have in the past.
I thank the chairman for allowing me to have the time to express
these concerns.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman), who is an expert on international
relations, and I am pleased that he will be speaking on this bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, especially for
overstating my qualifications.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about the part of this bill that repeals
Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This is a critically important
part of the appropriations bill. It has been addressed by half of the
speakers that have come to speak about the bill in general. The
Armenian National Committee and the Armenian Assembly, the 2 largest
Armenian organizations, the predominant Armenian organizations, have
put out a statement saying that for Armenian Americans, this is the
most important vote of this Congress.
As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I feel more
than a little concerned that such a substantive provision has been
stuck in an appropriations bill. A provision that deals with an area
that our committee had hearings on, our committee decided not to try to
change this year, and then the Committee on Appropriations tries to
change it.
If one believes that substantive changes should be made by
authorizing committees, if one believes that American foreign policy
should reflect American values, then I hope my colleagues will vote for
the Radanovich-Pallone-Rogan-Sherman amendment to this bill and delete
those provisions that try to play havoc with American foreign policy in
the Caucasus.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 2
minutes remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a nationally recognized leader on international
relations.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) for this opportunity, and also our subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). With all of the
rumors and the swirling of media events here in Washington, I think it
is important to say something about these 2 individuals who have worked
so well together. They do not always agree, but they produced a bill;
some may agree with it, some may not agree. But it is an example of
Congress working at its best and we need to pat them on the back for
that and thank them.
I also wanted to rise today and pay tribute to one of our colleagues
who just walked off the floor here for a few minutes and to extend my
personal gratitude to him on behalf of this institution, myself and our
country, and that is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), truly a
high-minded gentleman, someone with extraordinary intelligence and the
gentlemanly demeanor that is so welcome. He has an incisive knowledge
of the rules, and demonstrates truly gracious behavior in every single
instance in which we have had a chance to deal with him.
I am sorry he is not here, and I know he would be very embarrassed by
all of these laudatory remarks. But he has been such a valued colleague
to serve with and a rare talent that has raised this institution's
standing as representative of our people. In fact, the standard that
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) set raised America and our
people always.
I know that our country and this House, and certainly this Member,
will sorely miss his presence in future meetings of this subcommittee.
He has been an unforgettable Member with whom to serve. And if only in
my own career, and I am sure other Members feel this way, we could
model ourselves on him, America would be so much better for it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her remarks about our
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks I referred to the concern that I
had that the full funding for the International Monetary Fund was not
included in this legislation, and that was one of the reasons that I
was urging our colleagues to oppose the bill. I have serious concerns,
as I mentioned, about a conference committee increasing the IMF by
$14.5 billion without the benefit of debate on the floor. I completely
associate myself with those who object to the manner in which the IMF
has conducted its business. I think the issue of conditionality,
transparency, moral hazard, the description of how some countries and
companies take risks, knowing that they will have a bailout. Maybe they
make decisions based on that, or maybe they do not, but there certainly
is the appearance of that happening.
I think all of these concerns are trumped by the contagion issue; by
the idea that our economies are interrelated globally, and that we need
to have a mechanism, we need to have an institution that can act to
buoy up currencies or whatever so that our markets are not flooded by
cheap labor and that the markets for our exports are not diminished.
So it is with grave concern about the impact on our own economy, and
certainly with concern about the impact on the economies in the world
and the well-being of those countries and their people that I believe
that we should give one more round of funding to the IMF, but not any
more. We should take it down to the basics and build it up from there.
Again, IMF is just one other reason why I am opposing this legislation.
Another concern that I have in this legislation is that while my
colleagues on the other side have traditionally given the President a
great deal of flexibility in this bill, that is not the case in this
bill. One area of concern that has not received much attention so far
is the Global Environmental Facility, the GEF. We are $300 million in
arrears with the GEF. That was the request of the administration. There
is $45 million in the bill, and I had an amendment which was offered in
committee and defeated that would have put $50 million more into the
GEF. These are arrears, therefore I do not need an offset for the $50
million.
I think that if we care about our children and our grandchildren, we
have to be concerned about the air that they breathe and the water that
they drink and recognize that we are not isolated from the impact of
pollution in other countries. The work of the GEF is very, very
important work when it comes to improving the environmental
technologies in these countries, and many of those technologies
exported from the United States. That again is another reason why I am
opposing the bill, because of the lack of funding, increased funding to
pay the arrears at the GEF.
Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 2 minutes
remaining; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I think I have
the right to close on this debate.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that our distinguished chairman
wishes to close, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) so that he can speak before the close of the
gentleman's remarks.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to rise in support of
an

[[Page H7957]]

amendment that is being offered, hopefully soon by my colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Radonovich) of California, cosponsored
by myself, and it is very simple and straightforward. It would simply
strike the section relating to the repeal of Section 907 of the Freedom
Support Act.
The Freedom Support Act, passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis and
signed into law by President Bush, defined U.S. policy in the Newly
Independent Countries of the former Soviet Union in the post-Cold War
era. Section 907 prohibits direct U.S. Government aid to Azerbaijan
until that country lifts its blockades of Armenia and Nagorna Karabagh.
Mr. Chairman, Section 907 was good law when we passed it back in
1992, and it is still good law. Azerbaijan has done nothing to comply
with the basic requirement of Section 907 that it lift its blockades of
Armenia and Nagorna Karabagh, blockades that have caused severe human
hardship for the Armenian people.

{time} 1430

Mr. Chairman, Azerbaijan is an authoritarian regime run by a Soviet
Arab bureaucrat named Heydar Aliyev. Armenia, on the other hand, is a
democracy that has tried to extend the institutions of democracy to its
citizens while making the transition to a market economy.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, if we adopt the language in the foreign ops bill,
we will essentially be rewarding the country that has not made the
transition from Soviet era despotism and corruption and punishing the
country, that is Armenia, that has moved towards democracy and a market
economy and is trying to integrate with the West.
I would just like to say again, let there be no doubt that the
government of Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia for 9 years. The
blockade has cut off the transport of food, fuel, medicine, and other
vital supplies creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the U.S. to
send assistance to Armenia.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and commend him for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
from California for her work on this issue and particularly my
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who I look
forward to supporting as he offers his amendment with the gentleman
from California (Mr. Radanovich) to straighten out this report with
respect to ending the sanctions on those countries that are blockading
the democratic country of Armenia, which is a country that this country
should be doing more to work closely with and support.
Instead, our Nation's policy is that, as embodied in this report, to
make friends with a regime that is totally antithetical to the
principles that this country holds dear, those democratic principles
that are so important to this country and are also important it our
friends in Armenia.
I look forward to supporting the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) as he seeks to strike this language that would call for an end
of sanctioning a country like Azerbaijan for what they should be
sanctioned for. I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that we need to continue the pressure on these
regimes so that they end the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the final minute to close.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to again commend the
gentleman from Alabama, our chairman, for his leadership and his
cooperation. I want to commend the staff, the majority staff, Mr.
Charlie Flickner, John Shank, Bill Inglee, and also Mark Murray and
Lori Maes on the minority side. I commend Nancy Tippins of Mr.
Callahan's personal staff, and Carolyn Bartholomew of my personal staff
as well.
I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on the floor, and it is
always a pleasure to work with him on these international issues. I
want to commend Ann Huiskes of his staff for her work. Earlier the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was on the floor, and I want to
commend Joseph Reese of his staff with whom we have worked. While the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is not on the subcommittee, we
have worked on many of these international issues although we are not
in complete agreement today.
Mr. Chairman, again I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
I think it does not measure up to the vision that our country should
have about our foreign policy, that it is a departure from our
bipartisan tradition on international relations, and that we can do
better. I hope that, in the course of the process, we will and that I
will be able to support the bill. But as it stands now, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) has expired.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, all of the points during this debate have been well
taken and that is exactly what this body is all about. Basically,
though, this is a good bill. It is a bill that has received majority
support in both subcommittee and full committee.
There are several issues of contention that we will debate this
afternoon, one of them being Section 907 whereby I disagree with the
other side and the gentlewoman from California about the merits of what
we have done. We have done exactly the right thing.
The other is the future funding of the International Monetary Fund.
While we do not disagree on what we hope this world will be in the
hands of those who control the monies of the International Monetary
Fund, they are not doing it in a responsible manner now.
That is what this body is all about, to debate the differences. But
let us not lose sight of where we are. We are $3.5 million below the
subcommittee's allocation of $12.4 billion, so we are below our
request. We are within our outlay. We are $315 million below last year.
We are $1.1 billion below what the President has requested for 1999.
In addition to that, we have protected things such as child survival.
If we talk to the American people, they are against foreign aid. Most
of them do not understand how little we give to foreign aid. But if we
mention to them we are taking most of this money and spending it on
children who are starving on other continents, if we tell them we are
trying to provide health care and trying to remove horrible diseases
that are prevalent in some areas, such as the polio which we seek to
eradicate, with foreign aid monies, the American people do not want to
see starving children starved. They do not want to see unhealthy
children not receive medical attention.
They want to assist in education. They want to stop government-to-
government aid that have been an indication of past years. So we have a
responsible bill with a few major controversies that will be discussed.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, Members should know that even as we
consider funds in this bill for the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
the Government of Korea is backing away from commitments it made to the
IMF and to the world community to finally put an end to government
directed lending, corporate subsidies, and interference with corporate
governance. A new round of bidding was recently announced for Korea's
huge bankrupt motor vehicle company, Kia Motors and its affiliate Asia
Motors, after Kia's creditors announced that 30 percent of Kia and Asia
Motors' $8.7 billion in bad debt would be ``forgiven'' so that these
companies, which some estimate have been bankrupt since 1991, can be
sold as viable entities.
I might add, the only two non-Korean firms that have expressed an
interest in buying Kia are U.S. companies, General Motors and Ford.
General Motors and Ford have now withdrawn from the bidding, because
they cannot justify the burdensome terms set by the creditors for the
sale. As a result, Kia's creditors have now successfully forced all
foreign firms out of the bidding, leaving only Korean companies,
Samsung, Hyundai and Daewoo, as contenders for Kia.
Who is setting these impossible conditions? Principally, it is none
other than the Government of Korea once again attempting to financially
prop up Kia and to control its fate, even though it told the IMF it
would no longer engage in this kind of activity. Kia's creditors are
represented by the Korea Development Bank, which is 100 percent owned
and controlled by the Government of Korea. The Korean Government also
directly holds a 30 percent equity interest in Kia.
By blocking the sale of Kia's assets as a bankrupt, non-viable
entity, the Government of

[[Page H7958]]

Korea may be protecting its own equity stake in the company, but it is
perpetuating the very nonmarket-based government subsidization and
interference that has produced the calamitous decline of Korea's
economy.
Is this the kind of ``reform'' that we thought the Government of
Korea had committed to implement in return for the $60 billion loan
package it received from the IMF? If not, we must demand that our
government exercise strict and aggressive monitoring of how every penny
of the IMF funding is used and what Korea is doing to implement its
commitments to the IMF and to fulfill its trade obligations to the
world community.
We cannot allow U.S. tax dollars to be used to continue the operation
of non-viable, bankrupt Korean auto, steel, and other firms that dump
cheap imports in our market and undermine otherwise competitive
products made by U.S. firms and U.S. workers.
Without strict monitoring and reporting to Congress, we will never
know what Korea is doing. It is simply not good enough for
Administration officials to make vague statements about being
``encouraged'' by the progress of Korea's economic reform. Korea has
institutions and policies that enable the government to intervene in
commercial lending and corporate governance. This Congress needs to
know what Korea is doing to restructure those institutions and to
change those policies, so that government intervention in the private
economy is minimized and Korean markets are open to U.S. and other
foreign competitors.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering contains significant
requirements applicable to Korea and other IMF recipients. It provides
that IMF-recipient governments shall not give government support or tax
privileges to individual firms. The government-owned Korea Development
Bank's decision to ``forgive'' a large share of Kia's debt, so that it
can be sold as a viable entity, is government support of the most
fundamental kind and violates the prohibition in this legislation. But
without strict monitoring and reporting to Congress, the Government of
Korea is free to ignore these and other warnings. We must not let that
happen.
Together with my Colleagues, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Regula, I have
written Secretary of the Treasury Rubin, Secretary of Commerce Daley,
and U.S. Trade Representatives Barshefsky, asking a number of detailed
questions about reforms in Korea, and in particular, about the sale of
Korea's bankrupt auto, steel, and other firms. When I receive their
response, I will make it available in an effort to keep Members
informed on this important matter.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I will vote yes on the final passage of
H.R. 4569 with serious reservations. I urge the Senate and the
Conference Committee to address the issue of family planning and other
serious flaws that exist in the bill. If significant improvements are
not made in the bill before it returns to the House of Representatives,
I do not intend to support the final passage of this legislation.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I will vote yes for H.R. 4569 with the
expectation that Senate and Conference activity will remedy the serious
flaws that exist in the bill. If these inadequacies are not addressed
before it returns to the House, I will not support its ultimate
passage.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I will support passage of H.R. 4569, the
Foreign Operations Appropriation for fiscal year 1999. I do so in spite
of serious concerns over a number of the bill's provisions.
Unfortunately, the Majority has once again been unwilling to provide
adequate funding for the International Monetary Fund. H.R. 4569
provides only $3.4 billion in credits to the IMF, far less than is
needed to deal with the spreading economic crisis in Asia, Russia and
other countries, and far less than the $18 billion requested by the
Administration. It is particularly unfortunate that the Majority would
not even allow an amendment on IMF funding in order to let the House
have an up-or-down vote on the matter.
I also object to language contained in this bill to codify the so-
called ``Mexico City'' restrictions on U.S. funds for international
family planning organizations. Finally, I believe the provisions
related to North Korea and funding for the Newly Independent States of
the former Soviet Union need to be improved.
I hope that these deficiencies in the bill can be corrected in
conference with the Senate. I will not support the conference report
unless there are major changes.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the fiscal
year 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, but I strongly
support the bill's provision to provide $3 billion in aid to Israel.
While I support final passage of this bill, I am very concerned about
the inadequate response to the shortfall in funding for the
International Monetary Fund. It has been nearly a year since the
Administration requested $3.4 billion for the New Arrangements to
Borrow (NAB) and $14.5 billion to address the Asian currency crisis.
This bill provides only the $3.4 billing in credits for the
International Monetary Fund. Unless the U.S. provides the full share
requested, which has no budgetary impact, no other member countries
will increase their participation, which all IMF member countries are
being asked to make, and we would be unable to replenish the IMF's
depleted reserves and fund loan packages to address worldwide currency
devaluations.
Without this investment, the IMF will have fewer resources to meet
future needs to provide economic stability and in particular stability
to markets for US exports. Given that the Senate has passed the full
amount requested, I am hopeful that the full Administration funding
level will be met when conference action takes place on this bill. If
the House fails to adopt the Senate provision with respect to the IMF
funding and the President vetoes the bill as he has said he would, I
would have no choice but to support the veto.
While I have serious concerns about funding levels for the IMF, I
strongly support aid to Israel, and am very pleased with the $3 billion
appropriated for economic and military assistance provided in this
bill. I believe the United States must maintain its commitment to
providing aid to Israel, which is in the United States' strategic and
economic best interest. An important regional ally and the only true
democracy in the Middle East, Israel is certainly deserving of this
support.
The American-Israeli partnership is vital because it exists beyond
normal political and strategic bonds. Both nations share a common set
of values--individual responsibility, freedom, hope, and opportunity.
Israel is the most reliable ally of the United States in the Middle
East and continued foreign aid funding will maintain its solid
partnership with the United States. Because of the importance of the
United States-Israel relationship and the strength of Israel's
democracy, the United States has a strong, stable democratic ally. By
its continued support of Israel, the United States honors a historic
commitment to a fellow democracy with which we share unique
security, economic, and cultural ties.

I do not believe there is anything more important than to forge a
just and lasting peace for the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to
continue our support for Israel and to further our national interests
by voting for this appropriation.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this rule which would
block any amendments to provide funding for the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). The IMF is an indispensable organization formed in 1945 to
assist its members with monetary issues and financial cooperation. It
is no surprise that the IMF has grown from 29 member countries to 182
nations today.
Mr. Speaker, the rule we have before us today would rob us of the
opportunity to continue to assist nations heavily affected by the
economic contagion which has spread from Asia to Russia to Latin
America. The global economic structures demand that we consider a rule
which would allow us to replenish the IMF's depleted reserves. The
requisite $14.5 billion assists not only the economically troubled
areas I have mentioned, but also the United States. Due to the nature
of our interlinked world economies, it is not so difficult to
comprehend that financial woes in South Korea and Russia will
eventually reach our shores. For example, Asia purchases about 40% of
American agricultural exports. American exports to Asia are expected to
decrease by 3 to 6% this year alone due to reduction of demand in this
region.
The people of Guam, my constituents, have felt the effects of the
Asian Financial Crisis since it commenced last year. With our tourist
economy dependent on the investment of our Asian neighbors, we have
witnessed dwindling tourism numbers effectively shutting down local
businesses and leaving numerous individuals unemployed. Between July
1997 and July 1998, Guam visitor arrival numbers plummeted by an
astounding 23%.
Critics of the IMF cite that this would be the appropriate time to
force reforms on the IMF, such as increasing the transparency of its
operations. This reasoning is myopic. The would continues to be in the
throes of financial crises, and instead of assisting, the United States
is stymieing efforts to assist troubled nations. Exacting conditions on
the IMF at this point would be counterproductive to furthering American
economic interests.
In the interest of our economic well-being, I urge my colleagues to
oppose H. Res. 542.
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will pass
H.R. 4569, the 1999 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Contained
within this act was an important provision I am proud to have
cosponsored. The provision eliminated language that would have repealed
section 907 of the Freedom of Support Act of 1992. I want to applaud
and recognize the overwhelming bipartisan support this measure
received.
The passage of this Amendment sends the clear message that the United
States does not

[[Page H7959]]

condone the government of Azerbaijan's cruel and inhumane blockade of
Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh. This embargo is still in effect today. As
a result of this economic choke-hold, a bipartisan group of legislators
included a provision to the Freedom Support Act known as Section 907.
The Radanovish-Pallone-Rogan-Sherman amendment retains current law
(Section 907) by prohibiting U.S. tax dollars from going to the
dictatorial government of Azerbaijan until its government takes steps
to lift its blockade. Presently humanitarian aid may go to the people
of Azerbaijan through private charities. Maintaining this section
promotes the cause of democracy, while sending the message that human
rights violations and actions that compromise the expansion of
democracy will not be tolerated.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Foreign Operation Appropriations Bill for FY 99 reported out of the
Appropriations Committee. Once again, the GOP leadership has all but
ensured confrontation with the Republican led Senate and has set the
Congress on a collision course with the White House. This bill has
several serious flaws that fail to address the ongoing global economic
crisis and is simply not adequate to meet our national security
requirements or to meet our obligations and responsibilities as the
world's only superpower. Specifically, this bill ignores the
President's request of the total $18 billion for the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and is vital to serve and replenish the IMF funding
base which has been severely depleted by the financial crisis in
Mexico, Asia and Russia; again includes restrictive language on
international family planning funding; fully funds the United States
School of Americans (SOA) which has a long history of instructing human
rights abusers; and underfunds important international programs that
are crucial to an effective foreign policy.
The changes that have occurred in the world in the last decade have
provided the United States unprecedented opportunities to enhance our
national and economic security by solidifying our global leadership and
by bringing democracy to many countries. The Congress has debated the
IMF replenishment for a full year. In that time, the economic crisis
has spread from Asia to Russia, and is now threatening to strike in
Latin America. It is not time for Congress to take a proactive role on
this replenishment. The IMF is an imperfect solution, not the problem,
and it is one of the only tools available to address the serious global
economic turmoil. As a senior Member of the House Banking Committee, I
visited southeast Asia last winter and met with political and financial
leaders in China, Korea and Japan. Following the trip, I was convinced
more than ever that the Asian economic contagion would not be isolated
to Asia. Just yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan and
Treasury Secretary Rubin stressed again the importance of increasing
the funding for the IMF. Furthermore, the Republican led Senate
included the full $18 Billion requested by the Administration in its
passed Foreign Operations Bill. The fact remains that the replenishment
of the IMF will ultimately benefit American workers, businesses and
farmers by protecting our economic strength.
This bill also contains language restricting foreign organizations
who receive family planning assistance from using their own funds to
seek to change laws in their own respective country. This provision
punishes organizations for engaging in legal activities in their own
countries that would be protected by the First Amendment, if carried
out in the United States. Funding for preventive family planning leads
to a decrease in unintended pregnancies, a decrease in maternal deaths,
and a decrease in abortion. Funds under these programs are legally
prohibited from supporting or encouraging abortion as a method of
family planning. These restrictions are safeguarded by legally binding
contracts with the organizations that receive U.S. funds, by close
technical monitoring, and by regular audits by independent, nationally
recognized accounting firms. None of these funds are utilized for
abortion purposes.
International family planning assistance is intended to help women
make informed health care decisions, improve the quality of life for
citizens of developing nations, and promote economic responsibility in
allocating scarce resources. Ultimately, I believe it will be in the
best interest of the United States to support programs that strive to
help the poor and underprivileged, especially women in such need. Such
funds prevent unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that may follow.
In its current form, this provision would even muzzle organizations
from speaking out against abortion in their own countries. Again, the
GOP led Senate did not include this restrictive language in its
version, thus setting up a difficult conference negotiation.
Furthermore, the President has indicated clearly that this language is
unacceptable and that he will veto any bill containing such language.

Again, the GOP leadership insisted on providing full funding for
expanding the International Military Education and Training (IMET)
programs to countries with horrific histories of human rights abuses.
Specifically, funding for the School of the Americas (S.O.A.). The
S.O.A. was established in 1946 to train military officers from Latin
American countries. To date, nearly 60,000 military personnel from
various Latin American countries have attended the S.O.A.
Unfortunately, upon returning to their home countries a number of
graduates have participated in the overthrow of democratically elected
governments and in broad abuses of human rights. The lessons taught by
the U.S. at the S.O.A. were clearly not very effective in guiding
democratic military conduct. I have serious apprehension to any
congressional commitment to S.O.A. instruction that will bring about
positive change in Latin America or in the Global theater. Only the
closure of the S.O.A. could better serve this objective. That is the
right thing to do symbolically and substantively.
This bill appropriates only $43 million of the $300 million requested
by the President for the Global Environment Facility (G.E.F) of the
World Bank. This important facility funds environmental projects
throughout the world. The G.E.F. was created in response to the vast
needs in developing countries for multilateral resources devoted to
mitigating environmental problems. Currently, the G.E.F. is funding
programs to address a variety of environmental problems including the
promotion of a biodiversity, creating energy efficiency and cleaning up
polluted water. Without additional funding, G.E.F. will run out of
money soon and this vital work will stop.
Many funding levels for programs that the Committee has reported will
severely undercut our ability to provide leadership throughout the
global community. Specifically, the Peace Corps defining programs, the
Export Import Bank, and the Protocols to implement the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty.
Overall, this bill fails to provide adequate resources to meet our
national security requirements and reaffirm our obligation and
responsibilities as the world's superpower. The Republican leaders has
again illustrated its indifference to meeting the needs of the global
financial crises, reaffirming its commitments to human rights,
providing environmental leadership abroad, and assisting those who need
our help the most in this age of poverty, civil discord and economic
turmoil. I urge Members to vote no on this bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his support
for H.R. 4569, the Foreign Operations and Export Financing Act for
1999. This Member would like to also express his strong support for
provisions within this measure that support the U.S. Army School of the
Americas.
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues are aware, there has been a
concerted effort to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas by
opponents of the school that have often used distorted or false
information that serves one purpose--to mislead the American public.
The U.S. Army School of the Americas is a U.S. Army military training
institution that it is a key Latin American foreign policy tool for the
United States and an integral part of the U.S. Southern Command's
engagement strategy in Latin America.
The primary mission of the School is to promote democracy, civilian
control of the military, respect for human rights, and doctrinally
sound, relevant military education and training to the nations of Latin
America. With the change in the National Security Strategy from
containment to engagement and enlargement the U.S. Army School of the
Americas has shifted its curriculum to provide course instruction in
areas such as civil-military operations, counterdrug operations,
democratic sustainment, peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian
demining.
Opponents of the School have attempted to place the blame for many of
the human rights abuses in Latin American countries on the U.S. Army
School of the Americas. It should be noted that in the 50-year
existence of the School and its almost 60,000 graduates that less than
one percent of those students have ever been linked to human rights
violations. The human rights training taught is more comprehensive than
human rights training taught at any other U.S. military school.
Also, of critical importance is the counterdrug operations course at
the U.S. Army School of the Americas which teaches both military and
civilian police forces the necessary skills to stop the cultivation,
production and transportation of illegal drugs. Many of the School's
graduates have lost their lives while combating the narco-guerrillas
and drug lords in Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador--key countries in the
United States war on drugs. These counterdrug operations are of vital
interest to our national security as the efforts of these brave Latin
American soldiers are aimed at reducing the flow of drugs across our
borders.
The U.S. Army School of the Americas has been endorsed by the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of the
Army, the Office of National Drug Control

[[Page H7960]]

Policy, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The School does far more good
in promoting democratic values and respect for human rights among Latin
American countries.
This Member supports the sustainment of the U.S. Army School of the
Americas as provided in the Foreign Operations and Export Financing Act
for 1999 and urges his colleagues to do so as well.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi
amendment to fully fund the International Monetary Fund.
Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again prohibited from moving forward
on the incredible important issue of IMF replenishment. Earlier this
year, the House Banking Committee supported a bill to fully fund the
IMF by a 40-9 vote. This bipartisan measure includes needed reforms of
the program to make the Fund more transparent and accountable, improve
labor standards in recipient countries, and increase the effectiveness
of market-oriented reforms. Unfortunately, since the consideration of
this measure in committee, IMF funding has been bogged down by
extraneous issues. This must stop.
The global economy has been going through a tumultuous time over the
past year. First the Asian Tigers slipped, then Russia. Now we are
receiving news that Brazil, one of the strongest and largest economies
in Latin America, is experiencing economic retraction. We need to stand
up and do what's right, not only to bolster the global economy, but to
protect American economy, American jobs, and American values. Should
our economy falter, the Federal budget surplus will be at risk.
How can we, as stewards of our Nation's fiscal house, oppose IMF
funding when failure to do so threatens to drag our strong domestic
economy along with it? I urge my colleagues to oppose the point of
order and support full IMF funding.
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, it is disappointing to me that the House is
moving to approve new funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
in this legislation and shutting out amendments on the IMF, because the
IMF Board of Directors is working on a capital deregulation agenda very
similar to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).
The amendment I intended to offer with my friend from Florida, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen, would have required the Secretary of the Treasury to
oppose an attempt by the IMF to expand its jurisdiction over
international capital flows, before any new money is released for the
IMF.
We won't be able to offer that amendment because the rule for this
bill puts time constraints on amendments and does not make IMF
amendments in order. That is unfortunate.
The MAI is a highly controversial international investment treaty
which has existed in near obscurity for more than 2 years. The MAI was
conceived in secrecy, negotiated mostly in secret, and, if the IMF has
its way, it will implement provisions very similar to the MAI in
secret. The future of the MAI is uncertain, but the IMF's plan to
liberalize controls on capital is moving full speed ahead.
The IMF is working on an amendment to its Articles of Agreement that
would give the IMF the power to require member countries to commit to
full capital account liberalization. The IMF could then dictate to
countries the removal of all barriers to the international flow of
capital. The IMF would become the ultimate enforcer of capital
deregulation. This would increase the IMF's power over all member
countries, including the United States U.S. investor protection laws
could be endangered, and Congress would have nothing to say about it.
The IMF's proposed capital liberalization strategy would also
increase the likelihood and scope of future financial crises. Rapidly
growing and extremely volatile international capital flows have
rendered may emerging markets and developing countries extremely
vulnerable to destabilizing speculative capital. The IMF's dismal
record of predicting these crises increase the possibility that
Congress will be called upon to bail out troubled economies in the
future. If you add weakened capital regulation to that mix, the sky
becomes the limit for these bailouts.
Whatever you think of the MAI or the IMF, the kind of important
decisions contemplated to require the United States to remove controls
on the flow of capital should be made by Congress, not unelected
international bureaucrats. Furthermore, we should not be throwing good
money after bad in these troubled foreign economies by dumbing down
their capital flow controls.
We shouldn't give the IMF a blank check with this bill and we
definitely should not allow the IMF to assume the ability to require
the weakening of the regulation of the movement of capital either here
in the United States or in other countries.
The Klink/Ros-Lehtinen amendment would have ensured that Congress has
the say in developing U.S. capital regulations and help prevent or
reduce any future bailouts by the IMF. I'm disappointed that our
amendment could not be debated today.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 5 hours and shall be
considered read through page 141, line 18.
The text of H.R. 4569 through page 141, line 18 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE

export-import bank of the united states

The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized
to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and
borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in
accordance with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the
current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none
of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be
used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the
export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any
country other than a nuclear-weapon state as defined in
Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance
under this Act that has detonated a nuclear explosive after
the date of enactment of this Act.

subsidy appropriation

For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance,
and tied-aid grants as authorized by section 10 of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, $745,500,000 to
remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain
available until 2014 for the disbursement of direct loans,
loan guarantees, insurance and tied-aid grants obligated in
fiscal years 1999 and 2000: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated by this Act or any prior Act
appropriating funds for foreign operations, export financing,
or related programs for tied-aid credits or grants may be
used for any other purpose except through the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph
are made available notwithstanding section 2(b)(2) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, in connection with the
purchase or lease of any product by any East European
country, any Baltic State, or any agency or national thereof.

administrative expenses

For administrative expenses to carry out the direct and
guaranteed loan and insurance programs (to be computed on an
accrual basis), including hire of passenger motor vehicles
and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to
exceed $20,000 for official reception and representation
expenses for members of the Board of Directors, $50,277,000:
Provided, That necessary expenses (including special services
performed on a contract or fee basis, but not including other
personal services) in connection with the collection of
moneys owed the Export-Import Bank, repossession or sale of
pledged collateral or other assets acquired by the Export-
Import Bank in satisfaction of moneys owed the Export-Import
Bank, or the investigation or appraisal of any property, or
the evaluation of the legal or technical aspects of any
transaction for which an application for a loan, guarantee or
insurance commitment has been made, shall be considered
nonadministrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.

overseas private investment corporation

noncredit account

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is authorized
to make, without regard to fiscal year limitations, as
provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104, such expenditures and commitments
within the limits of funds available to it and in accordance
with law as may be necessary: Provided, That the amount
available for administrative expenses to carry out the credit
and insurance programs (including an amount for official
reception and representation expenses which shall not exceed
$35,000) shall not exceed $33,000,000: Provided further, That
project-specific transaction costs, including direct and
indirect costs incurred in claims settlements, and other
direct costs associated with services provided to specific
investors or potential investors pursuant to section 234 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall not be considered
administrative expenses for the purposes of this heading.

program account

For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, $50,000,000,
as authorized by section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 to be derived by transfer from the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation Noncredit Account: Provided, That such
costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be
as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided further, That such sums shall be available for
direct loan obligations and loan guaranty commitments
incurred or made during fiscal years 1999 and 2000: Provided
further, That such sums shall

[[Page H7961]]

remain available through fiscal year 2007 for the
disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in
fiscal year 1999, and through fiscal year 2008 for the
disbursement of direct and guaranteed loans obligated in
fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That in addition, such
sums as may be necessary for administrative expenses to carry
out the credit program may be derived from amounts available
for administrative expenses to carry out the credit and
insurance programs in the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation Noncredit Account and merged with said account.

Funds Appropriated to the President

trade and development agency

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$41,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000:
Provided, That the Trade and Development Agency may receive
reimbursements from corporations and other entities for the
costs of grants for feasibility studies and other project
planning services, to be deposited as an offsetting
collection to this account and to be available for obligation
until September 30, 2000, for necessary expenses under this
paragraph: Provided further, That such reimbursements shall
not cover, or be allocated against, direct or indirect
administrative costs of the agency.

TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

For expenses necessary to enable the President to carry out
the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and for
other purposes, to remain available until September 30, 1999,
unless otherwise specified herein, as follows:

agency for international development

child survival and disease programs fund

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, for child survival, basic education, assistance to
combat tropical and other diseases, and related activities,
in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes,
$650,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That this amount shall be made available for such activities
as: (1) immunization programs; (2) oral rehydration programs;
(3) health and nutrition programs, and related education
programs, which address the needs of mothers and children;
(4) water and sanitation programs; (5) assistance for
displaced and orphaned children; (6) programs for the
prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on,
tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, polio, malaria and other diseases;
and (7) up to $98,000,000 for basic education programs for
children: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated under this heading may be made available for
nonproject assistance.

development assistance

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
sections 103 through 106 and chapter 10 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $1,174,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That none of
the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated
balances from prior appropriations may be made available to
any organization or program which, as determined by the
President of the United States, supports or participates in
the management of a program of coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available under this heading may be used to pay
for the performance of abortion as a method of family
planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice
abortions; and that in order to reduce reliance on abortion
in developing nations, funds shall be available only to
voluntary family planning projects which offer, either
directly or through referral to, or information about access
to, a broad range of family planning methods and services:
Provided further, That in awarding grants for natural family
planning under section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 no applicant shall be discriminated against because of
such applicant's religious or conscientious commitment to
offer only natural family planning; and, additionally, all
such applicants shall comply with the requirements of the
previous proviso: Provided further, That for purposes of this
or any other Act authorizing or appropriating funds for
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs,
the term ``motivate'', as it relates to family planning
assistance, shall not be construed to prohibit the provision,
consistent with local law, of information or counseling about
all pregnancy options: Provided further, That nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to alter any existing statutory
prohibitions against abortion under section 104 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding section 109 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, of the funds appropriated under this heading in this
Act, and of the unobligated balances of funds previously
appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $2,500,000 may
be transferred to ``International Organizations and
Programs'' for a contribution to the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD), and that any such transfer
of funds shall be subject to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading may be made available for any activity which is in
contravention to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES): Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading may be made available for assistance for the central
Government of the Republic of South Africa, until the
Secretary of State reports in writing to the appropriate
committees of the Congress on the steps being taken by the
United States Government to negotiate the repeal, suspension,
or termination of section 15(c) of South Africa's Medicines
and Related Substances Control Amendment Act No. 90 of 1997.

private and voluntary organizations

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

international disaster assistance

For necessary expenses for international disaster relief,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance pursuant to
section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, $150,000,000, to remain available until expended.

micro and small enterprise development program account

For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees,
$1,500,000, as authorized by section 108 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Provided, That such costs
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That guarantees of
loans made under this heading in support of microenterprise
activities may guarantee up to 70 percent of the principal
amount of any such loans notwithstanding section 108 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. In addition, for
administrative expenses to carry out programs under this
heading, $500,000, all of which may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the
Agency for International Development: Provided further, That
funds made available under this heading shall remain
available until September 30, 2000.

urban and environmental credit program account

For administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed loan
programs, $5,500,000, all of which may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for Operating Expenses of the
Agency for International Development.

payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act
of 1980, $44,552,000.

operating expenses of the agency for international development

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 667, $460,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act for programs administered by the
Agency for International Development may be used to finance
printing costs of any report or study (except feasibility,
design, or evaluation reports or studies) in excess of
$25,000 without the approval of the Administrator of the
Agency or the Administrator's designee.

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

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 667, $31,500,000, to remain available until September
30, 2000, which sum shall be available for the Office of the
Inspector General of the Agency for International
Development.

Other Bilateral Economic Assistance

economic support fund

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II, $2,326,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2000: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $1,080,000,000
shall be available only for Israel, which sum shall be
available on a grant basis as a cash transfer and shall be
disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act or by
October 31, 1998, whichever is later: Provided further, That
not to exceed $775,000,000 shall be available only for Egypt,
which sum shall be provided on a grant basis, and of which
sum cash transfer assistance

[[Page H7962]]

may be provided, with the understanding that Egypt will
undertake significant economic reforms which are additional
to those which were undertaken in previous fiscal years:
Provided further, That in exercising the authority to provide
cash transfer assistance for Israel, the President shall
ensure that the level of such assistance does not cause an
adverse impact on the total level of nonmilitary exports from
the United States to such country.

international fund for ireland

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$19,600,000, which shall be available for the United States
contribution to the International Fund for Ireland and shall
be made available in accordance with the provisions of the
Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
415): Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the
minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects
and activities: Provided further, That funds made available
under this heading shall remain available until September 30,
2000.

assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

(a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East
European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $450,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2000, which shall be
available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
economic assistance and for related programs for Eastern
Europe and the Baltic States.
(b) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be
considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the
administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use
of economic assistance.
(c) None of the funds appropriated under this heading may
be made available for new housing construction or repair or
reconstruction of existing housing in Bosnia and Herzegovina
unless directly related to the efforts of United States
troops to promote peace in said country.
(d) With regard to funds appropriated under this heading
for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and local currencies generated by such funds
(including the conversion of funds appropriated under this
heading into currency used by Bosnia and Herzegovina as local
currency and local currency returned or repaid under such
program)--
(1) the Administrator of the Agency for International
Development shall provide written approval for grants and
loans prior to the obligation and expenditure of funds for
such purposes, and prior to the use of funds that have been
returned or repaid to any lending facility or grantee; and
(2) the provisions of section 532 of this Act shall apply.
(e) The President is authorized to withhold funds
appropriated under this heading made available for economic
revitalization programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if he
determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations
that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not
complied with article III of annex 1-A of the General
Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
concerning the withdrawal of foreign forces, and that
intelligence cooperation on training, investigations, and
related activities between Iranian officials and Bosnian
officials has not been terminated.
(f) Not to exceed $225,000,000 of the funds appropriated
under this heading may be made available for Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
(g) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior
appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for
an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such
funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such
program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without
returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States
and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made
available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the
minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects
and activities.

assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

(a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union and for related
programs, $590,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2000: Provided, That the provisions of such chapter shall
apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph.
(b) Funds appropriated under title II of this Act,
including funds appropriated under this heading, should be
made available for assistance for Mongolia at a level which
is at least equivalent to the level provided in fiscal year
1998: Provided, That funds made available for assistance for
Mongolia may be made available in accordance with the
purposes and utilizing the authorities provided in chapter 11
of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(c)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that
are allocated for assistance for the Government of Russia, 50
percent shall be withheld from obligation until the President
determines and certifies in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations that the Government of Russia has terminated
implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical
expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to
develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research
facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) assistance may be
provided for the Government of Russia if the President
determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations
that making such funds available: (A) is vital to the
national security interest of the United States; and (B) that
the Government of Russia is taking meaningful steps to limit
major supply contracts and to curtail the transfer of
technology and technological expertise related to activities
referred to in paragraph (1).
(d) Not more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated
under this heading may be made available for assistance for
any country in the region.
(e) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less
than 33 percent shall be made available for assistance for
the Southern Caucasus region: Provided, That of the funds
made available for the Southern Caucasus region, 40 percent
should be used for reconstruction and other activities
relating to the peaceful resolution of conflicts within the
region, especially those in the vicinity of Abkhazia and
Nagorno-Karabakh: Provided further, That funds made available
to parties participating in the Minsk Process under the first
proviso of this subsection shall be provided only to those
parties which agree to participate in direct or proximity
negotiations without preconditions to resolve conflicts in
the region: Provided further, That if the Secretary of State
after May 30, 1999, determines and reports to the relevant
committees of Congress that the full amount of funds that may
be made available under the first proviso cannot be
effectively utilized, the amount provided under the previous
proviso may be used for other purposes under this heading.
(f) Funds provided under the previous subsection shall be
made available for humanitarian assistance for refugees,
displaced persons, and needy civilians affected by the
conflicts in the Southern Caucasus region, including those in
Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, notwithstanding any other
provision of this or any other Act.
(g) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply
to--
(1) activities to support democracy or assistance under
title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public
Law 104-201;
(2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development
Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421); and
(3) any activity carried out by a member of the United
States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his
or her official capacity.
(h) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior
appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for
an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-
bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such
funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such
program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without
returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States
and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made
available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the
minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects
and activities.

Independent Agencies

Inter-American Foundation

For expenses necessary to carry out the functions of the
Inter-American Foundation in accordance with the provisions
of section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, and to
make commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations,
as provided by 31 U.S.C. 9104(b)(3), $20,680,000.

African Development Foundation

For expenses necessary to carry out title V of the
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of
1980, Public Law 96-533, and to make commitments without
regard to fiscal year limitations (31 U.S.C. 9104(b)(3)),
$13,160,000: Provided, That funds made available to grantees
may be invested pending expenditure for project purposes when
authorized by the President of the Foundation: Provided
further, That interest earned shall be used only for the
purposes for which the grant was made: Provided further, That
this authority applies to interest earned both prior to and
following enactment of this provision: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the African Development
Foundation Act, in exceptional circumstances the board of
directors of the Foundation may waive the $250,000 limitation
contained in that section with respect to a project: Provided
further, That the Foundation shall provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations after each time such waiver
authority is exercised.

peace corps

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), $230,000,000, including the
purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for
administrative purposes for use outside of the United States:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be used to pay for abortions: Provided further,
That funds appropriated under this heading shall remain
available until September 30, 2000.

[[Page H7963]]

Department of State

international narcotics control

For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $275,000,000: Provided, That
during fiscal year 1999, the Department of State may also use
the authority of section 608 of the Act, without regard to
its restrictions, to receive excess property from an agency
of the United States Government for the purpose of providing
it to a foreign country under chapter 8 of part I of that Act
subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.

migration and refugee assistance

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by
law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red
Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the
International Organization for Migration and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities
to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of
personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service
Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by sections 5921
through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized
by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $640,000,000:
Provided, That not more than $12,000,000 shall be available
for administrative expenses.

UNITED STATES EMERGENCY REFUGEE AND MIGRATION ASSISTANCE FUND

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 260(c)), $30,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the funds made
available under this heading are appropriated notwithstanding
the provisions contained in section 2(c)(2) of the Migration
and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which would limit the
amount of funds which could be appropriated for this purpose.

nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs

For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism
and related programs and activities, $152,000,000, to carry
out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, section
504 of the FREEDOM Support Act for the Nonproliferation and
Disarmament Fund, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act
or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for demining, the
clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related activities,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including
activities implemented through nongovernmental and
international organizations, section 301 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and for a United
States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided, That of this amount
not to exceed $15,000,000, to remain available until
expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and
Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to
nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such
funds may also be used for such countries other than the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union and
international organizations when it is in the national
security interest of the United States to do so: Provided
further, That such funds shall be subject to the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading
may be made available for the International Atomic Energy
Agency only if the Secretary of State determines (and so
reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its
right to participate in the activities of that Agency:
Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees an annual report (to
be submitted with the annual presentation for appropriations)
providing a full and detailed accounting of the fiscal year
request for the United States contribution to KEDO, the
expected operating budget of KEDO, to include unpaid debt,
proposed annual costs associated with heavy fuel oil
purchases, and the amount of funds pledged by other donor
nations and organizations to support KEDO activities on a per
country basis, and other related activities.

Department of the Treasury

debt restructuring

For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct loans
and loan guarantees, as the President may determine, for
which funds have been appropriated or otherwise made
available for programs within the International Affairs
Budget Function 150, including the cost of selling, reducing,
or canceling amounts, through debt buybacks and swaps, owed
to the United States as a result of concessional loans made
to eligible Latin American and Caribbean countries, pursuant
to part IV of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; of
modifying concessional credit agreements with least developed
countries, as authorized under section 411 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended, and concessional loans, guarantees and credit
agreements with any country in sub-Saharan Africa, as
authorized under section 572 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1989 (Public Law 100-461); and of modifying any obligation,
or portion of such obligation for Latin American countries to
pay for purchases of United States agricultural commodities
guaranteed by the Commodity Credit Corporation under export
credit guarantee programs authorized pursuant to section 5(f
) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of June 29,
1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the Food for Peace Act of
1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), or section 202 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-
501); $36,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,900,000 of such funds may be
used for implementation of improvements in the foreign credit
reporting system of the United States Government: Provided
further, That the authority provided by section 572 of Public
Law 100-461 may be exercised only with respect to countries
that are eligible to borrow from the International
Development Association, but not from the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as
``IDA-only'' countries.

TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

international military education and training

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$50,000,000 of which up to $1,000,000 may remain available
until expended: Provided, That the civilian personnel for
whom military education and training may be provided under
this heading may include civilians who are not members of a
government whose participation would contribute to improved
civil-military relations, civilian control of the military,
or respect for human rights: Provided further, That funds
appropriated under this heading for grant financed military
education and training for Indonesia and Guatemala may only
be available for expanded international military education
and training and funds made available for Guatemala may only
be provided through the regular notification procedures of
the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That none
of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made
available to support grant financed military education and
training at the School of the Americas unless the Secretary
of Defense certifies that the instruction and training
provided by the School of the Americas is fully consistent
with training and doctrine, particularly with respect to the
observance of human rights, provided by the Department of
Defense to United States military students at Department of
Defense institutions whose primary purpose is to train United
States military personnel: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations, no later than January 15, 1999, a report
detailing the training activities of the School of the
Americas and a general assessment regarding the performance
of its graduates during 1997.

foreign military financing program

For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President
to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export
Control Act, $3,335,910,000: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $1,860,000,000
shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not to
exceed $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only
for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by
this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days
of enactment of this Act or by October 31, 1998, whichever is
later: Provided further, That to the extent that the
Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such
purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph
shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be
available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less
than $490,000,000 shall be available for the procurement in
Israel of defense articles and defense services, including
research and development: Provided further, That during
fiscal year 1999 the President is authorized to, and shall,
direct drawdowns of defense articles from the stocks of the
Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of
Defense, and military education and training of an aggregate
value of not less than $25,000,000 under the authority of
this proviso for Jordan for the purposes of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That
section 506(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall
apply, and section 632(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 shall not apply, to any such drawdown: Provided further,
That none of the funds made available under this heading
shall be available for any non-NATO country participating in
the Partnership for Peace Program except through the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph
shall be nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further,
That funds made available under this heading shall be
obligated upon apportionment in accordance with paragraph
(5)(C) of title 31, United States Code, section 1501(a).
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans authorized
by section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as follows: cost
of direct loans, $20,000,000: Provided, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans of not to exceed $167,000,000.

[[Page H7964]]

None of the funds made available under this heading shall
be available to finance the procurement of defense articles,
defense services, or design and construction services that
are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms
Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to
make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the
United States Government specifying the conditions under
which such procurements may be financed with such funds:
Provided, That all country and funding level increases in
allocations shall be submitted through the regular
notification procedures of section 515 of this Act: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be available for Sudan and Liberia: Provided
further, That funds made available under this heading may be
used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
demining, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related
activities and may include activities implemented through
nongovernmental and international organizations: Provided
further, That only those countries for which assistance was
justified for the ``Foreign Military Sales Financing
Program'' in the fiscal year 1989 congressional presentation
for security assistance programs may utilize funds made
available under this heading for procurement of defense
articles, defense services or design and construction
services that are not sold by the United States Government
under the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That,
subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations, funds made available under this
heading for the cost of direct loans may also be used to
supplement the funds available under this heading for grants,
and funds made available under this heading for grants may
also be used to supplement the funds available under this
heading for the cost of direct loans: Provided further, That
funds appropriated under this heading shall be expended at
the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for defense
articles and services: Provided further, That not more than
$29,910,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading may
be obligated for necessary expenses, including the purchase
of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only for use
outside of the United States, for the general costs of
administering military assistance and sales: Provided
further, That none of the funds under this heading shall be
available for Guatemala: Provided further, That not more than
$340,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section
21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated
for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during
fiscal year 1999 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export
Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only
through the regular notification procedures of the Committees
on Appropriations.

peacekeeping operations

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$62,250,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
under this heading shall be obligated or expended except as
provided through the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.

TITLE IV--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

Funds Appropriated to the President

international financial institutions

contribution to the international bank for reconstruction and
development

For payment to the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the
United States contribution to the Global Environment Facility
(GEF), $42,500,000, to remain available until September 30,
2000, which shall be available for contributions previously
due.

contribution to the international development association

For payment to the International Development Association by
the Secretary of the Treasury, $800,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

contribution to the inter-american development bank

For payment to the Inter-American Development Bank by the
Secretary of the Treasury, for the United States share of the
paid-in share portion of the increase in capital stock,
$25,610,667, and for the United States share of the increase
in the resources of the Fund for Special Operations,
$21,152,000, to remain available until expended, which shall
be available for contributions previously due.

limitation on callable capital subscriptions

The United States Governor of the Inter-American
Development Bank may subscribe without fiscal year limitation
to the callable capital portion of the United States share of
such capital stock in an amount not to exceed $1,503,718,910.

contribution to the enterprise for the americas multilateral investment
fund

For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral
Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the
United States contribution to the Fund to be administered by
the Inter-American Development Bank, $50,000,000 to remain
available until expended, which shall be available for
contributions previously due.

contribution to the asian development bank

For payment to the Asian Development Bank by the Secretary
of the Treasury for the United States share of the paid-in
portion of the increase in capital stock, $13,221,596, to
remain available until expended.

limitation on callable capital subscriptions

The United States Governor of the Asian Development Bank
may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to the callable
capital portion of the United States share of such capital
stock in an amount not to exceed $647,858,204.

contribution to the asian development fund

For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the
Treasury to the increases in resources of the Asian
Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank
Act, as amended (Public Law 89-369), $210,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $150,000,000 shall be
available for contributions previously due.

contribution to the african development fund

For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the
Treasury to the increase in resources of the African
Development Fund, $128,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $88,300,000 shall be available for
contributions previously due.

contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development

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

limitation on callable capital subscriptions

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

international organizations and programs

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of
section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program
Participation Act of 1973, $157,250,000: Provided, That none
of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made
available for the United Nations Fund for Science and
Technology: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated under this heading may be made available for the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA): Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be
made available for the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
Organization (KEDO) or the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA).

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

obligations during last month of availability

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

prohibition of bilateral funding for international financial
institutions

Sec. 502. Notwithstanding section 614 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, none of the funds
contained in title II of this Act may be used to carry out
the provisions of section 209(d) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.

limitation on residence expenses

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

limitation on expenses

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

limitation on representational allowances

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

[[Page H7965]]

That of the funds made available by this Act for the Peace
Corps, not to exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for
entertainment expenses: Provided further, That of the funds
made available by this Act under the heading ``Trade and
Development Agency'', not to exceed $2,000 shall be available
for representation and entertainment allowances.

prohibition on financing nuclear goods

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

prohibition against direct funding for certain countries

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

military coups

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

transfers between accounts

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

deobligation/reobligation authority

Sec. 510. (a) Amounts certified pursuant to section 1311 of
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1955, as having been
obligated against appropriations heretofore made under the
authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the same
general purpose as any of the headings under title II of this
Act are, if deobligated, hereby continued available for the
same period as the respective appropriations under such
headings or until September 30, 1999, whichever is later, and
for the same general purpose, and for countries within the
same region as originally obligated: Provided, That the
Appropriations Committees of both Houses of the Congress are
notified 15 days in advance of the reobligation of such funds
in accordance with regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.
(b) Obligated balances of funds appropriated to carry out
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act as of the end of
the fiscal year immediately preceding the current fiscal year
are, if deobligated, hereby continued available during the
current fiscal year for the same purpose under any authority
applicable to such appropriations under this Act: Provided,
That the authority of this subsection may not be used in
fiscal year 1999.

availability of funds

Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation after the
expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so
provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for
the purposes of chapters 1, 8, and 11 of part I, section 667,
and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended, and funds provided under the heading
``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'',
shall remain available until expended if such funds are
initially obligated before the expiration of their respective
periods of availability contained in this Act: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, any funds made available for the purposes of chapter 1
of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 which are allocated or obligated for cash
disbursements in order to address balance of payments or
economic policy reform objectives, shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That the report required by
section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall
designate for each country, to the extent known at the time
of submission of such report, those funds allocated for cash
disbursement for balance of payment and economic policy
reform purposes.

limitation on assistance to countries in default

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

commerce and trade

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

surplus commodities

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

notification requirements

Sec. 515. (a) For the purposes of providing the executive
branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of
the funds made available under this Act for ``Child Survival
and Disease Programs Fund'', ``Development assistance'',
``International Organizations and Programs'', ``Trade and
Development Agency'', ``International narcotics control'',
``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'',
``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union'', ``Economic Support Fund'', ``Peacekeeping
operations'', ``Operating expenses of the Agency for
International Development'', ``Operating expenses of the
Agency for International Development Office of Inspector
General'', ``Nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and
related programs'', ``Foreign Military Financing Program'',
``International military education and training '', ``Peace
Corps'', ``Migration and refugee assistance'', shall be
available for obligation for activities, programs, projects,
type of materiel assistance, countries, or other operations
not justified or in excess of the amount justified to the
Appropriations Committees for obligation under any of these
specific headings unless the Appropriations Committees of
both Houses of Congress are previously notified 15 days in
advance: Provided, That the President shall not enter into
any commitment of funds appropriated for the purposes of
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act for the provision
of major defense equipment, other than conventional
ammunition, or other major defense items defined to be
aircraft, ships, missiles, or combat vehicles, not previously
justified to Congress or 20 percent in excess of the
quantities justified to Congress unless the Committees on
Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance of such
commitment: Provided further, That this section shall not
apply to any reprogramming for an activity, program, or
project under chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 of less than 10 percent of the amount previously
justified to the Congress for obligation for

[[Page H7966]]

such activity, program, or project for the current fiscal
year: Provided further, That the requirements of this section
or any similar provision of this Act or any other Act,
including any prior Act requiring notification in accordance
with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations, may be waived if failure to do so would pose
a substantial risk to human health or welfare: Provided
further, That in case of any such waiver, notification to the
Congress, or the appropriate congressional committees, shall
be provided as early as practicable, but in no event later
than three days after taking the action to which such
notification requirement was applicable, in the context of
the circumstances necessitating such waiver: Provided
further, That any notification provided pursuant to such a
waiver shall contain an explanation of the emergency
circumstances.
(b) Drawdowns made pursuant to section 506(a)(2) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall be subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.

limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and
programs

Sec. 516. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of
this Act, none of the funds provided for ``International
Organizations and Programs'' shall be available for the
United States proportionate share, in accordance with section
307(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for any
programs identified in section 307, or for Libya, Iran, or,
at the discretion of the President, Communist countries
listed in section 620(f ) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended: Provided, That, subject to the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations,
funds appropriated under this Act or any previously enacted
Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs, which are returned or not
made available for organizations and programs because of the
implementation of this section or any similar provision of
law, shall remain available for obligation through September
30, 2000.

NEW INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

Sec. 517. (a) Economic Reforms.--None of the funds
appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the New
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made
available for assistance for the Government of Russia--
(1) unless that Government is making progress in
implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market
principles, private ownership, negotiating repayment of
commercial debt, respect for commercial contracts, and
equitable treatment of foreign private investment;
(2) if that Government applies or transfers United States
assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or
seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or
venture.

Assistance may be furnished without regard to this subsection
if the President determines that to do so is in the national
interest.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union'' shall be made available to any government of
the new independent states of the former Soviet Union if that
government directs any action in violation of the territorial
integrity or national sovereignty of any other new
independent state, such as those violations included in the
Helsinki Final Act: Provided, That such funds may be made
available without regard to the restriction in this
subsection if the President determines that to do so is in
the national security interest of the United States: Provided
further, That the restriction of this subsection shall not
apply to the use of such funds for the provision of
assistance for purposes of humanitarian and refugee relief.
(c) None of the funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union'' shall be made available for any state to
enhance its military capability: Provided, That this
restriction shall not apply to demilitarization, demining, or
nonproliferation programs.
(d) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for
the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall
be subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.
(e) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the
new independent states of the former Soviet Union shall be
subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to
environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
(f) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or
making grants, with funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union'' in this Act or in prior appropriations Acts,
for projects or activities that have as one of their primary
purposes the fostering of private sector development, the
Coordinator for United States Assistance to the New
Independent States and the implementing agency shall
encourage the participation of and give significant weight to
contractors and grantees who propose investing a significant
amount of their own resources (including volunteer services
and in-kind contributions) in such projects and activities.

prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization

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

foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas; forced
abortion in the people's republic of china

Sec. 518A. (a) Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Restrictions on Assistance to Foreign Organizations
That Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
``(1) Performance of abortions.--
``(A) Notwithstanding section 614 of this Act or any other
provision of law, no funds appropriated for population
planning activities or other population assistance may be
made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or
multilateral organization until the organization certifies
that it will not, during the period for which the funds are
made available, perform abortions in any foreign country,
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if
the pregnancy were carried to term or in cases of forcible
rape or incest.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) may not be construed to apply to the
treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal
abortions or to assistance provided directly to the
government of a country.
``(2) Lobbying activities.--
``(A) Notwithstanding section 614 of this Act or any other
provision of law, no funds appropriated for population
planning activities or other population assistance may be
made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or
multilateral organization until the organization certifies
that it will not, during the period for which the funds are
made available, violate the laws of any foreign country
concerning the circumstances under which abortion is
permitted, regulated, or prohibited, or engage in any
activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies
of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under
which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to activities in
opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
``(3) Application to foreign organizations.--The
prohibitions of this subsection apply to funds made available
to a foreign organization either directly or as a
subcontractor or subgrantee, and the certifications required
by paragraphs (1) and (2) apply to activities in which the
organization engages either directly or through a
subcontractor or subgrantee.
``(4) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental
policies of any foreign country concerning the circumstances
under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited'
includes not only overt lobbying for such changes, but also
such other activities as sponsoring, rather than merely
attending, conferences and workshops on the alleged defects
in the abortion laws, as well the drafting and distribution
of materials or public statements calling attention to such
alleged defects.''.
(b) Section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation Relating to Forced Abortions in the
People's Republic of China.--Notwithstanding section 614 of
this Act or any other provision of law, no funds may be made
available for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in
any fiscal year unless the President certifies that--
``(1) UNFPA has terminated all activities in the People's
Republic of China, and the United States has received
assurances that UNFPA will conduct no such activities during
the fiscal year for which the funds are to be made available;
or
``(2) during the 12 months preceding such certification
there have been no abortions as the result of coercion
associated with the family planning policies of the national
government or other governmental entities within the People's
Republic of China. As used in this section, the term
`coercion' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction or
confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or
severe psychological pressure.''.
(c) The President may waive the provisions of section
104(h)(1) of the Foreign Assistance

[[Page H7967]]

Act of 1961, as amended, pertaining to population assistance
to foreign organizations that perform abortions in foreign
countries, for any fiscal year: Provided, That if the
President exercises the waiver provided by this subsection
for any fiscal year, not to exceed $356,000,000 may be made
available for population planning activities or other
population assistance for such fiscal year: Provided further,
That the limitation in the previous proviso includes all
funds for programs and activities designed to control
fertility or to reduce or delay childbirths or pregnancies,
irrespective of the heading under which such funds are made
available.

excess defense articles for central european countries

Sec. 519. Section 105 of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat 1427)
is amended by striking ``1996 and 1997'' and inserting ``1999
and 2000''.

special notification requirements

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

definition of program, project, and activity

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

child survival, aids, and other activities

Sec. 522. Up to $10,000,000 of the funds made available by
this Act for assistance for family planning, health, child
survival, basic education, and AIDS, may be used to reimburse
United States Government agencies, agencies of State
governments, institutions of higher learning, and private and
voluntary organizations for the full cost of individuals
(including for the personal services of such individuals)
detailed or assigned to, or contracted by, as the case may
be, the Agency for International Development for the purpose
of carrying out family planning activities, child survival,
and basic education activities, and activities relating to
research on, and the treatment and control of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome in developing countries: Provided, That
funds appropriated by this Act that are made available for
child survival and disease programs activities may be made
available notwithstanding any provision of law that restricts
assistance to foreign countries: Provided further, That funds
appropriated under title II of this Act may be made available
pursuant to section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
if a primary purpose of the assistance is for child survival
and related programs: Provided further, That funds
appropriated by this Act that are made available for family
planning activities may be made available notwithstanding
section 512 of this Act and section 620(q) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961.

prohibition against indirect funding to certain countries

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

reciprocal leasing

Sec. 524. Section 61(a) of the Arms Export Control Act is
amended by striking out ``1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``1999''.

notification on excess defense equipment

Sec. 525. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense
articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall
notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent
and under the same conditions as are other committees
pursuant to subsection (c) of that section: Provided, That
before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense
articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of
Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in
accordance with the regular notification procedures of such
Committees: Provided further, That such Committees shall also
be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense
articles.

authorization requirement

Sec. 526. Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated
and expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672
and section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act
of 1956.

democracy in china

Sec. 527. Notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries, funds appropriated
by this Act for ``Economic Support Fund'' may be made
available to provide general support for nongovernmental
organizations located outside the People's Republic of China
that have as their primary purpose fostering democracy in
that country, and for activities of nongovernmental
organizations located outside the People's Republic of China
to foster democracy in that country: Provided, That none of
the funds made available for activities to foster democracy
in the People's Republic of China may be made available for
assistance to the government of that country.

commercial leasing of defense articles

Sec. 528. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations, the authority of section 23(a)
of the Arms Export Control Act may be used to provide
financing to Israel, Egypt and NATO and major non-NATO allies
for the procurement by leasing (including leasing with an
option to purchase) of defense articles from United States
commercial suppliers, not including Major Defense Equipment
(other than helicopters and other types of aircraft having
possible civilian application), if the President determines
that there are compelling foreign policy or national security
reasons for those defense articles being provided by
commercial lease rather than by government-to-government sale
under such Act.

competitive insurance

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

stingers in the persian gulf region

Sec. 530. Except as provided in section 581 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1990, the United States may not sell or
otherwise make available any Stingers to any country
bordering the Persian Gulf under the Arms Export Control Act
or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961.

debt-for-development

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

separate accounts

Sec. 532. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--(1)
If assistance is furnished to the government of a foreign
country under chapter 1 and 10 of part I or chapter 4 of part
II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under agreements
which result in the generation of local currencies of that
country, the Administrator of the Agency for International
Development shall--
(A) require that local currencies be deposited in a
separate account established by that government;
(B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets
forth--
(i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated; and
(ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so
deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
(C) establish by agreement with that government the
responsibilities of the Agency for International Development
and that government to monitor and account for deposits into
and disbursements from the separate account.
(2) Uses of Local Currencies.--As may be agreed upon with
the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a
separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent
amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
(A) to carry out chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of
part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
(i) project and sector assistance activities; or
(ii) debt and deficit financing; or
(B) for the administrative requirements of the United
States Government.
(3) Programming Accountability.--The Agency for
International Development shall take all necessary steps to
ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies disbursed
pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate account
established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used for the
purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
(4) Termination of Assistance Programs.--Upon termination
of assistance to a country under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or
chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any unencumbered
balances of funds which remain in a separate account
established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be disposed of
for such purposes as may be agreed to by the government of
that country and the United States Government.
(5) Conforming Amendments.--The provisions of this
subsection shall supersede the

[[Page H7968]]

tenth and eleventh provisos contained under the heading
``Sub-Saharan Africa, Development Assistance'' as included in
the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1989 and sections 531(d) and 609
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(6) Reporting Requirement.--The Administrator of the Agency
for International Development shall report on an annual basis
as part of the justification documents submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations on the use of local currencies
for the administrative requirements of the United States
Government as authorized in subsection (a)(2)(B), and such
report shall include the amount of local currency (and United
States dollar equivalent) used and/or to be used for such
purpose in each applicable country.
(b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--(1) If
assistance is made available to the government of a foreign
country, under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of part
II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash transfer
assistance or as nonproject sector assistance, that country
shall be required to maintain such funds in a separate
account and not commingle them with any other funds.
(2) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--Such funds
may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of
law which are inconsistent with the nature of this assistance
including provisions which are referenced in the Joint
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference
accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (H. Report No. 98-
1159).
(3) Notification.--At least 15 days prior to obligating any
such cash transfer or nonproject sector assistance, the
President shall submit a notification through the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations,
which shall include a detailed description of how the funds
proposed to be made available will be used, with a discussion
of the United States interests that will be served by the
assistance (including, as appropriate, a description of the
economic policy reforms that will be promoted by such
assistance).
(4) Exemption.--Nonproject sector assistance funds may be
exempt from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) only
through the notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.

compensation for united states executive directors to international
financial institutions

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

compliance with united nations sanctions against iraq

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

competitive pricing for sales of defense articles

Sec. 535. Direct costs associated with meeting a foreign
customer's additional or unique requirements will continue to
be allowable under contracts under section 22(d) of the Arms
Export Control Act. Loadings applicable to such direct costs
shall be permitted at the same rates applicable to
procurement of like items purchased by the Department of
Defense for its own use.

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

Sec. 536. Unless expressly provided to the contrary,
provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions
contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations
for foreign operations, export financing, and related
programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities
authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the
Inter-American Foundation Act, or the African Development
Foundation Act. The appropriate agency shall promptly report
to the Committees on Appropriations whenever it is conducting
activities or is proposing to conduct activities in a country
for which assistance is prohibited.

impact on jobs in the united states

Sec. 537. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
obligated or expended to provide--
(1) any financial incentive to a business enterprise
currently located in the United States for the purpose of
inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United
States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce
the number of employees of such business enterprise in the
United States because United States production is being
replaced by such enterprise outside the United States;
(2) assistance for the purpose of establishing or
developing in a foreign country any export processing zone or
designated area in which the tax, tariff, labor, environment,
and safety laws of that country do not apply, in part or in
whole, to activities carried out within that zone or area,
unless the President determines and certifies that such
assistance is not likely to cause a loss of jobs within the
United States; or
(3) assistance for any project or activity that contributes
to the violation of internationally recognized workers
rights, as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of
1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any
designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That in
recognition that the application of this subsection should be
commensurate with the level of development of the recipient
country and sector, the provisions of this subsection shall
not preclude assistance for the informal sector in such
country, micro and small-scale enterprise, and smallholder
agriculture.

special authorities

Sec. 538. (a) Funds appropriated in titles I and II of this
Act that are made available for Afghanistan, Lebanon,
Montenegro, and for victims of war, displaced children,
displaced Burmese, humanitarian assistance for Romania, and
humanitarian assistance for the peoples of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, and Kosova, may be made available
notwithstanding any other provision of law.
(b) Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the
provisions of sections 103 through 106 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 may be used, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, for the purpose of supporting biodiversity
conservation activities: Provided, That such assistance shall
be subject to sections 116, 502B, and 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961.
(c) The Agency for International Development may employ
personal services contractors, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, for the purpose of administering programs
for the West Bank and Gaza.
(d)(1) Waiver.--The President may waive the provisions of
section 1003 of Public Law 100-204 if the President
determines and certifies in writing to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the
Senate that it is important to the national security
interests of the United States.
(2) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall be effective for no more than a period
of six months at a time and shall not apply beyond twelve
months after enactment of this Act.

policy on terminating the arab league boycott of israel

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

anti-narcotics activities

Sec. 540. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this Act for
``Economic Support Fund'', assistance may be provided to
strengthen the administration of justice in countries in

[[Page H7969]]

Latin America and the Caribbean and in other regions
consistent with the provisions of section 534(b) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, except that programs to
enhance protection of participants in judicial cases may be
conducted notwithstanding section 660 of that Act.
(b) Funds made available pursuant to this section may be
made available notwithstanding section 534(c) and the second
and third sentences of section 534(e) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961.

eligibility for assistance

Sec. 541. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental
Organizations.--Restrictions contained in this or any other
Act with respect to assistance for a country shall not be
construed to restrict assistance in support of programs of
nongovernmental organizations from funds appropriated by this
Act to carry out the provisions of chapters 1, 10, and 11 of
part I, and chapter 4 of part II, of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961: Provided, That the President shall take into
consideration, in any case in which a restriction on
assistance would be applicable but for this subsection,
whether assistance in support of programs of nongovernmental
organizations is in the national interest of the United
States: Provided further, That before using the authority of
this subsection to furnish assistance in support of programs
of nongovernmental organizations, the President shall notify
the Committees on Appropriations under the regular
notification procedures of those committees, including a
description of the program to be assisted, the assistance to
be provided, and the reasons for furnishing such assistance:
Provided further, That nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to alter any existing statutory prohibitions
against abortion or involuntary sterilizations contained in
this or any other Act.
(b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 1999, restrictions
contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance
for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance
under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act
of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to
carry out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to
this subsection may be obligated or expended except as
provided through the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.
(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
(1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance
Act or any comparable provision of law prohibiting assistance
to countries that support international terrorism; or
(2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting
assistance to countries that violate internationally
recognized human rights.

earmarks

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

ceilings and earmarks

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

prohibition on publicity or propaganda

Sec. 544. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within
the United States not authorized before the date of enactment
of this Act by the Congress: Provided, That not to exceed
$950,000 may be made available to carry out the provisions of
section 316 of Public Law 96-533.

purchase of american-made equipment and products

Sec. 545. (a) To the maximum extent possible, assistance
provided under this Act should make full use of American
resources, including commodities, products, and services.
(b) It is the Sense of the Congress that, to the greatest
extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with
funds made available in this Act should be American-made.
(c) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (b) by the
Congress.

prohibition of payments to united nations members

Sec. 546. None of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, may be used to pay in whole or in part any
assessments, arrearages, or dues of any member of the United
Nations.

consulting services

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

private voluntary organizations-documentation

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

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

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

withholding of assistance for parking fines owed by foreign countries

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

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

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

[[Page H7970]]

war crimes tribunals drawdown

Sec. 552. If the President determines that doing so will
contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide
or other violations of international humanitarian law, the
President may direct a drawdown pursuant to section 552(c) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, of up to
$25,000,000 of commodities and services for the United
Nations War Crimes Tribunal established with regard to the
former Yugoslavia by the United Nations Security Council or
such other tribunals or commissions as the Council may
establish to deal with such violations, without regard to the
ceiling limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof:
Provided, That the determination required under this section
shall be in lieu of any determinations otherwise required
under section 552(c): Provided further, That 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, and every 180 days
thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to
the Committees on Appropriations describing the steps the
United States Government is taking to collect information
regarding allegations of genocide or other violations of
international law in the former Yugoslavia and to furnish
that information to the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia.

landmines

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

restrictions concerning the palestinian authority

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

prohibition of payment of certain expenses

Sec. 555. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act under the heading ``International
Military Education and Training '' or ``Foreign Military
Financing Program'' for Informational Program activities may
be obligated or expended to pay for--
(1) alcoholic beverages;
(2) food (other than food provided at a military
installation) not provided in conjunction with Informational
Program trips where students do not stay at a military
installation; or
(3) entertainment expenses for activities that are
substantially of a recreational character, including entrance
fees at sporting events and amusement parks.

equitable allocation of funds

Sec. 556. Not more than 18 percent of the funds
appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of
sections 103 through 106 and chapter 4 of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, that are made available for
Latin America and the Caribbean region may be made available,
through bilateral and Latin America and the Caribbean
regional programs, to provide assistance for any country in
such region.

special debt relief for the poorest

Sec. 557. (a) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President may
reduce amounts owed to the United States (or any agency of
the United States) by an eligible country as a result of--
(1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
(2) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms
Export Control Act; or
(3) any obligation or portion of such obligation for a
Latin American country, to pay for purchases of United States
agricultural commodities guaranteed by the Commodity Credit
Corporation under export credit guarantee programs authorized
pursuant to section 5(f ) of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act of June 29, 1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the
Food for Peace Act of 1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808),
or section 202 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as
amended (Public Law 95-501).
(b) Limitations.--
(1) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief
ad referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris
Club Agreed Minutes''.
(2) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is
provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
(3) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt
burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International
Development Association, but not from the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as
``IDA-only'' countries.
(c) Conditions.--The authority provided by subsection (a)
may be exercised only with respect to a country whose
government--
(1) does not have an excessive level of military
expenditures;
(2) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism;
(3) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics
control matters;
(4) (including its military or other security forces) does
not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights; and
(5) is not ineligible for assistance because of the
application of section 527 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
(d) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by
subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds
appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt
restructuring ''.
(e) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt
pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered assistance
for purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance to a
country. The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961.

authority to engage in debt buybacks or sales

Sec. 558. (a) Loans Eligible for Sale, Reduction, or
Cancellation.--
(1) Authority to sell, reduce, or cancel certain loans.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
may, in accordance with this section, sell to any eligible
purchaser any concessional loan or portion thereof made
before January 1, 1995, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, to the government of any eligible country as
defined in section 702(6) of that Act or on receipt of
payment from an eligible purchaser, reduce or cancel such
loan or portion thereof, only for the purpose of
facilitating--
(A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or
debt-for-nature swaps; or
(B) a debt buyback by an eligible country of its own
qualified debt, only if the eligible country uses an
additional amount of the local currency of the eligible
country, equal to not less than 40 percent of the price paid
for such debt by such eligible country, or the difference
between the price paid for such debt and the face value of
such debt, to support activities that link conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources with local community
development, and child survival and other child development,
in a manner consistent with sections 707 through 710 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale, reduction, or
cancellation would not contravene any term or condition of
any prior agreement relating to such loan.
(2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President shall, in accordance with
this section, establish the terms and conditions under which
loans may be sold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this
section.
(3) Administration.--The Facility, as defined in section
702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall notify
the administrator of the agency primarily responsible for
administering part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of
purchasers that the President has determined to be eligible,
and shall direct such agency to carry out the sale,
reduction, or cancellation of a loan pursuant to this
section. Such agency shall make an adjustment in its accounts
to reflect the sale, reduction, or cancellation.
(4) Limitation.--The authorities of this subsection shall
be available only to the extent that appropriations for the
cost of the modification, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made in advance.
(b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The proceeds from the sale,
reduction, or cancellation of any loan sold, reduced, or
canceled pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the
United States Government account or accounts established for
the repayment of such loan.
(c) Eligible Purchasers.--A loan may be sold pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans
satisfactory to the President for using the loan for the
purpose of engaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-
development swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.
(d) Debtor Consultations.--Before the sale to any eligible
purchaser, or any reduction or cancellation pursuant to this
section, of any loan made to an eligible country, the
President should consult with the country concerning the
amount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceled and their
uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps,
or debt-for-nature swaps.
(e) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by
subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds
appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt
restructuring ''.

[[Page H7971]]

sanctions against countries harboring war criminals

Sec. 559. (a) Bilateral Assistance.--The President is
authorized to withhold funds appropriated by this Act under
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control
Act for any country described in subsection (c).
(b) Multilateral Assistance.--The Secretary of the Treasury
should instruct the United States executive directors of the
international financial institutions to work in opposition
to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of
financing or financial or technical assistance to any country
described in subsection (c).
(c) Sanctioned Countries.--A country described in this
subsection is a country the government of which knowingly
grants sanctuary to persons in its territory for the purpose
of evading prosecution, where such persons--
(1) have been indicted by the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, or any other international tribunal with
similar standing under international law; or
(2) have been indicted for war crimes or crimes against
humanity committed during the period beginning March 23, 1933
and ending on May 8, 1945 under the direction of, or in
association with--
(A) the Nazi government of Germany;
(B) any government in any area occupied by the military
forces of the Nazi government of Germany;
(C) any government which was established with the
assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government; or
(D) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government
of Germany.

limitation on assistance for haiti

Sec. 560. (a) Limitation.--Funds appropriated by this Act
may be made available for assistance for the Government of
Haiti only if the President reports to the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate that the Government of Haiti--
(1) has completed privatization of (or placed under long-
term private management or concession) three major public
entities including the completion of all required
incorporating documents, the transfer of assets, and the
eviction of unauthorized occupants of the land or facility;
(2) is cooperating with the United States in halting
illegal emigration from Haiti;
(3) is conducting thorough investigations of extrajudicial
and political killings and has made substantial progress in
bringing to justice a person or persons responsible for one
or more extrajudicial or political killings in Haiti, and is
cooperating with United States authorities and with United
States-funded technical advisors to the Haitian National
Police in such investigations;
(4) has taken action to remove from the Haitian National
Police, national palace and residential guard, ministerial
guard, and any other public security entity or unit of Haiti
those individuals who are credibly alleged to have engaged in
or conspired to conceal gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights or credibly alleged to have engaged
in or conspired to engage in narcotics trafficking; and
(5) is implementing the maritime counter-narcotics
agreements signed in October 1997.
(b) Availability of Electoral Assistance.--Funds
appropriated by this Act may be made available to support
elections in Haiti only if the President reports to the
Congress that the Government of Haiti:
(1) has achieved a transparent settlement of the contested
April 1997 elections; and
(2) has made concrete progress on the constitution of a
credible and competent provisional electoral council with the
agreement of a broad spectrum of diverse political parties.
(c) Exceptions.--The limitations in subsections (a) and (b)
shall not apply to the provision of--
(1) counter-narcotics assistance, support for the Haitian
National Police's Special Investigations Unit and anti-
corruption programs, the International Criminal Investigative
Assistance Program, and assistance in support of Haitian
customs and maritime officials;
(2) food assistance management and support;
(3) assistance for urgent humanitarian needs, such as
medical and other supplies and services in support of
community health services, schools, and orphanages; and
(4) not more than $3,000,000 for the development and
support of political parties.
(d) Waiver.--At any time after 150 days from the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State may waive the
requirements contained in subsection (a)(1) if she reports to
the Committees specified in subsection (a) that the
Government of Haiti has satisfied the requirements of
subsection (a)(1) with regard to one major public entity.
(e) Reports.--The Secretary of State shall provide to the
Committees specified in subsection (a) on a quarterly basis--
(1) in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, a
report on the status and number of United States personnel
deployed in and around Haiti on Department of Defense, Drug
Enforcement Administration, and United Nations missions,
including displays by functional or operational assignment
for such personnel and the cost to the United States of these
operations; and
(2) the monthly reports, prepared during the previous
quarter, of the Organization of American States/United
Nations International Civilian Mission to Haiti (MICIVIH).

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

Sec. 561. (a) Foreign Aid Reporting Requirement.--In
addition to the voting practices of a foreign country, the
report required to be submitted to Congress under section
406(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal
years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2414a), shall include a side-
by-side comparison of individual countries' overall support
for the United States at the United Nations and the amount of
United States assistance provided to such country in fiscal
year 1998.
(b) United States Assistance.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``United States assistance'' has the
meaning given the term in section 481(e)(4) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291(e)(4)).

restrictions on voluntary contributions to united nations agencies

Sec. 562. (a) Prohibition on Voluntary Contributions for
the United Nations.--None of the funds appropriated by this
Act may be made available to pay any voluntary contribution
of the United States to the United Nations (including the
United Nations Development Program) if the United Nations
implements or imposes any taxation on any United States
persons.
(b) Certification Required for Disbursement of Funds.--None
of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available
to pay any voluntary contribution of the United States to the
United Nations (including the United Nations Development
Program) unless the President certifies to the Congress 15
days in advance of such payment that the United Nations is
not engaged in any effort to implement or impose any taxation
on United States persons in order to raise revenue for the
United Nations or any of its specialized agencies.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section the term ``United
States person'' refers to--
(1) a natural person who is a citizen or national of the
United States; or
(2) a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity
organized under the United States or any State, territory,
possession, or district of the United States.

limitation on assistance to the palestinian authority

Sec. 563. (a) Prohibition of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds
to the Palestinian Authority.
(b) Waiver.--The prohibition included in subsection (a)
shall not apply if the President certifies in writing to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro
tempore of the Senate that waiving such prohibition is
important to the national security interests of the United
States.
(c) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant
to subsection (b) shall be effective for no more than a
period of six months at a time and shall not apply beyond
twelve months after enactment of this Act.

limitation on assistance to the government of croatia

Sec. 564. None of the funds appropriated 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.

limitation on assistance to security forces

Sec. 565. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that
such unit has committed gross violations of human rights,
unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees
on Appropriations that the government of such country is
taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of
the security forces unit to justice: Provided, That nothing
in this section shall be construed to withhold funds made
available by this Act from any unit of the security forces of
a foreign country not credibly alleged to be involved in
gross violations of human rights: Provided further, That in
the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to
this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform
the foreign government of the basis for such action and
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign
government in taking effective measures to bring the
responsible members of the security forces to justice.

limitations on transfer of military equipment to east timor

Sec. 566. In any agreement for the sale, transfer, or
licensing of any lethal equipment or helicopter for Indonesia
entered into by the United States pursuant to the authority
of this Act or any other Act, the agreement shall state that
the United States expects that the items will not be used in
East Timor: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit Indonesia's inherent right to legitimate
national self-defense as recognized under the United Nations
Charter and international law.

restrictions on assistance to countries providing sanctuary to indicted
war criminals

Sec. 567. (a) Bilateral Assistance.--None of the funds made
available by this or any

[[Page H7972]]

prior Act making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing and related programs, may be provided for
any country, entity or canton described in subsection (d).
(b) Multilateral Assistance.--
(1) Prohibition.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
instruct the United States executive directors of the
international financial institutions to work in opposition
to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of
any financial or technical assistance or grants of any kind
to any country or entity described in subsection (d).
(2) Notification.--Not less than 15 days before any vote in
an international financial institution regarding the
extension of financial or technical assistance or grants to
any country or entity described in subsection (d), the
Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, shall provide to the Committee on Appropriations
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services of the House of Representatives a written
justification for the proposed assistance, including an
explanation of the United States position regarding any such
vote, as well as a description of the location of the
proposed assistance by municipality, its purpose, and its
intended beneficiaries.
(3) Definition.--The term ``international financial
institution'' includes the International Monetary Fund, the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the
International Development Association, the International
Finance Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guaranty
Agency, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a)
and (b) shall not apply to the provision of--
(A) humanitarian assistance;
(B) democratization assistance;
(C) assistance for cross border physical infrastructure
projects involving activities in both a sanctioned country,
entity, or canton and a nonsanctioned contiguous country,
entity, or canton, if the project is primarily located in and
primarily benefits the nonsanctioned country, entity, or
canton and if the portion of the project located in the
sanctioned country, entity, or canton is necessary only to
complete the project;
(D) small-scale assistance projects or activities requested
by United States Armed Forces that promote good relations
between such forces and the officials and citizens of the
areas in the United States SFOR sector of Bosnia;
(E) implementation of the Brcko Arbitral Decision;
(F) lending by the international financial institutions to
a country or entity to support common monetary and fiscal
policies at the national level as contemplated by the Dayton
Agreement; or
(G) direct lending to a non-sanctioned entity, or lending
passed on by the national government to a non-sanctioned
entity.
(2) Further limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
(A) no assistance may be made available by this Act, or any
prior Act making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing and related programs, in any country,
entity, or canton described in subsection (d), for a program,
project, or activity in which a publicly indicted war
criminal is known to have any financial or material interest;
and
(B) no assistance (other than emergency foods or medical
assistance or demining assistance) may be made available by
this Act, or any prior Act making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing and related programs for any
program, project, or activity in a community within any
country, entity or canton described in subsection (d) if
competent authorities within that community are not complying
with the provisions of Article IX and Annex 4, Article II,
paragraph 8 of the Dayton Agreement relating to war crimes
and the Tribunal.
(d) Sanctioned Country, Entity, or Canton.--A sanctioned
country, entity, or canton described in this section is one
whose competent authorities have failed, as determined by the
Secretary of State, to take necessary and significant steps
to apprehend and transfer to the Tribunal all persons who
have been publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
(e) Waiver.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State may waive the
application of subsection (a) or subsection (b) with respect
to specified bilateral programs or international financial
institution projects or programs in a sanctioned country,
entity, or canton upon providing a written determination to
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations
and the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives that such assistance directly supports the
implementation of the Dayton Agreement and its Annexes, which
include the obligation to apprehend and transfer indicted war
criminals to the Tribunal.
(2) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date of any
written determination under paragraph (e)(1), the Secretary
of State shall submit a report to the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives
regarding the status of efforts to secure the voluntary
surrender or apprehension and transfer of persons indicted by
the Tribunal, in accordance with the Dayton Agreement, and
outlining obstacles to achieving this goal.
(3) Assistance programs and projects affected.--Any waiver
made pursuant to this subsection shall be effective only with
respect to a specified bilateral program or multilateral
assistance project or program identified in the determination
of the Secretary of State to Congress.
(f ) Termination of Sanctions.--The sanctions imposed
pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) with respect to a country
or entity shall cease to apply only if the Secretary of State
determines and certifies to Congress that the authorities of
that country, entity, or canton have apprehended and
transferred to the Tribunal all persons who have been
publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) Country.--The term ``country'' means Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro.
(2) Entity.--The term ``entity'' refers to the Federation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska.
(3) Canton.--The term ``canton'' means the administrative
units in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
(4) Dayton agreement.--The term ``Dayton Agreement'' means
the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, together with annexes relating thereto, done at
Dayton, November 10 through 16, 1995.
(5) Tribunal.--The term ``Tribunal'' means the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
(h) Role of Human Rights Organizations and Government
Agencies.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary of
State, the Administrator of the Agency for International
Development, and the executive directors of the international
financial institutions shall consult with representatives of
human rights organizations and all government agencies with
relevant information to help prevent publicly indicted war
criminals from benefitting from any financial or technical
assistance or grants provided to any country or entity
described in subsection (d).

additional requirements relating to stockpiling of defense articles for
foreign countries

Sec. 568. (a) Value of Additions to Stockpiles.--Section
514(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2321h(b)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``and $340,000,000 for fiscal year
1999''.
(b) Requirements Relating to the Republic of Korea and
Thailand.--Section 514(b)(2)(B) of such Act (22 U.S.C.
2321h(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Of the amount specified in subparagraph (A) for
fiscal year 1999, not more than $320,000,000 may be made
available for stockpiles in the Republic of Korea and not
more than $20,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in
Thailand.''.

Requirements for the Reporting to Congress of the Costs to the Federal
Government Associated with the Proposed Agreement to Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions

Sec. 569. The President shall provide to the Congress a
detailed account of all Federal agency obligations and
expenditures for climate change programs and activities,
domestic and international, for fiscal year 1998, planned
obligations for such activities in fiscal year 1999, and any
plan for programs thereafter in the context of negotiations
to amend the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) to
be provided to the appropriate congressional committees no
later than November 15, 1998.

withholding assistance to countries violating united nations sanctions
against libya

Sec. 570. (a) Withholding of Assistance.--Except as
provided in subsection (b), whenever the President determines
and certifies to Congress that the government of any country
is violating any sanction against Libya imposed pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 731, 748, or 883,
then not less than 5 percent of the funds allocated for the
country under section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 out of appropriations in this Act shall be withheld from
obligation and expenditure for that country.
(b) Exception.--The requirement to withhold funds under
subsection (a) shall not apply to funds appropriated in this
Act for allocation under section 653(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for development assistance or for
humanitarian assistance.
(c) Waiver.--Funds may be provided for a country without
regard to subsection (a) if the President determines that to
do so is in the national security interest of the United
States.

aid to the government of the democratic republic of congo

Sec. 571. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
provided for assistance for the central Government of the
Democratic Republic of Congo until such time as the President
reports in writing to the Congress that the central
Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo is cooperating
fully with investigators from the United Nations in
accounting for human rights violations committed in the
Democratic Republic of Congo or adjacent countries.

assistance for the middle east

Sec. 572. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the
headings ``Economic Support

[[Page H7973]]

Fund'', ``Foreign Military Financing '', ``International
Military Education and Training '', ``Peacekeeping
Operations'', for refugees resettling in Israel under the
heading ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'', and for
assistance for Israel to carry out provisions of chapter 8 of
part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under the
heading ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and
Related Programs'', not more than a total of $5,402,850,000
may be made available for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, the
West Bank and Gaza, the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, the
Multinational Force and Observers, the Middle East Regional
Democracy Fund, Middle East Regional Cooperation, and Middle
East Multilateral Working Groups: Provided, That any funds
that were appropriated under such headings in prior fiscal
years and that were at the time of enactment of this Act
obligated or allocated for other recipients may not during
fiscal year 1999 be made available for activities that, if
funded under this Act, would be required to count against
this ceiling: Provided further, That funds may be made
available notwithstanding the requirements of this section if
the President determines and certifies to the Committees on
Appropriations that it is important to the national security
interest of the United States to do so and any such
additional funds shall only be provided through the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

enterprise fund restrictions

Sec. 573. Prior to the distribution of any assets resulting
from any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of an
Enterprise Fund, in whole or in part, the President shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations, in accordance
with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations, a plan for the distribution of the assets of
the Enterprise Fund.

cambodia

Sec. 574. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be made available for assistance for the Government of
Cambodia: Provided, That the restrictions under this heading
shall not apply to humanitarian, demining or election-related
programs or activities: Provided further, That the provision
of such assistance shall be made available subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
(b) The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct the
United States executive directors of the international
financial institutions to use the voice and vote of the
United States to oppose loans to the Government of Cambodia,
except loans to support basic human needs.

export financing transfer authorities

Sec. 575. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation
other than for administrative expenses made available for
fiscal year 1999 for programs under title I of this Act may
be transferred between such appropriations for use for any of
the purposes, programs and activities for which the funds in
such receiving account may be used, but no such
appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided,
shall be increased by more than 25 percent by any such
transfer: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall
be subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.

authorization for population planning

Sec. 576. Not to exceed $385,000,000 of the funds
appropriated in title II of this Act may be available for
population planning activities or other population
assistance.

REPORT ON FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING

Sec. 577. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State shall jointly provide to the Congress by January 31,
1999, a report on all overseas military training provided to
foreign military personnel under programs administered by the
Department of Defense and the Department of State during
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, including those proposed for
fiscal year 1999. This report shall include, for each such
military training activity, the foreign policy justification
and purpose for the training activity, the cost of the
training activity, the number of foreign students trained and
their units of operation, and the location of the training.
In addition, this report shall also include, with respect to
United States personnel, the operational benefits to United
States forces derived from each such training activity and
the United States military units involved in each such
training activity. This report may include a classified annex
if deemed necessary and appropriate.

korean peninsula energy development organization

Sec. 578. Notwithstanding sections 614 and 451 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, or any other
provision of law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used for a voluntary contribution to, or assistance
for, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization.

repeal of restrictions on assistance

Sec. 579. Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act is hereby
repealed.

TITLE VI

Funds Appropriated to the President

International Monetary Programs

loans to the international monetary fund

For loans to the International Monetary Fund under section
17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act pursuant to the New
Arrangements to Borrow, the dollar equivalent of
2,462,000,000 Special Drawing Rights, to remain available
until expended. In addition, the amounts appropriated by
title III of the Foreign Aid and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1963 (Public Law 87-872) and section
1101(b) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1984 (Public
Law 98-181) may also be used under section 17 of the Bretton
Woods Agreements Act pursuant to the New Arrangements to
Borrow.

General Provisions--This Title

conditions for the use of appropriated funds

Sec. 601. (a) Condition for the Use of Appropriated Funds
for Quota Increase.--None of the funds appropriated after
July 15, 1998, under the heading ``United States Quota in the
International Monetary Fund'' may be obligated or made
available to the International Monetary Fund until 15 days
after the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System jointly
provide written notification to the appropriate committees
that the major shareholders of the International Monetary
Fund have publicly agreed to, and will act to implement in
the Fund policies providing that for conditions in standby
agreements or other arrangements regarding the use of Fund
resources include requirements that the recipient country--
(1) liberalize restrictions on trade in goods and services
and on investment, at a minimum consistent with the terms of
all international trade agreements of which the borrowing
country is a signatory;
(2) eliminate the pervasive practice or policy of
government directed lending on non-commercial terms or
provision of market distorting subsidies to favored
industries, enterprises, parties, or institutions; and
(3) guarantee nondiscriminatory treatment in insolvency
proceedings between domestic and foreign creditors, and for
debtors and other concerned persons.
(b) Condition for the Use of Appropriated Funds for Loans
to the IMF.--
(1) In general.--None of the funds appropriated in this
title under the heading ``Loans to the International Monetary
Fund'' may be obligated or made available to the
International Monetary Fund unless--
(A) there is in effect a written certification, made by the
Secretary of the Treasury, to the appropriate committees that
the International Monetary Fund has met the requirements of
paragraph (2); and
(B) the Congress has enacted legislation approving the
certification.
(2) Requirements.--The requirements of this paragraph are
that the International Monetary Fund has in effect policies
that are designed to ensure the following:
(A) Within 3 months after any meeting of the Executive
Board of the International Monetary Fund at which a Letter of
Intent, a Policy Framework Paper, an Article IV economic
review consultation with a member country, or a change in a
general policy of the International Monetary Fund is
discussed, a full written summary of the meeting shall be
made available for public inspection, with the following
information redacted:
(i) Information which, if released, would adversely affect
the national security of a country, and which is of the type
that would be classified by United States Government.
(ii) Market-sensitive information.
(iii) Proprietary information.
(B) Within 3 months after the Executive Board of the
International Monetary Fund at which a Letter of Intent or a
Policy Framework Paper is discussed, a copy of the Letter of
Intent or Policy Framework Paper shall be made available for
public inspection with the following information redacted:
(i) Information which, if released, would adversely affect
the national security of a country, and which is of the type
that would be classified by United States Government.
(ii) Market-sensitive information.
(iii) Proprietary information.
(C) Interest charges on loans to member countries shall be
based on the International Monetary Fund's market-determined
cost of financing, adjusted weekly, and loans from any
facility established to address circumstances of exceptional
balance of payments difficulties and impaired access to
capital due to a sudden loss of market confidence should
carry a substantial surcharge that serves to provide an
incentive for early repayment and encourage private market
refinancing, and that reflects risk.

reports on financial stabilization programs led by the international
monetary fund in connection with financing from the exchange
stabilization fund

Sec. 602. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall submit to the appropriate committees 2 reports on the
implementation of financial stabilization programs led by the
International Monetary Fund in any country in connection with
which the United States has made a commitment to provide or
has provided financing from the stabilization fund
established under section 5302 of title 31, United States
Code. A report shall include the following with respect to
each such country:
(1) The extent that the country has made progress in making
conglomerate business practices more transparent through the
application of internationally accepted accounting practices,
independent external audits, full disclosure, and provision
of consolidated statements.
(2) The success of measures undertaken by the United States
Government and the International Monetary Fund to ensure that
the country will not provide Government-subsidized support or
tax privileges to bail out

[[Page H7974]]

individual corporations, particularly in the semiconductor,
steel, plywood, paper, and glassware industries.
(3) Whether International Monetary Fund involvement in
labor market flexibility measures has had a negative effect
on worker rights in the country, and the nature of any such
negative effects.
(b) Timing of Reports.--The first report required by
subsection (a) shall be due by December 1, 1998, and the
second such report shall be due by May 1, 1999.
(c) Notification of Impending Disbursements.--Not later
than 36 hours before the disbursement to a country with
respect to which a report is required by subsection (a) of
any resources from the stabilization fund referred to in
subsection (a) in connection with the implementation of a
financial stabilization program described in subsection (a),
the Secretary of the Treasury shall notify the appropriate
committees of the impending disbursement.

advisory commission

Sec. 603. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall establish an International Financial Institution
Advisory Commission (in this section referred to as the
``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--The Commission shall include--
(1) 6 individuals appointed by the Congress, including at
least 2 former Secretaries of the Treasury, 1 of whom shall
serve as the chairman of the Commission; and
(2) not to exceed 2 members as designated by the Secretary.
(c) Recommendations.--Within 180 days after the appointment
of Commission members, the Commission shall submit to the
appropriate committees a report that contains the
recommendations of the Commission regarding the future role
and responsibilities of the International Monetary Fund and
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
including changes to the policy goals set forth for the
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development in the Bretton Woods
Agreements Act and the International Financial Institutions
Act.
(d) International Advisory Committee.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director
at the International Monetary Fund to use the voice and vote
of the United States to seek the establishment of a permanent
advisory committee to the Interim Committee of the Board of
Governors of the International Monetary Fund, that is to
consist of elected members of the national legislatures of
the member countries directly represented by appointed
members of the Executive Board of the International Monetary
Fund.

definitions

Sec. 604. For purposes of sections 601 through 603 of this
chapter, the term ``appropriate committees'' means the
Committees on Appropriations, Foreign Relations, and Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committees
on Appropriations and Banking and Financial Services of the
House of Representatives.

participation in quota increase

Sec. 605. (a) In General.--The Bretton Woods Agreements Act
(22 U.S.C. 286-286mm) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 61. QUOTA INCREASE.

``(a) In General.--The United States Governor of the Fund
may consent to an increase in the quota of the United States
in the Fund equivalent to 10,622,500,000 Special Drawing
Rights.
``(b) Subject to Appropriations.--The authority provided by
subsection (a) shall be effective only to such extent or in
such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations
Acts.''.
(b) Effectiveness Subject to Certification.--The amendment
made by subsection (a) shall not take effect until the
Secretary of the Treasury certifies to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate that the investors and banks have made a significant
contribution in conjunction with a financing package that, in
the context of an international financial crisis, might
include taxpayer supported official financing.

new arrangements to borrow

Sec. 606. Section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act
(22 U.S.C. 286e-2 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``and February 24, 1983'' and inserting
``February 24, 1983, and January 27, 1997''; and
(B) by striking ``4,250,000,000'' and inserting
``6,712,000,000'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``4,250,000,000'' and
inserting ``6,712,000,000''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``or the Decision of January 27, 1997,''
after ``February 24, 1983,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or the New Arrangements to Borrow, as
applicable'' before the period at the end.

advocacy of policies to enhance the general effectiveness of the
international monetary fund

Sec. 607. (a) In General.--Title XV of the International
Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262o-262o-1) is amended
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1503. ADVOCACY OF POLICIES TO ENHANCE THE GENERAL
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY
FUND.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
instruct the United States Executive Director of the
International Monetary Fund to use aggressively the voice and
vote of the Executive Director to do the following:
``(1) Vigorously promote policies to increase the
effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund in
structuring programs and assistance so as to promote policies
and actions that will contribute to exchange rate stability
and avoid competitive devaluations that will further
destabilize the international financial and trading systems.
``(2) Vigorously promote policies to increase the
effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund in promoting
market-oriented reform, trade liberalization, economic
growth, democratic governance, and social stability through--
``(A) appropriate liberalization of pricing, trade,
investment, and exchange rate regimes of countries to open
countries to the competitive forces of the global economy;
``(B) opening domestic markets to fair and open internal
competition among domestic enterprises by eliminating
inappropriate favoritism for small or large businesses,
eliminating elite monopolies, creating and effectively
implementing anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws to protect
free competition, and establishing fair and accessible legal
procedures for dispute settlement among domestic enterprises;
``(C) privatizing industry in a fair and equitable manner
that provides economic opportunities to a broad spectrum of
the population, eliminating government and elite monopolies,
closing loss-making enterprises, and reducing government
control over the factors of production;
``(D) economic deregulation by eliminating inefficient and
overly burdensome regulations and strengthening the legal
framework supporting private contract and intellectual
property rights;
``(E) establishing or strengthening key elements of a
social safety net to cushion the effects on workers of
unemployment and dislocation; and
``(F) encouraging the opening of markets for agricultural
commodities and products by requiring recipient countries to
make efforts to reduce trade barriers.
``(3) Vigorously promote policies to increase the
effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund, in concert
with appropriate international authorities and other
international financial institutions (as defined in section
1701(c)(2)), in strengthening financial systems in developing
countries, and encouraging the adoption of sound banking
principles and practices, including the development of laws
and regulations that will help to ensure that domestic
financial institutions meet strong standards regarding
capital reserves, regulatory oversight, and transparency.
``(4) Vigorously promote policies to increase the
effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund, in concert
with appropriate international authorities and other
international financial institutions (as defined in section
1701(c)(2)), in facilitating the development and
implementation of internationally acceptable domestic
bankruptcy laws and regulations in developing countries,
including the provision of technical assistance as
appropriate.
``(5) Vigorously promote policies that aim at appropriate
burden-sharing by the private sector so that investors and
creditors bear more fully the consequences of their
decisions, and accordingly advocate policies which include--
``(A) strengthening crisis prevention and early warning
signals through improved and more effective surveillance of
the national economic policies and financial market
development of countries (including monitoring of the
structure and volume of capital flows to identify problematic
imbalances in the inflow of short and medium term investment
capital, potentially destabilizing inflows of offshore
lending and foreign investment, or problems with the maturity
profiles of capital to provide warnings of imminent economic
instability), and fuller disclosure of such information to
market participants;
``(B) accelerating work on strengthening financial systems
in emerging market economies so as to reduce the risk of
financial crises;
``(C) consideration of provisions in debt contracts that
would foster dialogue and consultation between a sovereign
debtor and its private creditors, and among those creditors;
``(D) consideration of extending the scope of the
International Monetary Fund's policy on lending to members in
arrears and of other policies so as to foster the dialogue
and consultation referred to in subparagraph (C);
``(E) intensified consideration of mechanisms to facilitate
orderly workout mechanisms for countries experiencing debt or
liquidity crises;
``(F) consideration of establishing ad hoc or formal
linkages between the provision of official financing to
countries experiencing a financial crisis and the willingness
of market participants to meaningfully participate in any
stabilization effort led by the International Monetary Fund;
``(G) using the International Monetary Fund to facilitate
discussions between debtors and private creditors to help
ensure that

[[Page H7975]]

financial difficulties are resolved without inappropriate
resort to public resources; and
``(H) the International Monetary Fund accompanying the
provision of funding to countries experiencing a financial
crisis resulting from imprudent borrowing with efforts to
achieve a significant contribution by the private creditors,
investors, and banks which had extended such credits.
``(6) Vigorously promote policies that would make the
International Monetary Fund a more effective mechanism, in
concert with appropriate international authorities and other
international financial institutions (as defined in section
1701(c)(2)), for promoting good governance principles within
recipient countries by fostering structural reforms,
including procurement reform, that reduce opportunities for
corruption and bribery, and drug-related money laundering.
``(7) Vigorously promote the design of International
Monetary Fund programs and assistance so that governments
that draw on the International Monetary Fund channel public
funds away from unproductive purposes, including large `show
case' projects and excessive military spending, and toward
investment in human and physical capital as well as social
programs to protect the neediest and promote social equity.
``(8) Work with the International Monetary Fund to foster
economic prescriptions that are appropriate to the individual
economic circumstances of each recipient country, recognizing
that inappropriate stabilization programs may only serve to
further destabilize the economy and create unnecessary
economic, social, and political dislocation.
``(9) Structure International Monetary Fund programs and
assistance so that the maintenance and improvement of core
labor standards are routinely incorporated as an integral
goal in the policy dialogue with recipient countries, so
that--
``(A) recipient governments commit to affording workers the
right to exercise internationally recognized core worker
rights, including the right of free association and
collective bargaining through unions of their own choosing;
``(B) measures designed to facilitate labor market
flexibility are consistent with such core worker rights; and
``(C) the staff of the International Monetary Fund surveys
the labor market policies and practices of recipient
countries and recommends policy initiatives that will help to
ensure the maintenance or improvement of core labor
standards.
``(10) Vigorously promote International Monetary Fund
programs and assistance that are structured to the maximum
extent feasible to discourage practices which may promote
ethnic or social strife in a recipient country.
``(11) Vigorously promote recognition by the International
Monetary Fund that macroeconomic developments and policies
can affect and be affected by environmental conditions and
policies, and urge the International Monetary Fund to
encourage member countries to pursue macroeconomic stability
while promoting environmental protection.
``(12) Facilitate greater International Monetary Fund
transparency, including by enhancing accessibility of the
International Monetary Fund and its staff, fostering a more
open release policy toward working papers, past evaluations,
and other International Monetary Fund documents, seeking to
publish all Letters of Intent to the International Monetary
Fund and Policy Framework Papers, and establishing a more
open release policy regarding Article IV consultations.
``(13) Facilitate greater International Monetary Fund
accountability and enhance International Monetary Fund self-
evaluation by vigorously promoting review of the
effectiveness of the Office of Internal Audit and Inspection
and the Executive Board's external evaluation pilot program
and, if necessary, the establishment of an operations
evaluation department modeled on the experience of the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, guided
by such key principles as usefulness, credibility,
transparency, and independence.
``(14) Vigorously promote coordination with the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and
other international financial institutions (as defined in
section 1701(c)(2)) in promoting structural reforms which
facilitate the provision of credit to small businesses,
including microenterprise lending, especially in the world's
poorest, heavily indebted countries.
``(b) Coordination With Other Executive Departments.--To
the extent that it would assist in achieving the goals
described in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall pursue the goals in coordination with the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Administrator of the Agency for International Development,
and the United States Trade Representative.''.
(b) Advisory Committee on IMF Policy.--Section 1701 of such
Act (22 U.S.C. 262p-5) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Advisory Committee on IMF Policy.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
establish an International Monetary Fund Advisory Committee
(in this subsection referred to as the `Advisory Committee').
``(2) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of
9 members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, after
appropriate consultations with the relevant organizations, as
follows:
``(A) 1 member shall be a former Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of the Treasury, who shall serve as the chairman of
the Advisory Committee.
``(B) 2 members shall be representatives from organized
labor.
``(C) 2 members shall be representatives from banking and
financial services.
``(D) 2 members shall be representatives from industry and
agriculture.
``(E) 2 members shall be representatives from
nongovernmental environmental and human rights organizations.
``(3) Duties.--Not less frequently than every 6 months, the
Advisory Committee shall meet with the Secretary of the
Treasury or the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury to review,
and provide advice on, the extent to which individual country
International Monetary Fund programs meet the policy goals
set forth in this Act regarding the International Monetary
Fund.
``(4) Inapplicability of termination provision of the
federal advisory committee act.--Section 14(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the
Advisory Committee.''.

sense of the congress on the role of japan in restoring regional and
global economic growth

Sec. 608. It is the sense of the Congress that Japan should
assume a greater regional leadership role, which would
coincide with Japan's goal of promoting strong domestic
demand-led growth and avoiding a significant increase in its
external surplus with the United States and the countries of
the Asia-Pacific region.

semiannual reports on financial stabilization programs led by the
international monetary fund in connection with financing from the
exchange stabilization fund

Sec. 609. Title XVII of the International Financial
Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-262r-2) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

``SEC. 1704. REPORTS ON FINANCIAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS LED
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND IN
CONNECTION WITH FINANCING FROM THE EXCHANGE
STABILIZATION FUND.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and other
appropriate Federal agencies, shall prepare reports on the
implementation of financial stabilization programs (and any
material terms and conditions thereof) led by the
International Monetary Fund in countries in connection with
which the United States has made a commitment to provide, or
has provided financing from the stabilization fund
established under section 5302 of title 31, United States
Code. The reports shall include the following:
``(1) A description of the condition of the economies of
countries requiring the financial stabilization programs,
including the monetary, fiscal, and exchange rate policies of
the countries.
``(2) A description of the degree to which the countries
requiring the financial stabilization programs have fully
implemented financial sector restructuring and reform
measures required by the International Monetary Fund,
including--
``(A) ensuring full respect for the commercial orientation
of commercial bank lending;
``(B) ensuring that governments will not intervene in bank
management and lending decisions (except in regard to
prudential supervision);
``(C) the enactment and implementation of appropriate
financial reform legislation;
``(D) strengthening the domestic financial system and
improving transparency and supervision; and
``(E) the opening of domestic capital markets.
``(3) A description of the degree to which the countries
requiring the financial stabilization programs have fully
implemented reforms required by the International Monetary
Fund that are directed at corporate governance and corporate
structure, including--
``(A) making nontransparent conglomerate practices more
transparent through the application of internationally
accepted accounting practices, independent external audits,
full disclosure, and provision of consolidated statements;
and
``(B) ensuring that no government subsidized support or tax
privileges will be provided to bail out individual
corporations, particularly in the semiconductor, steel, and
paper industries.
``(4) A description of the implementation of reform
measures required by the International Monetary Fund to
deregulate and privatize economic activity by ending domestic
monopolies, undertaking trade liberalization, and opening up
restricted areas of the economy to foreign investment and
competition.
``(5) A detailed description of the trade policies of the
countries, including any unfair trade practices or adverse
effects of the trade policies on the United States.
``(6) A description of the extent to which the financial
stabilization programs have resulted in appropriate burden-
sharing among

[[Page H7976]]

private sector creditors, including rescheduling of
outstanding loans by lengthening maturities, agreements on
debt reduction, and the extension of new credit.
``(7) A description of the extent to which the economic
adjustment policies of the International Monetary Fund and
the policies of the government of the country adequately
balance the need for financial stabilization, economic
growth, environmental protection, social stability, and
equity for all elements of the society.
``(8) Whether International Monetary Fund involvement in
labor market flexibility measures has had a negative effect
on core worker rights, particularly the rights of free
association and collective bargaining.
``(9) A description of any pattern of abuses of core worker
rights in recipient countries.
``(10) The amount, rate of interest, and disbursement and
repayment schedules of any funds disbursed from the
stabilization fund established under section 5302 of title
31, United States Code, in the form of loans, credits,
guarantees, or swaps, in support of the financial
stabilization programs.
``(11) The amount, rate of interest, and disbursement and
repayment schedules of any funds disbursed by the
International Monetary Fund to the countries in support of
the financial stabilization programs.
``(b) Timing.--Not later than October 1, 1998, and
semiannually thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit to the Committees on Banking and Financial Services
and International Relations of the House of Representatives
and the Committees on Foreign Relations, and Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the
matters described in subsection (a).''.

reports on reforming the architecture of the international financial
system

Sec. 610. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that, in order
to ensure that the International Monetary Fund does not
become the global lender of last resort to private sector
corporations and financial institutions, and in order to help
prevent future threats to the international financial system,
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, working with
their counterparts in other countries and with international
organizations as appropriate, should--
(1) seek to establish a broad set of international
transparency principles on accounting and disclosure policies
and practices covering, in particular, private sector
financial organizations;
(2) promote improvements in the provision by both borrowers
and lenders of timely and comprehensive aggregate information
on cross-border financial stocks and flows;
(3) seek an international accord establishing uniform
minimum standards with respect to robust banking and
supervisory systems, which individual countries should be
required to meet as a condition for the establishment of
subsidiaries, branches, or other offices of banking
institutions from their countries in the jurisdictions of the
countries participating in the accord;
(4) immediately initiate with appropriate representatives
of the countries that are members of the International
Monetary Fund discussions aimed at securing national
treatment for United States investors in such countries; and
(5) seek to establish internationally acceptable bankruptcy
standards and should work particularly to have International
Monetary Fund recipient countries adopt such standards.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
prepare 3 reports on progress made toward achieving the
objectives outlined in subsection (a), which shall describe
the steps taken by the United States, other members of the
world community, and the international financial institutions
to strengthen safeguards in the global financial system,
including measures to promote more efficient functioning of
global markets, by--
(A) helping to develop effective legal and regulatory
frameworks, including appropriate bankruptcy and foreclosure
mechanisms;
(B) increasing transparency and disclosure by both the
private and public sectors;
(C) strengthening prudential standards, both globally and
in individual economies;
(D) improving domestic policy management;
(E) strengthening the role of the international financial
institutions in financial crisis prevention and management;
and
(F) ensuring appropriate burden-sharing by the private
sector, particularly commercial banks and financial
institutions, in the resolution of crises.
(2) Timing.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to
the Committees on Banking and Financial Services and
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committees on Foreign Relations and Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate 2 interim reports on the matters
described in paragraph (1), the first of which is due by
October 1, 1998, and the second of which is due on April 1,
1999, and a final report on such matters, which is due on
October 1, 1999.

annual report and testimony on the state of the international financial
system, imf reform, and compliance with imf agreements

Sec. 611. Title XVII of the International Financial
Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-262r-2) is further amended
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1705. ANNUAL REPORT AND TESTIMONY ON THE STATE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM, IMF REFORM, AND
COMPLIANCE WITH IMF AGREEMENTS.

``(a) Reports.--Not later than October 1 of each year, the
Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate a written report on the progress (if any) made by the
United States Executive Director at the International
Monetary Fund in influencing the International Monetary Fund
to adopt the policies and reform its internal procedures in
the manner described in section 1503.
``(b) Testimony.--After submitting the report required by
subsection (a) but not later than October 31 of each year,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall appear before the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and present testimony on--
``(1) any progress made in reforming the International
Monetary Fund;
``(2) the status of efforts to reform the international
financial system; and
``(3) the compliance of countries which have received
assistance from the International Monetary Fund with
agreements made as a condition of receiving the
assistance.''.

audits of the international monetary fund

Sec. 612. Title XVII of the International Financial
Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-262r-2) is further amended
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1706. AUDITS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

``(a) Access to Materials.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of
the Treasury shall certify to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that the
Secretary has instructed the United States Executive Director
at the International Monetary Fund to facilitate timely
access by the General Accounting Office to information and
documents of the International Monetary Fund needed by the
Office to perform financial reviews of the International
Monetary Fund that will facilitate the conduct of United
States policy with respect to the Fund.
``(b) Reports.--Not later than June 30, 1999, and annually
thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall prepare and submit to the committees specified in
subsection (a) a report on the financial operations of the
Fund during the preceding year, which shall include--
``(1) the current financial condition of the International
Monetary Fund;
``(2) the amount, rate of interest, disbursement schedule,
and repayment schedule for any loans that were initiated or
outstanding during the preceding calendar year, and with
respect to disbursement schedules, the report shall identify
and discuss in detail any conditions required to be fulfilled
by a borrower country before a disbursement is made;
``(3) a detailed description of whether the trade policies
of borrower countries permit free and open trade by the
United States and other foreign countries in the borrower
countries;
``(4) a detailed description of the export policies of
borrower countries and whether the policies may result in
increased export of their products, goods, or services to the
United States which may have significant adverse effects on,
or result in unfair trade practices against or affecting
United States companies, farmers, or communities;
``(5) a detailed description of any conditions of
International Monetary Fund loans which have not been met by
borrower countries, including a discussion of the reasons why
such conditions were not met, and the actions taken by the
International Monetary Fund due to the borrower country's
noncompliance;
``(6) an identification of any borrower country and loan on
which any loan terms or conditions were renegotiated in the
preceding calendar year, including a discussion of the
reasons for the renegotiation and any new loan terms and
conditions; and
``(7) a specification of the total number of loans made by
the International Monetary Fund from its inception through
the end of the period covered by the report, the number and
percentage (by number) of such loans that are in default or
arrears, and the identity of the countries in default or
arrears, and the number of such loans that are outstanding as
of the end of period covered by the report and the aggregate
amount of the outstanding loans and the average yield
(weighted by loan principal) of the historical and
outstanding loan portfolios of the International Monetary
Fund.''.

short title

Sec. 613. Sections 605 through 613 of this title may be
cited as the ``International Monetary Fund Reform and
Authorization Act of 1998''.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except pro
forma amendments for the purpose of debate, amendments printed in the

[[Page H7977]]

Congressional Record, and amendments printed in House Report 105-725.
The amendments printed in the report may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except
as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.

Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Wolf

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

Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 105-725 offered by
Mr. Wolf:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

national commission on terrorism

Sec. 701. (a) Establishment of National Commission on
Terrorism.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a national
commission on terrorism to review counter-terrorism policies
regarding the prevention and punishment of international acts
of terrorism directed at the United States. The commission
shall be known as ``The National Commission on Terrorism''.
(2) Composition.--The commission shall be composed of 15
members appointed as follows:
(A) Five members shall be appointed by the President from
among officers or employees of the executive branch, private
citizens of the United States, or both. Not more than 3
members selected by the President shall be members of the
same political party.
(B) Five members shall be appointed by the Majority Leader
of the Senate, in consultation with the Minority Leader of
the Senate, from among members of the Senate, private
citizens of the United States, or both. Not more than 3 of
the members selected by the Majority Leader shall be members
of the same political party and 3 members shall be members of
the Senate.
(C) Five members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, in consultation with the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives, from among members of
the House of Representatives, private citizens of the United
States, or both. Not more than 3 of the members selected by
the Speaker shall be members of the same political party and
3 members shall be members of the House of Representatives.
(D) The appointments of the members of the commission
should be made no later than 3 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(3) Qualifications.--The members should have a knowledge
and expertise in matters to be studied by the commission.
(4) Chairman.--The chairman of the commission shall be
elected by the members of the commission.
(b) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The commission shall consider issues
relating to international terrorism directed at the United
States as follows:
(A) Review the laws, regulations, policies, directives, and
practices relating to counterterrorism in the prevention and
punishment of international terrorism directed towards the
United States.
(B) Assess the extent to which laws, regulations, policies,
directives, and practices relating to counterterrorism have
been effective in preventing or punishing international
terrorism directed towards the United States. At a minimum,
the assessment should include a review of the following:
(i) Evidence that terrorist organizations have established
an infrastructure in the western hemisphere for the support
and conduct of terrorist activities.
(ii) Executive branch efforts to coordinate
counterterrorism activities among Federal, State, and local
agencies and with other nations to determine the
effectiveness of such coordination efforts.
(iii) Executive branch efforts to prevent the use of
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons by terrorists.
(C) Recommend changes to counterterrorism policy in
preventing and punishing international terrorism directed
toward the United States.
(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date on
which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit
to the President and the Congress a final report of the
findings and conclusions of the commission, together with any
recommendations.
(c) Administrative Matters.--
(1) Meetings.--
(A) The commission shall hold its first meeting on a date
designated by the Speaker of the House which is not later
than 30 days after the date on which all members have been
appointed.
(B) After the first meeting, the commission shall meet upon
the call of the chairman.
(C) A majority of the members of the commission shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.
(2) Authority of individuals to act for commission.--Any
member or agent of the commission may, if authorized by the
commission, take any action which the commission is
authorized to take under this section.
(3) Powers.--
(A) The commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at
such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence as the commission considers advisable to carry out
its duties.
(B) The commission may secure directly from any agency of
the Federal Government such information as the commission
considers necessary to carry out its duties. Upon the request
of the chairman of the commission, the head of a department
or agency shall furnish the requested information
expeditiously to the commission.
(C) The commission may use the United States mails in the
same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(4) Pay and expenses of commission members.--
(A) Subject to appropriations, each member of the
commission who is not an employee of the government shall be
paid at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in performing the duties of the
commission.
(B) Members and personnel for the commission may travel on
aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces
of the United States when travel is necessary in the
performance of a duty of the commission except when the cost
of commercial transportation is less expensive.
(C) The members of the commission may be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from
their homes or regular places of business in the performance
of services for the commission.
(D)(i) A member of the commission who is an annuitant
otherwise covered by section 8344 of 8468 of title 5, United
States Code, by reason of membership on the commission shall
not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect
to membership on the commission.
(ii) A member of the commission who is a member or former
member of a uniformed service shall not be subject to the
provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of section 5532 of such
title with respect to membership on the commission.
(5) Staff and administrative support.--
(A) The chairman of the commission may, without regard to
civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an
executive director and up to 3 additional staff members as
necessary to enable the commission to perform its duties. The
chairman of the commission may fix the compensation of the
executive director and other personnel without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53,
of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the
rate of pay may not exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15
under the General Schedule.
(B) Upon the request of the chairman of the commission, the
head of any department or agency of the Federal Government
may detail, without reimbursement, any personnel of the
department or agency to the commission to assist in carrying
out its duties. The detail of an employee shall be without
interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(d) Termination of Commission.--The commission shall
terminate 30 days after the date on which the commission
submits a final report.
(e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
section.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will not use that time. I want to thank
first of all the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman, and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman, for their help and
support. Also, I want to thank the staff for their help and support in
shaping this amendment.
It would set up a national commission of 15 members on tourism to
take a close look at the national counterterrorism policies and
recommend if anything more should be done to deal with this issue,
particularly nuclear, chemical, and biological.
This would be a bipartisan effort with the efforts that have taken
place

[[Page H7978]]

in the bombings that have taken place both in Tanzania and Kenya, going
all the way back to the Beirut Embassy in 1983 and the marine barracks
of that year.
I think this would be a very healthy positive thing to do. It would
take 6 months. By the time Congress was back early next year, hopefully
this commission will have finished its work.
So I will not take any more time, but I know there are many other
amendments that people want to offer and would just ask for support of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) rise
to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the
amendment and I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi) for 10 minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the gentleman's resolution. I thank
him for his leadership on this and am pleased to support the
gentleman's legislation.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
of the gentleman from Virginia to create this bipartisan commission on
terrorism.
The idea is right on target and I am prepared to accept his
amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Pelosi

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

Amendment No. 28 offered by Ms. Pelosi:
On page 110, after line 15, insert:

united states quota in the international monetary fund

For an increase in the United States quota in the
International Monetary Fund, the dollar equivalent of
10,622,500,000 Special Drawing Rights, to remain available
until expended.

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) reserves a
point of order.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, I believe that it is
important for this body to have an opportunity to discuss the funding
for the International Monetary Fund. I believe that the timing on it is
appropriate.
It was one year ago that we stood here to talk about the IMF. The
matter was tied to the international family planning issue, and,
therefore, the funding did not occur but we were assured that this
would probably take place in February. Then it was going to be in the
spring and here we are one full year later.
Secretary Rubin wrote in July to Congress indicating that the IMF has
only $7 billion to $12 billion in usable quota resources and its
available credit lines have been reduced to $14.2 billion.
Recent GAO reports on this confirm the validity of the secretary's
statement, and since Mr. Rubin's July letter, the matters have gotten
worse.
I would remind Members again that we have needed this replenishment
for one year. Since that time, the condition of the world markets has
deteriorated drastically and we have recently seen the effects that are
now being felt in our own financial markets.
That is my view. I also know that many of my colleagues have a
different view about the IMF and I believe that as the world is being
impacted by the Asian economic crisis, that it is appropriate for our
House of Representatives to have a debate on this issue.
Replenishment of the IMF, in my view, has been critical to protecting
our own economy. The fundamentals of our economy remain strong but I
would point out to Members that U.S. exports to Asia have already
declined by 20 percent, which amounts to a $22 billion loss to our
economy on an annualized basis. Farmers have been especially hard hit.
The trade deficit is expected to skyrocket to the $250 billion to
$300 billion range this year. We must not leave town without giving the
administration the tools it needs to protect American workers,
businesses and farmers.
The debate on IMF is focused primarily on the reforms necessary
within the institution, the mistakes made in certain countries and
blaming the institution for not anticipating the global crisis we are
now in. I believe, as I said earlier, that we must subject the IMF
practices to the harshest scrutiny: Moral hazard, conditionality, need
for more transparency.
But as I said also before, the issue of contagion to our economy
trumps all other concerns. We have a responsibility to the American
worker.
With respect to individual countries, I would say that certainly in
the case of Thailand and Korea, progress has been made and reforms
continue to take place in their economies. Russia, of course, is a
special case and we know that Indonesia is still suffering and trying
to democratize. Whether each of these countries is included in the IMF
replenishment funding, again should be a subject for debate for this
floor.
Essentially, the IMF was taking a risk on the government and its
reformist agenda in Russia and that subject is probably the most
important issue we could be discussing here, with the possible
exception of the legislation regarding North Korea that is in this
bill.
In conclusion, I would say that I hope that the chairman will not
sustain the point of order if indeed it is offered, because the effects
to the American crisis have been felt, as I said before, by the
American farmer and that should demonstrate to all of us that this is
not a foreign give-away.
I remind my colleagues that this is not scored, this is not money
that is an opportunity cost for us in the budget. This is money for
which we receive a credit and a reserve when we put forth our funding.
It is a loan. This is not a grant in aid. It is not an opportunity
cost. It is an opportunity for us. In any event, I am not speaking to
persuade anyone one way or the other on the IMF. My point is that this
issue should appropriately be debated on this floor, and I would hope
that the point of order, if offered, would not be sustained.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I still reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to speak and explain the
situation we are in today.

{time} 1445

Mr. Chairman, the comments that the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) made certainly make a lot of sense. The complexity of the
International Monetary Fund and the complexity of international
finance, quite frankly, is far above the pay grade of the average
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Yes, we try to learn as
much as we possibly can about international finance. We have to rely
upon the administrative branch of government to give us information to
justify whether or not we will give the experts on foreign policy and
the experts on the international monetary system the necessary monies.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from California, very
likely they are correct. It is far above my pay grade, because my
intellect level compared with the average Member of Congress is below
average.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I will first of all say that it is a very complex.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should not forget, he is my
leader. He should not say those things about himself.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, very seriously, there are people on both

[[Page H7979]]

sides of this issue that I greatly respect. I respect George Shultz. I
respect the gentlewoman from California. I respect a lot of people. But
George Shultz says do not give them anything. I respect Bob Rubin and
he says give them the entire 18 billion. And I respect Alan Greenspan.
He says give them the 18 billion.
But I also respect the views of the people I represent and the
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are questioning this.
They are questioning whether or not we are doing the right thing under
the circumstances in past history.
IMF has a good historical record with respect to monies being paid
back. But we are reaching a stage of no return, a different type of
global economy that is causing concerns to our constituents and they
want to know why there is not more transparency. They want to know why
we do not have more control over the activities of the International
Monetary Fund, since we are putting in nearly 18 percent of their
revenues. And they have requested that we instruct the International
Monetary Fund to change directions of the past.
We are not sufficiently prepared today to address these very serious
concerns. Maybe sometime during this process we will be, but there is
not going to be any money appropriated by this House in addition to the
$3.5 billion we have already given until such time as serious reforms
are attached or serious assurances of reforms have indeed passed this
body and through the conference.
I am willing to work with the gentlewoman from California. I know the
importance of it. I do not want to do anything to disrupt our economy.
I know that it does create some peril. I know that Russia is not a good
example of what we do with International Monetary Fund financing. I
know that Brazil might be in need in the next few weeks, whereby it
will be justifiable. But at this time, I am not prepared to accept it
and I am going to insist in a few minutes on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) continues to
reserve his point of order.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am truly sorry that Members were not allowed to offer
amendments dealing with the IMF. I think the points made both by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the subcommittee,
and by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking
member, are absolutely the reasons why we should have had an
opportunity to debate the funding level for the IMF.
Mr. Chairman, I also find myself in a lot of agreement with what the
gentleman from Alabama has said. I also wanted to offer an amendment to
deal with the questions of the IMF funding policies with respect to
their negative impacts that they have had on environmental resources
and protection. My amendment would have required the International
Monetary Fund to review proposed loans for their environmental impact.
In 1989 and 1992, Congress passed laws telling the IMF to consider
the environmental impacts of its policy. Unfortunately, IMF has not
done so and the results have been disastrous in Indonesia and many
other countries.
In many cases with the IMF, one of the solutions that they pose to
these countries is to export their way out of their difficulties. Not
only does this provide severe competition to American jobs and
manufacturing, but in many instances it enhances the environmental
degradation that takes place in many of these countries, because much
of what they have to export are resources that are extractive in
nature.
We have seen the disasters of the fires in Indonesia. We have seen
the disasters in Guyana and other countries where they have rushed to
export these materials without regard to the environmental impacts, and
the same countries have later suffered environmental disasters as a
result of those policies.
Specifically, my amendment would have required the IMF to establish
an environmental review process on all proposed loans before
implementation; require the IMF to take into account the cost of
unsustainable natural resource use; require that IMF loan agreements do
not reduce or undermine the country's environmental standards; and,
require that environmental reviews be made available to the public.
This is consistent what this committee has done with respect to other
international lending institutions. The gentlewoman from San Francisco
(Ms. Pelosi) has been a very strong proponent of making sure that
environmental impacts are part of the policies of the World Bank and
other multilateral lending institutions, and the same ought to be true
of the IMF.
There are many, many other reforms that the gentleman from Alabama
has referred to that have caused our constituents a great deal of
concern, and that is why I wish the Committee on Rules had made in
order some 12 or 14 amendments that were being offered by individuals
on both sides of this debate. Our constituents are watching this
debate. They are concerned about the use of these resources, and they
are concerned about the international economy as it affects the United
States. We should be debating that on the floor of the House.
Unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity. I want to thank the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the subcommittee chairman, for
withholding on insisting upon his point of order, and I thank him for
the opportunity to raise this issue to our colleagues.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) wish to
make his point of order at this time?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an
amendment, but because I have sought the cooperation of the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) of the
subcommittee, as well as the chairman of the full committee on this
issue, I am pleased to stand today in the hopes of engaging in a
colloquy regarding IMF funding to Russia.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of IMF funding replenishment for
Russia. And I know that is not a popular decision to make. I do so with
the same concerns that members of the Russian Duma, their Parliament,
have in also at this time opposing IMF funding. Their concerns are that
much of the dollars going into Russia through the World Bank and IMF,
and in some cases U.S. funding, have gone into the black hole of some
of the oligarchs in Moscow who have not used the money properly. In
fact, the people in Russia are very concerned about having to pay back
many of these loans.
But just 2 weeks ago, in fact the day the President left Moscow, I
arrived. And as the chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission on
our side, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I
negotiated with the factions in the Russian Duma and came away with a
set of eight principles. These eight principles, I think, are historic.
What they say that the Duma will pass, according to Speaker
Seleznyov, are reforms that say reforms must come first. Besides
reforms coming first, the regions that have made significant progress
in terms of private property issues and stabilization of tax bases
should be given consideration for international funding.
All programs should be aimed at developing a middle class. There
should be a bilateral commission formed between the Congress and the
Parliament to monitor every dollar of money going into Russia. The IMF
should establish a blue ribbon international task force that should
make recommendations to the IMF about reforming itself.
There should be a program designed by the Congress and the Duma to
bring American corporate leaders to Russia to assist and advise Russian
companies that are currently on the brink of bankruptcy.
Finally, that within 3 years we establish an initiative to bring up
the 15,000 Russian students to American business schools to learn the
ways of free market systems.
The Duma, in fact, will pass this. I am asking my colleagues on the
conference to agree with this.
And I would like to at this time yield to the distinguished gentleman
from

[[Page H7980]]

Alabama (Mr. Callahan) the chairman of the subcommittee, to ask if he
in fact would work with me in the conference process.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I do agree that the direction that he has taken is correct. I have
reviewed the eight platforms of his suggested reform and certainly
think this is the exact correct direction to move in. I certainly will
do everything I can to instruct the committee, or to request the
committee when we reach that stage, to implement many of the decisions.
I must forewarn the gentleman that the corrections and reforms that
the gentleman has only deal with Russia, and there are serious concerns
in this Congress and on the part of this Member about reforms for the
entire International Monetary Fund program.
But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is moving in the right direction. I
think this is exactly the right thing to do, and I am going to suggest
that we review the eight platforms of his agreement with the Russian
Duma and that we try to implement or to urge the International Monetary
Fund, or at least urge the Secretary of the Treasury to insist that the
International Monetary Fund recognize how important it is to include
these two bodies.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
my friend and colleague and I also thank the distinguished gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full Committee on
Appropriations for the past advice and counsel he has given me in this
area. And I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her
cooperation and I look forward to working with her as well.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank him
and look forward to working with him.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) continues to
reserve his point of order.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for
indulging another 5 minutes to give a little different perspective to
this discussion today.
Before the Fourth of July recess, I stood behind the Speaker of the
House and many other of my colleagues, including the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, when we endorsed what we called a Square Deal
for Agriculture, recognizing that one of the promises of the Freedom to
Farm Act was to provide that we would do everything within our power in
the House of Representatives to make sure that foreign markets would,
in fact, be open.
We were promised that we would have a vote on the Square Deal and we
have had two of those. The sanctions vote, and the normal trade
relations with China have passed. We lack IMF and fast track.
Part of the deal was that we were going to vote on the floor of the
House on both of these very controversial issues. Both of them; not one
of them. It is my considered judgment today that this action on the
part of the leadership of the House to deny a free up-or-down vote on
the IMF is the death knell to the fast track vote next week. The fault
will lie right squarely here in the House, because we once again have
refused to have an open and honest debate on issues on which we have
some disagreement.
The last colloquy made good, eminent sense to me. I think that is the
kind of reasoned approach to many of these issues that we should be
following, but it should not be misinterpreted to say that we can pick
and choose these discussions in debate and pick and choose what we
shall have debated openly and honestly, and still have the other
decision that is so vital to agriculture, and that is fast track.
That is very controversial on my side of the aisle. There are just a
few of us on this side that do support it, but there are enough of us
that do support it. In fact, I have said with my one vote alone is
enough to pass fast track next week if we bring it up.
But let me say this: By delaying IMF funding, we are playing with
fire. We know this. Specifically speaking to agriculture, 40 percent of
our agricultural exports now go to emerging markets. What is happening
in those emerging markets is seriously affecting agriculture in the
United States.
We have the worst economic conditions in rural America since the
Depression. I ask every one of my colleagues here, if they take their
average wage and that of their constituents for the last 5 years and
reduce it by 30 percent this year, what would the economic conditions
be in their family? That is what we are, in fact, facing.
IMF is critical for so many agricultural programs. Sure, there are
warts, and I really appreciate and I sincerely accept what the
gentleman from Alabama has said, as well as the chairman of the full
committee, regarding this question. But when the House is burning, it
is not the time to debate what color the fire truck shall be.
The financial crisis could spread. We have been eminently warned by
no less than Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve; by the
Treasurer of the United States, Mr. Rubin, who I believe has great
confidence on both sides of the aisle. And yet, once again, we are
playing politics with two extremely important issues.

{time} 1500

IMF is critical to USDA export credit programs, liberalization of
agricultural markets. There are a lot of successes. There have been
some problems with IMF. I readily agree to that. But there have also
been some successes.
IMF has helped U.S. farmers and ranchers by using the IMF rescue
packages to reach agreements requiring the countries receiving aid to
liberalize trade to the benefit of US agriculture.
Korea has streamlined import certification and just last week
announced further reductions in trade barriers on 32 imported products,
including wheat and fertilizer. Indonesia is reforming its State
Trading Enterprise. Thailand is adopting harmonized import licensing
procedures and establishing more transparent customs valuation
procedures.
Yes, there are problems but, yes, there are also good things
happening. What I am worried about now is we have once again reneged,
that is the word we use back home in Texas, we reneged on an agreement.
That is troubling because that is not what the House Committee on
Agriculture, both sides of the aisle, understood. We understood that we
were, in fact, going to have an open and honest debate on IMF and let
the will of the House speak and then have an open and honest debate on
fast track and let the will of the House speak. And by this action
today of denying an opportunity for this free and open debate, we have,
in my opinion, served a giant nail in the coffin of not only IMF but
also fast track next week.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) continues to
reserve his point of order.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I heard the somewhat vitriolic outcry from my friend
from Texas about the failure of including the entire amount of IMF in
this bill, but the fact is, I do not think he quite understands what is
in this bill. There is funding of $3.4 billion for IMF in this bill.
There are conditions to make the IMF more responsive in this bill.
There is authorization for the full $18 billion in this bill. The
Senate, the other body, has included the entire funding.
Before this process is over, either all of IMF could be in, part of
IMF could be in, or some of IMF could be in. The process is not over.
I am curious about the gentleman's statement that the failure to
include the entire amount of IMF in this bill means that fast track is
dead. It occurs to me that fast track was on this floor one year ago
and the minority party voted overwhelmingly against fast track.
If the gentleman would like me to yield to him, I would be happy to
yield to him, I would like him to tell me why the minority, if it is so
important that we pass IMF in order to get to fast track, why most of
the minority Members voted against fast track last time and, when we
bring it up next week, is likely to vote against it again?
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman, we did not

[[Page H7981]]

vote last year. I have expressed publicly and I will say again to the
gentleman in all sincerity, had the leadership of the House chosen to
bring it to a vote, we would have passed it with the required number of
votes on both sides of the aisle to get 218 votes, but, once again, for
some reason, we chose not to allow the will of the people's elective
body to express themselves. We did not vote, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is
correct, we did not vote for fear that there were not sufficient votes
and it was deemed to be an embarrassment to the President for his own
party to vote against it. So he is right.
If we bring up fast track next week, and it is my sincere hope that
we will, I hope that the gentleman will work with Members of his party
so that we will have sufficient votes to vote for fast track and that
that will cease to be an issue.
With respect to IMF, I am sure that the gentleman will have an
opportunity to vote on IMF beyond what that which is already in this
bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think the remarks of our distinguished committee
chairman have really revealed what the situation is here today, because
he has granted that these funds are authorized. And I would simply say
that the only thing that is holding this up, in my view, is that the
majority party continues to try to exercise political leverage on the
White House to obtain certain things they want, running the risk that
our position in the world economy is going to become a whole lot
shakier than it is today.
We have heard many criticisms about the IMF and certainly many
Members on this side of the aisle have made many criticisms, including
myself. I recognize that the IMF is not sufficient today to deal with
our international economic challenges. The IMF was created in a world
of fixed exchange rates. Today we do not have fixed exchange rates. The
IMF was created at a time when we had much smaller private capital
flows than we have today. Today private capital flows when somebody
punches a computer button that can overwhelm the IMF in many, many
parts of the world.
But we have seen the world when we did not have the IMF. We did not
have the IMF in the 1930s. And in the 1930s, when we had first an
Austrian banking collapse, followed in turn by a collapse of the
currency in Germany. And when the markets were then in turn destroyed
in Britain, and that chaos came across the water and engulfed the
United States, we had the greatest depression in modern history.
All that happened because of that is that Adolf Hitler came to power,
over 50 million people died in the world, and that is why the ``Wise
Men,'' as they were known after the end of World War II, created
institutions such as the international financial institutions and the
IMF so that we would have some ability to stabilize economic
relationships between countries, so we would not have the conditions
repeat themselves that led to the political instability that led to the
military actions that led to the human devastation that we saw in that
period in our history.
At this point, imperfect though the IMF is, it is the only instrument
we have to try to recognize the fact that currencies have collapsed in
Asia, that our export markets for agriculture and other products have
collapsed. That has, in turn, helped create greater instability in the
Soviet Union. We have seen great uncertainty in Latin American markets.
How long do Members of this House think we can survive as an island of
economic success in a world of economic chaos? The answer is, not very
long.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend yielding to me.
I want to tell him that I concede most of the points that he has made.
I agree with him and for many of the same reasons. I may ultimately
support the IMF. But the question is, which comes first, the chicken or
the egg?
The fact is world instability was not created because this last
tranche of U.S. participation in the IMF has been withheld this last
year. And as the gentleman well knows, the day we reported this bill in
full committee, the Los Angeles Times had a front page article about
Anatoly Chubais, former economic guru of Russia, who said, we conned
the IMF and the United States out of $20 billion. He used the words, we
conned, we managed to scam them to give us the money so that we could
sustain our failing system.
It is not the IMF's fault that Russia system is failing. I think we,
as stewards of the American taxpayers' money, owe it to them not to
allow anybody to con us and throw our money down a rat hole.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the article to which I
referred:

[From the Los Angeles Times, 1998]

Russia Lied to Obtain Loans, a Chief Aide to Yeltsin Says

(By Richard C. Paddock)

MOSCOW--A key architect of Russia's economic transformation
said in a published interview Tuesday that Russia ``conned''
the international community out of nearly $20 billion in
loans by lying about the severity of the country's fiscal
problems.
Anatoly B. Chubais, who in July negotiated a $4.8-billion
loan from the International Monetary Fund, said in an
interview in Kommersant Daily that it was necessary and
appropriate for Russia to lie in order to obtain infusions of
cash.
If the government had told the truth, the longtime advisor
to President Boris N. Yeltsin said in the interview, Russia's
economy would have collapsed last spring and global lenders
``would have stopped dealing with us forever.''
Asked if the Russian government has the right to lie about
the country's fiscal instability, Chubais replied: ``In such
situations, the authorities have to do it. We ought to. The
financial institutions understand, despite the fact that we
conned them out of $20 billion, that we had no other way
out.''
Chubais' comments came as Russia is searching for a
solution to the economic crisis that has paralyzed commerce,
pushed banks to the verge of bankruptcy and sent the
currency, the ruble, plunging in value almost daily to record
lows.
Triggered by the devaluation of the ruble on Aug. 17, the
economic collapse has sparked a political crisis that has
left the country without a functioning government for more
than two weeks. Yeltsin, twice unable to win parliamentary
confirmation of his nominee for prime minister, Viktor S.
Chernomyrdin, met with advisors Tuesday but did not name a
candidate for the post.
Some Russian officials say that obtaining more foreign aid
would be the best way to halt the economic slide. The IMF is
scheduled to release another $4.3-billion loan next week, but
the payment is in doubt because of Russia's inability to
enact austerity measures and its decision to devalue the
ruble and freeze payments on short-term government debt.
Chubais' statements to the respected business newspaper
were especially startling because he has been widely viewed
as one of Russia's ``young reformers,'' who could be trusted
by the West because he favored establishing a market economy.
He has served Yeltsin in numerous capacities, including
privatization chief, presidential chief of staff, deputy
prime minister, campaign manager and, most recently, special
envoy to Western lending institutions.
During the years Chubias and his fellow free-market
advocates have been in power, privatization has resulted in a
handful of tycoons seizing control of the country's major
industries while millions of workers and pensioners go for
months at a time without being paid.
Chubais is chief executive of the state-owned electricity
monopoly Unified Energy Systems.
This summer, as Russia's economic woes mounted, Chubais
played a crucial role in winning a pledge of $22.6-billion in
loans from the IMF, the World Bank and Japan.
The lenders insisted that Russia make serious changes in
the management of its government and the economy, including
improving tax collection and slashing spending.
But Russia's desperate need for cash led the IMF in July to
release the $4.8-billion loan negotiated by Chubais, although
Russia had not met the loan conditions. Earlier, the IMF had
loaned Russia $14.3 billion.
In Washington, spokesmen for the IMF and the World Bank
declined Tuesday to discuss Chubais' statements because they
had not read the interview, ``I haven't seen the article, so
it would be irresponsible for me to comment.'' World Bank
spokesman Klas Bergman said.
Andrei V. Trapeznikov, a spokesman for Chubais, tried to
put the best spin on the Kommersant interview but did not
contest any of the quotations. In fact, he said, Chubais was
given a copy of the text before it was published and did not
question they way in which he was quoted.
``I think this passage should not be interpreted as
malicious intent,'' Trapeznikov said. ``There was no ill
intent on the part of Russia to cheat the IMF out of its
money.''
In the interview, Chubais used the Russian slang word
kinuli, which means ``we cheated,'' Trapeznikov said it was a
harsher word than what Chubais really meant.
``What works for a Russian audience sounds very rough in
English,'' he said. ``I think that Antoly Borisovich
[Chubais] used

[[Page H7982]]

a wrong word in this context and did not express himself very
clearly.''
At another point in the Kommersant interview, Chubais
defended Yeltsin's statement just days before the government
devalued the ruble that it would never do so.
``One can keep lashing out at the president to one's
heart's content for having said there would be no
devaluation, but this was the very thing that should have
been said,'' Chubais told the newspaper. ``Any politician in
sound mind will tell you this is the only way, unfortunately,
that authorities should behave in such extreme situations.''

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, I would simply make one observation.
Obviously, I agree with the gentleman's concern about that. I am
extremely unhappy about that. But I ask the gentleman to remember the
advice that we have had from Alan Greenspan and from virtually every
other person with major responsibilities in running our economy. They
have all urged us to pass this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will make one additional point. In Russia,
within a period of three months, people have lost 85 percent of the
value of their investments, 85 percent of the value of the stock
market. If that had happened in this country today, we would be in the
midst of a revolution. It is a minor miracle that they are not. They
have a few thousand nuclear weapons which can very easily be pointed at
us. I would suggest to everyone who cares about the subject that the
very fact that we have such chaos in Russia is an argument for
strengthening, not denying, resources to the only instrument we have
left to prevent that kind of chaos.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I think that he has made the points extremely well. I would just add
that it is becoming increasingly clear, in spite of all the work that
has gone into this bill, and we appreciate the difficulty in balancing
all of the things that have to be done, the bill remains an inadequate
instrument to deal with the economic problems confronting us in the
global community.
If we fail to recognize that, we do so at our peril. We are already
beginning to see the impacts of the economic crisis in East Asia in the
deflation that is sweeping across that part of the world. Just a week
ago, representatives from the steel industry were here in the Capitol
pleading with this government and the White House to do something about
the fact that steel was being dumped on our marketplace from East Asia
at prices below production cost.
We heard just a few moments ago about the tragedy that is beginning
to unfold in the agricultural community of this country. All across the
farm belt agriculturalists lists are in dire circumstances. Why? For a
number of reasons, principal among them is the fact that their markets
are beginning to dry up. Not that we have that many markets in the Far
East, but the Australians do and the Australian market for grain has
dried up in the Far East. And they are now moving into our markets, as
are the Canadians.
And the result of that is that prices are dropping all around the
world for agricultural commodities and our farmers are suffering. They
are going to continue to suffer. If we fail to fund the IMF at the
appropriate level so that that agency is able to step in and begin to
stabilize the currencies and economies of these countries, the
repercussions are going to redound on this North American continent
next year. We will reap the whirlwind for our failure to act.
We need to get this bill out on the floor. We need a full and
comprehensive debate on the International Monetary Fund. Yes, we
recognize it is an inadequate instrument itself, but it is the only one
we have, as the minority leader of the Committee on Appropriations said
so many times.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Hinchey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his forbearance in allowing
this discussion to take place. I this he does so because he recognizes
the importance of it. He may not be yet convinced of the arguments that
are being presented on this side of the aisle, but to his credit and to
the credit of the chairman of the committee, they recognize that there
is validity to these arguments.
We are in now a very perilous period in our history. So I just beg my
colleagues, please give reconsideration to this decision to prevent an
adequate discussion of this. Please give reconsideration to the
decision not to fund the IMF. It is desperately essential that we do
so.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that we just heard
the committee chairman say, ``Look, I may vote with you at some
point.'' In fact, I have heard them say, ``We probably will vote with
you at some point.''
The problem is, that is what we have been hearing for a year. Every
time we bring this up, we are in essence told, well, you may be right,
but this is not the right time.
It is long since past the right time. We need to end the leverage or
the efforts at seeking political leverage. We need to end the debate.
We need to end the delay. We need to get about the business of doing
the best we can to stabilize the world's economic system before it
costs our constituents jobs.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Callahan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

{time} 1515

Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I just
want to say that we can debate this all afternoon, and I have been as
tolerant as I possibly can be, but we have a lot of other important
issues that we need to talk about today. Ultimately, I am very
optimistic that the Chair is going to rule favorably upon my point of
order.
What the gentleman is saying is not taken lightly. The gentleman does
have validity to his argument, as we have validity to ours. To just
give them the keys to the car at this time, without some instruction,
is a very serious mistake.
We are entering a different global economy. Global economy is
something relatively new. It is relatively poorly understood. But when
we look at the future and see the problems that are going to be taking
place in Brazil, and in our own hemisphere that could more directly
impact our economy, and when we look at the new Eurodollar and we try
to look into the future to see what happens if the Eurodollar fails and
then the IMF has to bail out the entire European Community, we are
talking about $50 billion possibly in new needs.
So, yes, the gentleman's arguments are right. I think that we should
possibly look at it. I do not think we ought to look at it at this
time. And, as a result, I have not been pressured by leadership to do
anything. This is my bill. It was a bill written by myself and my
staff, confirmed by the gentleman and his staff, confirmed by the
entire full committee, and, as a result, it is the best we are going to
do today.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would let me reclaim my time to make one
observation, I would point out today that the stock market is down
again by a huge amount. We are in the midst of incredible political and
economic uncertainty around the world. This Congress should not do
anything that adds to that uncertainty, creates additional shakiness in
the markets and creates more opportunity for people to lose their hard-
earned investments because we have lagged in meeting our
responsibilities. That is what has happened.
Mr. CALLAHAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we can use all
types of comparisons, but while we were debating this in committee, the
stock market was down, tremendously

[[Page H7983]]

down, and during the period of time we debated it in committee, the
stock market actually came up about 70 points.
Mr. OBEY. It still dropped a huge amount that day. And I would simply
say this Congress has a responsibility to take any action necessary to
try to stabilize the situation rather than continuing to contribute to
its destabilization.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I agree.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order. I insist on my point of
order which I have made against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama continues to reserve his
point order or insists on his point of order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I will continue to reserve for a few more minutes.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
This is a bit ironic. This issue is of such import that we could
debate it for about an hour, but under the reservation of a right to
object rather than debate it for an hour via an amendment that would
actually appropriate the monies. We should have been proceeding in that
fashion, with an amendment, so that this body could have taken a vote
on the issue.
I am in my 12th term in Congress, and in my entire adult lifetime I
do not recall an occasion when the world economy has been more fragile.
It seems to be falling apart in Asia. That should have been a signal,
as it was to the administration, as it was to our central bank, for the
United States to step in with the other nations of the world and
authorize and appropriate our fair share of the IMF contribution. But
the House of Representatives' leadership opted to play Russian roulette
with the situation and see what would happen.
Well, I do not know that we could say that, because of that fact
alone, we saw the difficulties in Russia, but we certainly saw the
Asian contagion spread to Russia, and it has now spread to Latin
America. We have had considerable difficulties in Brazilia. And we do
not know where it is going to end, or if it is going to end.
We do not know what would happen if the Chinese were to devalue their
currency and the repercussions that that would create, not just in Asia
but globally.
We do know this: that Alan Greenspan has said the United States
cannot long stand as an oasis of prosperity; that this fragile global
economic situation can have, in the very near future, a profound impact
on the United States.
We also know this: that this body, this Congress, is scheduled to
recess October 9. It would be unthinkable if we were to recess on
October 9 and not have in place the only international architecture,
the only international financial mechanism that exists in the world to
deal with this situation, without adequate resources and with the
United States having defaulted on its leadership.
The executive branch has stepped up to the plate. The United States
Senate, our other body, has stepped up to the plate and they have
passed authorization and appropriations legislation twice in an
overwhelming bipartisan fashion. The House Committee on Banking and
Financial Services has stepped up to the plate. In a bipartisan manner,
we began consideration of this in January and in a matter of weeks
reported out a bill, with every Democrat supporting the authorization
and a considerable majority of the Republicans. So we reported it out
by a vote of 40 to 9. Forty to 9.
How shameful, therefore, that the present House leadership has not
even permitted us the opportunity to bring this issue to the floor so
that we can appropriate the full amount that the United States has
committed itself to.
The United States defaulted by not joining the League of Nations. I
think that was a huge mistake. If the United States did not participate
in the United Nations, that would be a huge mistake, particularly
because of the military requirements of the United Nations. We now have
not a military situation but an economic difficulty, and it would be
calamitous if the United States withdrew, in effect, in fact, from the
only international mechanism that exists today to deal with this global
economic crisis.
I implore this House leadership to let us consider and vote on full
authorization and full appropriations before we recess.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order. I
will allow some rebuttal, with one speaker on our side, before I insist
on my point of order.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I would just rise in support of what the chairman has been
saying here.
I think what he is talking about in his point of order is something
that ultimately watches out for the American taxpayer. And lest we
forget, this body is designed and built for ultimately watching out for
the taxpayer of the United States of America. I think that is exactly
what his point of order does.
I would just make this one point, and that is, I have here a rate
sheet from Goldman Sachs, which is the place where Robert Rubin, our
Secretary of the Treasury, used to work and used to head, and this
could be found not just at Goldman Sachs, it could be found at Merrill
Lynch or any of the investment banks, looking at the rates which the
private markets are charging for government debt in Russia.
I have here rates looking at 2001 paper yielding 32.31 percent. I
would look at 2005 paper yielding 52.63 percent. I would look at 2015
paper yielding 65.43 percent.
And what those high rates are basically saying is that the
marketplace out there asks for a risk premium, in this case a very
substantial risk premium, because the private markets think that they
ultimately might not get paid back.
So what this point of order is simply doing is saying since we might
not get paid back, we ought to watch out for the taxpayer rather than
just handing out the IMF money.
The July piece of debt that was issued by the IMF was at 4.5 percent.
Can my colleagues imagine how giant that spread is, between 30, 40 or
50 percent interest rate, and where the IMF was? If we want to help
shore up Russia and say we ought to just issue grants, issue aid to
Russia, that is one thing. But do not call a loan a loan when, in
essence, it is not a loan, because that is exactly what we are talking
about. And that is what that point of order is all about.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this. I have tried to be
extremely fair to all Members on all issues, but we have a limited
amount of time to debate this entire bill and, unless the gentlewoman,
the ranking member of our subcommittee, is requesting time before my
insisting on the point of order, I am going to now insist.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that if the chairman insists on
his point of order, then I will, as the maker of the amendment, have
the opportunity to address the point of order, as will my colleagues?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has discretion to hear discussion and
argument on the point of order and intends to limit debate on the point
of order.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) be granted 10 minutes of time,
which she can allocate to any person she deems fit.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order,
and the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) shall be allowed to speak for 10 additional
minutes.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is
recognized for 10 additional minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his courtesy,
which seems to be boundless.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I look forward to the

[[Page H7984]]

day when I grow up and can speak for 5 minutes in the full House.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the position of the gentleman from Alabama
on this. I do not think, quite frankly, his party has a position or our
party has a position. I think there are several positions floating
around, which is one of the reasons this should be debated. There are
Members on the gentleman's side who realize recapitalizing the IMF is
the right thing, and there are Members on our side who are totally
against it.
The fact is, the same arguments that apply to the IMF apply to fast
track. And the reason is that we live in a world economy and we cannot
isolate ourselves. For those of us, like myself, who believe in fast
track and who believe in free trade, we also believe we need to deal
with the economic crisis.
Now, like my colleague from South Carolina who spoke before, who
worked on Wall Street at one point in time, as I did, I think we both
understand that markets operate based on both fundamentals and
confidence. And the problem that exists today, and has grown more
prevalent, is that confidence in the world markets has been lost, and
that is what we are seeing. That is why we are seeing the contagion
spread.
If we do not step in and address this problem with the IMF, and, yes,
it is not perfect, there is no perfect world body to deal with this,
but it is the only one we have at the time. We cannot allow the
situation to get out of control.
I think it is important that Members understand that what we are
talking about here are loans, because this is the lender of last
resort, not grants.

{time} 1530

I think it is also important that we understand what is going on. In
our own area of the world, we are seeing an oil crisis occur because of
the lack of demand for oil in the Asian market, and that is spreading
throughout Latin America.
Finally, I would just say this. We have had a year to look at this
since this debate first started, and the leadership on the other side
who I know is split on this question said, ``We're going to look at
this. We're going to come up with a better way to do it.'' The time is
up. It is time to deal with this problem. We have lost all the gains in
the stock exchange for the year. We are starting to see a decline in
the American economy as a result and in the growth rate of the U.S.
economy and an increase of imports over the last year because we have
not done our work. We have not done a whole lot in this Congress this
year and now we are running out of time and we are going to let
everything go away because of it. That is a mistake.
I think we ought to bring this issue to the floor for the debate. It
will be a bipartisan group for it and a bipartisan group against it,
but in my opinion, just like fast track, it is the right thing to do.
Members should be ashamed of themselves for not allowing this to come
to the floor. I appreciate the gentlewoman from California for having
the courage to bring this up.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for his fine
statement.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo) who has been a leader on this issue in the Congress.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
ranking member of the committee, for her leadership on this issue. I
rise today in the hope that the gentleman, the distinguished
subcommittee chairman, will not insist on his point of order and also,
of course, in support of the Pelosi amendment to add the $14.5 billion
to the foreign ops appropriations bill and fully fund the IMF.
I think that together we can inoculate the global economic system
with the infusion of the $14.5 billion in this bill. I say that
because, number one, America's economic interests are tied to this.
When we talk about the American taxpayer, we are also talking about the
American investor. The American investor through its 401(k)s and many
other vehicles invests in foreign economies. We see not only an Asia
flu but something that is becoming contagious in many places around the
world. We speak with pride about a global economy, but when it comes to
the crisis, we are not willing to fill the needle and give the
inoculation that is needed.
I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this, because this is not only in America's interest, in the taxpayers'
interests, in the investors' interests, but in the interest of
stabilizing a global economy which America the great has a huge
investment and interest in.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney) who again represents a great financial center
of commerce in our country and understands this issue full well.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Pelosi amendment and funding for the International Monetary Fund. With
the world situation the way it is, this is no time for the United
States to abandon and pull out of international organizations. I fully
support Chairman Greenspan, Secretary Rubin and the Administration, all
of whom support funding for the International Monetary Fund because it
is in the economic interest of the United States. We live in a world
economy. It would be a terrible signal to the world if we suddenly
decided we wanted to destroy this international organization by
withholding funding. The signal we should be sending from the United
States is that we support this international organization and that we
do not want to abandon ship during a time of crisis that is important
not only to the world economic situation but to the economy of the
United States. We should debate it and vote on it.
I support the Pelosi amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Jackson) a person who has been a leader for us on these issues and has
a balanced view.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time, and I want to thank the chairman of the full committee
for his indulgence. I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment. I
would encourage this Congress to move as quickly as it possibly can to
fully replenish the International Monetary Fund.
I was here when the chairman of the full committee the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) indicated that indeed the Russians had
suggested, or a Russian had suggested that they conned the
International Monetary Fund out of $20 billion. But we now know that
when Mr. Greenspan came before the full Banking Committee yesterday and
asked for this Congress to replenish the International Monetary Fund to
the tune of $18 billion that the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
was not conning us yesterday. He recognizes that there are indeed
turbulent roads in our economy on the horizon and it is very important
that this Congress react with due haste and due speed to make indeed
the necessary appropriations. Let us not just measure what is taking
place in financial terms. Let us also measure what is taking place in
human terms.
Indonesia was on the brink of Civil War because, in part, of this
Congress' inability to act. We need to save our own economy but the
world as well.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) who is a true internationalist and understands the
interrelationship of our economies.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the very
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations
of the Committee on Appropriations as I am to the generosity of the
chair of that committee. I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment.
Our economy is doing well right now, but as Alan Greenspan said, we
cannot forever be an oasis of prosperity. A full 30 percent of our
economy is tied to international trade. For better or worse, we are the
leader of the world economy. Much of that economy, particularly Russia,
Asia and now Latin America is in trouble. If the IMF lacks the funds to
stabilize foreign currencies and markets, there will be no market for
that one-third of our products and services, we sell overseas and they
will be in such a desperate position they are going to be dumping their
products on our market, causing serious economic disruption. Our
inventories will build, grain elevators will

[[Page H7985]]

fill and factories will go idle as workers are furloughed or laid off.
These economic and strategic concerns are of paramount importance for
the Congress to debate. And so it is wrong for the leadership to refuse
to permit the full House to consider the IMF bill that passed the House
Banking Committee by a vote of 40-9.
The IMF is not some part of a rogue international conspiracy. It is
an institution born of the ashes of World War II, born by the United
States and the people who formed this strong economy throughout the
civilized world. The reason why the international economy is as strong
today is because we started things like the International Monetary Fund
after World War II to make sure we did not go through another Great
Depression that formed the basis of World War II. We can never repeat
these mistakes. We have to learn from these mistakes.
The IMF is critically important. Sure there are reforms that need to
be made, but that does not mean that the IMF is not essential to the
productivity and to the economic stability, to the jobs and to the
well-being of all American citizens.
We ought to be debating it. We ought to pass it. We ought to restore
funding immediately to the International Monetary Fund.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey) a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations of the Committee on Appropriations and a person who
understands this issue full well. She, too, represents a center of
commerce and understands the IMF.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of funding for the
International Monetary Fund. This is one of the most important issues
facing this body. The ongoing economic turmoil in Asia and Russia is
having a very serious impact on Wall Street and other markets around
the world. We must provide the IMF with the resources it needs to
respond to the economic insecurity in Asia and Russia as it promotes
badly needed reforms in those economies.
The leadership in my judgment is playing a very dangerous political
game by not allowing a vote on this issue today. The global economic
crisis demands immediate leadership, not political gamesmanship.
The IMF's resources are at a dangerously low level, jeopardizing its
ability to perform its basic mission and respond effectively if the
economic crisis deepens or spreads to even more markets.
The $18 billion requested for U.S. commitments can leverage about $75
billion in usable global commitments from the IMF's 181 members. This
degree of burdensharing would provide the IMF with sufficient resources
to sustain its operations well into the next decade and would reduce
the possibility that the United States will be forced to bear a
disproportionate share of the financing in any future financial crisis.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue
and for her fine statement.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge the
gentleman not to insist on his point of order. I call this action of
not allowing us to have a full debate on the IMF and a vote on the IMF
the stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off approach. We have to understand
the interrelationship of our economies. We have to debate pro and con
the approaches we would take. This House should take responsibility for
the $14.5 billion we wanted added.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has stated that IMF is
authorized in this bill so the point of order on the basis of
authorization is not legitimate. The reforms that the gentleman from
Alabama suggested, were a part of an amendment that I offered in
committee which failed and which the Committee on Rules rejected last
night.

Point of Order

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program and therefore violates clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
Clause 2(a) of rule XXI states in pertinent part:
``No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation
bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not
previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, and because of the generosity of
the chairman's time earlier, in the interest of time, I will be brief.
Mr. Chairman, I reject the notion that was put forth by our
distinguished chairman that the point of order should be insisted upon
and agreed to because this $18 billion is not authorized. The gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) the chairman of the full committee,
said on this floor earlier that the authorization is contained in this
bill and, indeed, $3.5 billion for the new arrangements to borrow for
the International Monetary Fund is included in this bill. If the $14.5
billion is not authorized, then neither is the $3.5 billion. So I think
there is a real inconsistency here and I think that we have to be
consistent. It would follow, I think, that if the point of order is
agreed to, then we must strip the $3.5 billion for the new arrangements
to borrow from this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is advised
that there is no current authorization in law for the appropriation
proposed in the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California.
The amendment is not merely perfecting to what has been permitted to
remain in the bill by a waiver of points of order.
The Chair therefore sustains the point of order under clause 2(a) of
rule XXI.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Porter

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer, with the permission of the
gentlewoman from California, the Radanovich amendment No. 32 as printed
in the Record.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Porter:
In title V, strike the section relating to the repeal of
section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield my entire
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RADANOVICH. I thank the generous gentleman from the State of
Illinois for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a bipartisan amendment to
maintain section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, a provision which,
since its adoption by Congress in 1992, has placed reasonable
conditions on direct U.S. foreign aid to the government of Azerbaijan.
Before voting today on this important matter, I think it is useful to
review why this restriction was originally enacted and to consider
carefully whether Azerbaijan has taken any steps at all over the past
six years to meet the terms set forth in this law. Finally, we should
examine the negative impact on American interests which will result
from its repeal.

{time} 1545

First of all, as my colleagues know, section 907 was enacted as a
stand by Congress against Azerbaijan's illegal economic blockades. It
represents both an effective check against renewed Azerbaijani
aggression and a principal expression of American support for peace in
the strategically important Caspian region.
Azerbaijan, however, has steadfastly refused to comply with the terms
set forth in section 907, maintaining its blockades of Armenia and
Nagorno Karabagh. As recently as 2 weeks ago, during the first ever
visit of America's Prime Minister to the Azerbaijani capital of Baku,
the Azerbaijani Government again refused to lift its blockades, flatly
rejecting Armenia's offers of economic cooperation.
Yet, despite the fact that Azerbaijan continues to violate section
907, the

[[Page H7986]]

Azerbaijani Government, through its allies in the oil industry and
elsewhere, continues to press for its repeal. Rather than comply with
its terms by respecting international laws against blockades,
Azerbaijan has undertaken an extensive media and lobbying campaign to
change U.S. law. Section 907's repeal under this pressure would
represent a victory of shortsighted thinking at the expense of our
Nation's long-term interests.
On the eve of the upcoming Azerbaijani elections, such a move would
be viewed as an American endorsement of the policies and candidacy of
former KGB General Geidar Aliyev. Section 907's repeal would represent
both an unsound foreign policy decision and an irresponsible misuse of
taxpayers' funds.
Please also keep in mind when considering this matter, that the U.S.
restrictions placed on Azerbaijan do not allow for humanitarian aid
through NGOs. Since 1992 Azerbaijan has received over $130 million from
the United States in humanitarian aid. I understand, however, that
large amounts of this aid have been siphoned off and ended up in the
hands of the political elite of Azerbaijan. I can only estimate the
amount of aid that will be claimed by corrupt political leaders if we
send aid directly to this undemocratic government.
Human Rights Watch has reported in its annual report that the
international community largely glossed over Azerbaijan's poor human
rights record in order to protect oil interests. The State Department,
in its human rights survey of Azerbaijan, concluded that the
Azerbaijani Government's human rights record continued to be poor and
the government continued to commit serious abuses. The government
restricts citizens' ability to change the government peacefully. The
government restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, association,
religion and privacy when it deemed it in its interest to do so.
At this time, the Nagorno Karabagh/Azeri peace process is at a
pivotal situation. The U.S., by reaffirming its opposition to
Azerbaijan's illegal blockades, can play a critical role in pressing
upon the Azeris that they should come to the table and actively seek a
peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Rewarding Azerbaijan with American tax dollars would harm the peace
process leading to increased instability and a less secure environment
for American investors. Section 907's repeal would only encourage
Azerbaijan's leadership to keep its blockades in place and to continue
refusing direct peace talks with Karabagh, both to the detriment of
America's interests.
We should not underestimate the significance of our actions today.
Repealing 907 would fundamentally harm the peace process, dramatically
affecting the stability of the region, and so undermine rather than
advance U.S. interests.
So, in conclusion, I respectfully ask that my colleagues vote for
peace, stability and American interests by voting for the Radanovich-
Pallone-Rogan-Sherman amendment, and I again thank the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Radanovich-Pallone
amendment to strike the language in this bill that eliminates Section
907, the sanctions for the blockade that Azerbaijan has placed around
the democratic country of Armenia and the area of Nagorno Karabagh
which is the area that has been subject to so much warfare over the
years.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I had the opportunity to visit, with
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), Armenia about 2 months ago
and I had a chance to see firsthand the devastating impact of this
blockade that we are talking about repealing, in essence, because of
the fact that we are not going to allow this country to say
unequivocally that we are going to condemn any country that puts such a
blockade against a neighboring country like Armenia, forcing it to
contend with the ravages of natural disasters, as Armenia has over the
last decade, forcing it to contend with the fact that it is
interdependent in the Caucasus on its neighbors, but is yet to be able
to get the kind of trade that is necessary for that struggling
democracy to survive because of the intransigence of countries like
Azerbaijan in their inability to deal with their neighbor of Armenia.
The fact of the matter is Armenia is the closest country to the
American values of any single country in the Caucasus. Armenia shares
the values of the United States like no other country in the former
Soviet Union. Like no other country.
And any Member of this House who would have an opportunity to go to
Armenia and meet, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and I
have had an opportunity to do, to meet with President Kocharian, to
meet with that fantastic new President of Armenia, to see how dedicated
he is to the principles that we hold dear in this country, they would
not have a single doubt in their mind why it should be United States
policy to continue to support section 907, which condemns Armenia and
Turkey for their creating this blockade around the democratic country
of Armenia.
We know that Armenians in Armenia share our values, and the fact is
this United States Congress should stand in solidarity with our friends
in Armenia and say enough is enough for Azerbaijan to continue that
brutal, brutal blockade on that island locked country.
Keep in mind that Armenia is locked in the Caspian area in the
Caucasus region. It does not have anything but a land route for its
trade. And when every country around it blocks its ability to have free
trade, it is held hostage to these regimes.
Now, let us think about what these regimes are. Azerbaijan is a
dictatorship. They are a regime that has been cited by the Department
of State for human rights' abuses. And let us understand what we are
saying if we support this bill without passing the Radanovich-Pallone
amendment. We are, in essence, saying that we are going to stand by a
dictatorship, we are going to stand by a dictatorship in their effort
to put their thumb on the democratically elected regime of Armenia. We
are going to side with the dictatorship over a democratically elected
government of Armenia. To me, that does not sound like the kind of
country and principles that we should support as American citizens.
That is why I call on my colleagues to support the Pallone-Radanovich
amendment, because that is the amendment that is going to strike out
the effort to repeal section 907, which calls on sanctioning those
countries which blockade our democratically-elected friends like
Armenia.
Let us understand what we are talking about here. Armenia and Nagorno
Karabagh are ravaged economically. They are ravaged economically
because of the natural disasters like earthquakes, the wars that have
gone on in that area, and on top of it they have their neighboring
countries put this blockade through. And what is happening is a tragedy
of human dimensions that none of us should be proud to support if we
vote against this Radanovich-Pallone amendment because, in essence,
that is what we will be doing. We will be continuing to perpetuate an
intolerable situation for the Armenians in that area.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in this House need to support our friends
and democratically-elected Government of Armenia. If Azerbaijan wants
to end this blockade and wants to end the sanctions against it, they
can just end the blockade; that is what they should do. They should end
the blockade if they want us to end the sanctions against them because
of the blockade.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I visited Nagorno Karabagh in August of 1994.
It was one of the grimmest places that I had ever, ever been. The
Russian ground missiles have been thrown in there daily for year after
year after year. Many people were living down in the basement, people
that had lost arms and legs and everything else.
This is a difficult issue, and I heard the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Livingston) in the committee. I agreed. And just let me say to my
colleague, I agree with all of his rationale up until getting away with
907.

[[Page H7987]]

I also want to say that I want the western oil companies to have this
opportunity. But to remove 907 now would send the wrong message and
take the pressure off the Azeri Government to come to the peace table.
Now, we can lift the blockade and get 907 to go away today by doing
one thing: Let the Azeris lift the blockade, and 907 goes.
The poor people in Nagorno Karabagh have suffered too much, and the
message that this would send would be, I believe, to keep this issue
going on longer and longer.
Secondly, the administration has failed that had a low level person
dealing with this issue. It goes through the Minsk treaty agreement,
and we have Russia, and Russia does not want to end this.
So what should we do? We should call the Azeris together, call the
Armenians together, and have a representative on Nagorno Karabagh come,
bring them to Washington, go over to the Eastern Shore, sit down, break
bread together. Reconciliation. And I tell my colleagues this problem
can be solved.
But I also believe from the bottom of my heart that if we lift 907
today, the problem will not be resolved.
Now, neither side is perfect. The head of the Azeri Government is the
former head of the KGB. Clearly there are problems in Armenia because
there are Russian troops in Armenia. Neither side is absolutely
perfect. But for the people of Nagorno Karabagh to bring in a spirit of
reconciliation, the Azeris together and the Armenians together with
Nagorno Karabagh there, do not lift 907, because by lifting 907 I think
we will say there is no pressure on the Azeris, there is no pressure on
anybody.
So I strongly support, at least for another year, maybe, I say to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), next year or maybe something
like that, but hopefully we will support the Radanovich amendment, and
then Secretary Albright will pick up the phone, get the Azeris in, get
the Armenians in, bring the Nagorno Karabaghs together, and I believe
that both parties stand so much to gain, and then everything the
chairman wants, which I agree with, will take place, whereby the oil
will flow in the appropriate place.
So I, just for this time and for the interests of the pain and the
suffering of those in Nagorno Karabagh, I strongly urge my colleagues
to support the Radanovich amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from Virginia, the last speaker who
has spoken on behalf of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment.
We should not have done, in my opinion, in subcommittee and full
committee what was done. We ought to restore this amendment. We ought
to restore America's position on behalf not of Armenia, not of Nagorno
Karabagh, but on behalf of justice, on behalf of humanitarian concerns,
on behalf of the principles for which this Nation stands around the
world.
I am deeply saddened by the fact, Mr. Chairman, that since the
termination of hostilities in 1994, no demonstrable progress has been
made in the negotiations regarding the status of Nagorno Karabagh.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) mentioned earlier today
in debate that there had been some progress. I did not see that story,
I am pleased to hear it, but I do not believe it yet. I hope that the
parties will continue to negotiate to achieve a lasting solution which
will benefit all the peoples of the region. In fact, talks are ongoing
at this time.
However I do not believe, and I hope this House does not believe that
weakening or eliminating section 907 will further this process. In
fact, my colleagues, I am of the opinion it will move us in exactly the
opposite direction because it will send the message to the Azeris that
they are winning. And why are they winning? On principle? No. Because
of economic concerns and profits. That is why they are winning. That is
where we are.

{time} 1600

Now, I want to see the oil in that region benefit all the peoples of
that region, and I am not against the economic development of
Azerbaijan or Armenia or Nagorno Karabagh, but I am for proceeding in a
principled way.
Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act prohibits direct U.S. aid to
Azerbaijan in an effort to pressure Baku to lift its blockade of
Armenia and Karabagh. However, section 907 does allow, very importantly
and correctly, the delivery of humanitarian and democracy building
assistance through nongovernmental organizations, as well as activities
by the Overseas Private Investment Council, OPIC, the Trade and
Development Administration, and Eximbank. In fact, the United States
has provided, even with 907 in being, $130 million-plus in humanitarian
exchange assistance to the people of Azerbaijan.
The United States is not closing its eyes to the pain that may exist
in Azerbaijan. We are sensitive. This is not against the people, this
is against a government policy in Baku that undermines the welfare of
citizens in Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.
The Government of Azerbaijan has enforced a blockade against Armenia
and Nagorno Karabagh for 9 years. The blockade has cut off the
transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital goods and
commodities.
Because of the blockade, Mr. Chairman, Armenia has experienced a
humanitarian crisis during which the United States sent emergency
lifesaving assistance, as we should have. The blockade has virtually
isolated Armenia from the rest of the world.
As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, and I am sure others have
before I spoke, Armenia is landlocked, isolated, in need of the
attention of the rest of the world for humanitarian reasons as well as
democracy-building reasons.
Mr. Chairman, in contrast to what the Azeris have done, Armenia has
repeatedly offered to allow transshipment, repeatedly offered to allow
transshipment of humanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan, only to be
repeatedly rebuffed.
Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has the power, as the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf), said, Azerbaijan has the power this minute, this very hour,
to end the consequences of section 907. All it has to do is end the
blockade. That is all it has to do, a simple act.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Radanovich-Pallone
amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Radanovich-Pallone
amendment that would restore section 907.
Section 907 was originally included in the Freedom Support Act to
deny assistance to Azerbaijan until it takes, quote, ``demonstrable
steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of forces against
Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.'' Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and
Nagorno Karabagh for 9 years. Azerbaijan has made no demonstrable steps
to end the blockade. Shipments of food, fuel, medicine and other vital
supplies have been held up. And the Azeri policy has fomented Armenia's
humanitarian crises in Armenia. Together with Turkey's blockade,
Armenia's efforts to develop markets and to strengthen its economy have
been damaged.
The timing of striking 907 is also a concern. Azerbaijan is on the
verge of presidential elections which are being boycotted by the major
opposition parties because of Baku's authoritarian policies. The
government is plagued with corruption, human rights violations, and
crooked elections.
Striking 907 will send the wrong message, and it sends it at the
wrong time.
Maintaining section 907 will have no effect on humanitarian
assistance to Azerbaijan or aid for promoting and strengthening
Democratic institutions, but it will send a message to Baku that it
must move to address the blockade, and it will reassert our solidarity
with democratic Armenia.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment. I urge my colleagues
to so vote.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise today in support of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment to the
foreign operations bill.
Section 907, as so many of my colleagues have stated already, of the
Freedom Support Act, places restrictions on the aid that the United
States gives to the Government of Azerbaijan until that country ends
its aggression

[[Page H7988]]

and lifts its illegal blockades against Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.
The government of Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and Nagorno
Karabagh for 9 years. Day by day, 9 years. That is a very, very long
time. Cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital
supplies, creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the United States to
send emergency assistance to Armenia.
Now, for those Members who may not be joining in on this effort, who
may be willing to reconsider their positions in prior years, just think
of the irony of what it is costing the United States taxpayer in this
situation. Because of the blockade that many Members allow to keep on
the books, we then spend even more money to send emergency assistance
to Armenia.
Strictly on a fiscal basis, if one does not want to deal with this on
a humanitarian basis, on the issues relative to a democracy, consider
that at a time when Armenia is introducing market reforms and
integrating its economy with the West, the blockade has virtually
isolated Armenia from the rest of the world.
Azerbaijan controls the majority of the access to Armenia, a country
that is landlocked. We should not repeal section 907, because
Azerbaijan has taken no demonstrable steps to lift these illegal
blockades.
Direct assistance should not be provided to a government with
fundamental human rights and corruption flaws.
Mr. Chairman, I think that I am the only member of the entire
Congress of Armenian descent, of both Azerian and Armenian descent. The
Armenian people fled and suffered and came to this land, as so many
others did, not to take anything from this country, but to contribute,
to enlarge on its democracy, to contribute to its economic growth, and
to uphold the principles that they found so attractive that they would
travel around the world and come to this beacon of light and hope.
Armenia represents and upholds democratic principles. That is why we
should join with her and we should support her today. And when we do,
we will harken back to all of the peoples that have come from around
the world to this land, the United States of America, and its
democracy. That is really what this vote is about.
How proud I am to join with my colleagues that are offering this
amendment. And, for anyone that even has a twinge of rethinking this,
please join us. It is the right place to be, for all of the right
reasons.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I come and join my friends from
California to ask my colleagues to join the debt of history here. This
is a people, the Armenians, who have suffered through history. Their
lands had been taken; they had faced the first modern genocide. They
were oppressed by the Soviet Union. And now, as we see the hope for
opportunity and democracy, their neighbor, besides that economic
strangulation, is the solution for their own internal problems.
In the post-Soviet era, we all have to develop systems for resolving
disputes which do not heighten tensions with our neighbors but, indeed,
those that reduce the tensions with our neighbors.
The facts are clear here. The Congress has spoken repeatedly,
recognizing history, recognizing the failure of nations of this planet
to speak out, when Armenian men, women and children face genocide, that
we cannot allow ourselves today to have the Armenian Government
strangled by a blockade because we treasure oil more than human beings.
The battle lines are fairly clear here. The economic interests of
powerful oil companies would have us abandon the people of Armenia once
again. I do not know what responsibility we have here as Members of
Congress to all of the world and its causes, but I know as people who
believe in human rights, people who believe in history and the
responsibility of a great Nation, that this Congress dare not turn its
back on the Armenians once more.
Mr. Chairman, we have to use our voices here to make sure that these
small and evolving democracies have the time to develop real Democratic
institutions, and we had better be careful, putting aside those
fundamental values of America in favor of short-term economic
advantages in the oil fields.
Additionally, it would be very simple for us to end this conflict.
All they have to do is stop the embargo, stop the blockade; take away
their provocative actions which have led to their isolation. It is not
the Armenians that continue, frankly, the very low level of
restrictions on their opposition in this conflict. The Armenians simply
are the victims.
And the question for those of us in this Chamber today is, will we
stand for the victims, or will we stand with those who attempt to
victimize them? Will we determine that access to oil and oil leases is
more important than the principles this Nation was founded on?
Mr. Chairman, this is the right thing to do. Support the Armenians,
support freedom, and we will build democracy in the former Soviet Union
nations.
If, on the other hand, we abandon the Armenians, we will send a
signal that wealth is more important than righteousness in our actions.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was upstairs in the Committee on Rules, trying to get
our work out for the rest of the week, and began to listen to this
debate. The previous speaker mentioned oil leases and oil. Are they
more important than human rights? And the answer would be no to that.
Are oil leases and situations like that, are they more important than
American lives, American military lives?
Mr. Chairman, I do not think many people in this Chamber understand
the strategic importance of the Caspian Sea area, whether we are
talking about the Caucasus, whether we are talking about central Asia.
But the truth of the matter is, sometimes I am confused because I hear
the same people that are arguing for lifting sanctions on Cuba standing
here saying now, we cannot repeal section 907. Those two things just do
not go together. But the situation is such that that is a very, very
important part of the world, and if we are ever, ever, ever going to
become less dependent or nondependent on the Mideast area for oil, the
only way we are going to do it is to open up these oil fields which are
only second to the Mideast in the entire world. It is terribly,
terribly important.
Now, what is going on in Armenia? I have to say that some of my
closest friends are Armenians, one of my closest friends is. So it is
not a question of sticking up for a special interest group in America,
it is a question of doing what is right. What are the Russians doing in
Armenia?

{time} 1615

Do my colleagues know that the Russians, who are no friends of ours,
are getting IMF money? It is going in the front door and out the back
door so fast into the Mafia's pocket that we do not even know what is
happening with that money.
But the truth is that the Russians are in Armenia. They have bases
there. They will not even allow our military observers to go in and see
how they are plotting to undermine those new sovereign nations, those
people that are so proud of their new sovereignty, whether we are
talking about Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan or any of those
countries, even Georgia, which are having their problems now.
But there is a hell of a fight going on. Right now, the Russians are
trying to throw us out. They are trying to bring down those sovereign
nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. They want to
have all that oil going north to Russia.
We have got another problem with the Chinese. The Chinese are to the
east of there. The Russians are to the north. The Chinese are doing
everything they can in Mongolia to stir things up so they can grab the
influence and they can have all the oil going east.
Now who do my colleagues think sits to the south? Does anybody know?
Have my colleagues been down there? Have my colleagues been to the
Mideast? Have my colleagues been to Central Asia?
To the south is Iran. Iran is doing everything they can, in other
words, to

[[Page H7989]]

drag everything down there so the pipelines will have to go through it.
And then the Iranians can continue to control and continue to blackmail
the world, trying to bring down Israel and all of the other countries
over there.
So this is not just a very, very simple thing. If we were to say to
the Russians and to the Armenian government, what I have said, tell
those Russians to get out, and then let us sit down and let us
negotiate, then we could accomplish something.
But to simply say, no, we are going to side with the Armenians, and
we are going to let the Russians continue to undermine everything
there, that is just absolutely wrong.
That is why we should repeal 907, and then we should have an all-out
effort by our State Department and Members of this Congress to go over
there, bring these people together, and solve the problem. That is the
only resolution.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Radanovich amendment to
strike the repeal of section 907 from the bill.
During committee consideration of this bill, a provision was added to
repeal section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which prohibits direct
economic assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until that country
ends its blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. This amendment was
misguided and, in my judgment, it should be overturned.
For almost a decade, Azerbaijan has imposed a cruel and illegal
blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. This blockade has cut off the
people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh from food, fuel, medicine, and
other vital goods and commodities. It has stopped United Nations
humanitarian assistance to the people of Nagorno-Karabagh and has
created a humanitarian crisis in the region.
I had the opportunity with my colleagues on our subcommittee,
including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and others to
visit Nagorno-Karabagh, to visit Armenia, to visit Azerbaijan. It was
very clear when we visited Nagorno-Karabagh to see the suffering. The
life of these people made us come back even more committed in trying to
bring the parties together to work out a settlement. We feel that
lifting this blockade does not work towards that end.
Currently, the process to bring a lasting peace to the Caucasus is at
a very critical stage. The United States, as one of the cochairs of the
Minsk Group, has been trying to bring the parties to the table for
direct talks. Now, in my judgment, is not the time to change the United
States policy in the Caucasus toward any one of the parties.
Repealing section 907 at this critical juncture would only encourage
the Azerbaijani government to dig in its heels in the peace process. It
would remove what little leverage the United States has over the
government in Baku to move it along toward an agreeable solution to
this protracted conflict.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that opponents of this amendment have
grossly exaggerated the scope of section 907. Let us be perfectly
clear. Section 907 does not, does not prohibit the delivery of
humanitarian and democracy building assistance to Azerbaijan. In fact,
the United States has provided over $130 million in assistance to
Azerbaijan through NGO's and PVO's since 1992.
Section 907 also does not prohibit U.S. export financing assistance
to Azerbaijan. OPIC, TDA, the Export-Import Bank are free to
participate in projects in Azerbaijan. Section 907 does not prohibit
oil companies from developing and investing in projects in Azerbaijan.
In fact, during our visit, I dare to say, the oil companies were
alive and well. At our meetings with the business community in
Azerbaijan, I do not think there was one oil company that I ever heard
of that was not there. So this is not prohibiting any action from the
oil companies to operate in that region.
Section 907 does give the United States leverage over a government
that has not shown respect for human rights and the principles of
democracy. Maintenance of section 907 will give the United States
stronger footing in its attempts to bring the Azerbaijani government to
the table and direct peace talks over Nagorno-Karabagh.
Mr. Chairman, this, in my judgment, is a good amendment that deserves
our support. I urge my colleagues to support peace in the Caucasus by
voting ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I reluctantly resist and
oppose the amendment of my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Radanovich). But I am convinced that, if we allow
the section 907 to continue, that it will prevent us from working
toward a peaceful solution in Central Asia.
I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Livingston)
on his leadership on this issue. There is few people that have
understood this issue better than he, and I support his efforts to
facilitate the peace and stability that we are seeking between Armenia
and Azerbaijan.
Section 907 is an outdated provision which hamstrings our foreign
policy options in the Caucasus.
Azerbaijan remains the only former Soviet Republic barred from
receiving broad-based U.S. assistance based upon conditions that no
longer apply. Repealing section 907 sends a signal that will encourage
investment and competence in Azerbaijan and thus will contribute to the
stability of this strategical and vital region.
Lifting section 907 is an important component of the comprehensive
U.S. strategy for the region and will help facilitate our involvement
in Central Asia. For 10 years, we have looked for peace there. The
current system is not working. It is time that we change.
Section 907 continues to undermine our neutrality in the negotiations
between Armenia and Azerbaijan to promote peace. We need a balanced
approach for the Caucasus, and this is why the administration also
supports lifting section 907. The Caucasus could account for nearly 75
percent of the world's known energy resources, and we stand to benefit
greatly from stability in that region.
Mr. Chairman, it is in our national interest to support repeal of
this section. I urge my colleagues to reject the pending amendment and
support the fundamental language of the bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
because two wrongs do not make a right. In fact, our actions today
regarding section 907 will be a message to Russia and other countries
regarding U.S. foreign policy and what we mean and that we do what we
say and what we mean.
Mr. Chairman, I am outraged that Azerbaijan continues to block
distribution of much-needed American aid and assistance to the Republic
of Armenia, and to the break-away Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Meanwhile, thousands of Armenians are still without adequate housing
as a result of the 1998 earthquake. This is unacceptable. Not only is
this blockade clearly immoral, it is illegal, according to U.S. law.
The time has come that we stop making excuses for Azerbaijan. The
time has come to quit playing politics with humanitarian aid destined
for Armenia. Human rights must be protected. No one has the right to
flaunt the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, no one, period.
There should be no business as usual with Azerbaijan until their
illegal, life-threatening blockade is lifted.
I urge my colleagues, vote yes on the Pallone-Radanovich amendment.
This is a vote for the people of Armenia. This is a vote for peace.
This is a vote for solidarity.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. I
think it is very, very important that we recognize that if we want
peace in this

[[Page H7990]]

world, we have to have justice. If we want justice, we cannot stand
idly by while one country simply says, we are not going to provide any
humanitarian aid, no matter where it comes from, to another country
that it happens to have a conflict with.
I appreciate the fact that this is an enormously complicated and
difficult political issue involving Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh and
Azerbaijan but for Azerbaijan to be able to stand by and say that no
amount of human aid is going to get through Armenia, when I have
visited Armenia and I have seen children going cold in the wintertime,
I have seen elderly people in hospital rooms where the temperature in
the hospital room was below freezing, and that is the kind of situation
that occurred because of the fact that we have interests that would
just as soon see us repeal section 907.
What I say is if we want to see peace, if we want to see these issues
solved over a period of time, then we cannot do it with just economics
in mind. We have to do it with justice in mind. If we want justice,
repeal the attempt to get rid of section 907; stand up to the Armenian
people; stand up for peace and stand up for poor people around the
world who are hurt far too often because economics comes before
politics.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise to support the
amendment by my colleague from California. As we all know too well, the
countries of the Caucasus have been crippled by violence and conflict
since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If one were to Nagorno-Karabakh
or to Armenia or Azerbaijan, and many in this body have, one would know
something about the geography. That, in turn, gives some glimpse of
what the conflict is all about.
For Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, this reality is worsened by
Azerbaijan's devastating blockade of its neighbor. It is especially
painful to see a country with the potential of Armenia recede into an
economic stone-age at the hands of its neighbors.
This is why, in the first place, we adopted section 907 of the
Freedom Support Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. It prohibits
the delivery of U.S. Government economic or military assistance to the
government of Azerbaijan, unless it takes demonstrable steps to cease
its blockade. They have not. They have not taken any steps.
Section 907 sets reasonable conditions on the use of U.S. foreign
aid. We struggled in last year's bill to ensure that it could not
prevent vital humanitarian and democracy building assistance or export
finance assistance to U.S. business. That took a tremendous amount of
struggling, but it did come to completion.
However, we cannot repeal section 907 until the conditions for its
lifting are met. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan continues its crippling
blockade of its neighbors. In addition, the negotiations over the
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remain uncertain.
Given these facts, these circumstances, now is not the time to reward
the government of Azerbaijan. Hopefully, that time will come.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment, but I hope that
it is the last time that I or any of us have to do this. This provision
has been the Congress' response to a difficult complex issue year after
year, and yet we see no real progress.

{time} 1630

We cannot only blame Azerbaijan. Armenia has to accept some of the
blame for insufficient progress as well.
One of the realities that we have to understand is that Azerbaijan is
going to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It is not
landlocked, as Armenia. It is not nearly as economically and militarily
vulnerable as Armenia. In fact, it is going to be a major role player
in the Caucasus in that part of the world.
So it behooves us in the future to, in fact, be an ally of
Azerbaijan. The reality is that we cannot under these current
circumstances. But if we want peace in the Caucasus and protection of
Armenia's sovereign borders and prosperity for the Armenian people,
then we need to establish economic trade between Armenia and its
neighbors on all sides. The situation today is untenable. In fact,
there are people suffering in Armenia. There are people suffering in
Yerevan, there are people suffering in Nagorno-Karabakh. But we must be
part of the solution, not part of the problem. And part of the problem
is that we have not moved forward. We have not been able to take
sufficient initiatives. We have not been able to bring together the
people in a sufficiently constructive attitude.
I understand the frustration of the people in the State Department.
They really feel that this amendment is counterproductive, that we have
got to be able to assure the Azeris that there is a level playing
field, that we are not playing favorites because of domestic politics.
There is reason for them to believe that and to make that charge. But
it is also true that they eventually will be holding the upper hand.
They do have it in their means to find a way to relieve much of the
economic suffering that the Armenians are encountering. They do have it
in their means to move the Minsk peace process forward. I would hope
that this is the last year that this is the only approach that this
Congress can take, which is to continue essentially an embargo that, in
fact, is hurting Armenians as well as Azeris and that is not consistent
with the way we have resolved past conflicts.
Mr. Chairman, I very much respect the people who want to lift 907,
but I also respect not only the insight but the compassion of those who
feel that this is not the time. I am just saying for the record that if
this comes up again, I do not think it is the responsible decision for
the Congress to simply stick with the same old response to a problem
that continues to fester and is not getting any better, without
initiative on the part of this Congress and those who understand the
situation and who believe that peace and prosperity is possible and
will only occur if we are willing to take the necessary political and
diplomatic risks for that peace and prosperity to overcome the age-old
animosities that have precluded it in the past.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my colleague, for those words. I have
reached a different conclusion, but many of the things that the
gentleman stated in his talk were right on target.
I rise in support of the repeal of 907, which means I must oppose
this amendment of my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Radanovich). Let us note this, that this war, as the gentleman from
Virginia has suggested, is going on and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, I have visited Armenia and I have visited Azerbaijan. I
have come to the conclusion, the honest conclusion, that the reason the
war continues is because there is a perceived tilt in American policy
towards Armenia in that part of the world and the Armenians thus are
totally inflexible when it comes to negotiations with the Azerbaijanis,
the Azerbaijanis who are desperate to make some kind of an agreement.
But the Armenians, because it is perceived that the United States
will do anything for them because of political pressure because, and
let us face it, there are many Armenians that live in the United
States, there are many Armenians that live in California, many of them
are supporters of mine, they are fine people. But American foreign
policy cannot be based on that political consideration. We should
consider the cause of peace, the cause of freedom, and we have to
consider also the national security interests of the United States of
America.
In this particular case, our unwillingness to try to be evenhanded in
our approach in that area because of our fear of political
repercussions from the Armenian community has prevented a peace
agreement from being reached. Thus, both sides are suffering.

[[Page H7991]]

Yes, as we hear about the suffering of the Armenian people in
Nagorno-Karabakh, that is exactly correct. Those people are suffering.
And equally suffering are the Azeris. Almost a million Azeris, 15
percent of the population, are now displaced and refugees. They are
suffering as well.
What is preventing the peace from coming about? What is preventing
the peace from coming about is the Armenians really believe that they
can hold out because America is going to be on their side and we are
not going to force them to make any kind of compromise and they are
going to get the whole ball of wax.
We should be instead trying to be evenhanded, trying to reach a
compromise. Now, in both instances when I went to Armenia and
Azerbaijan and talked to the leaders of both of these countries, again
I find the Azeris anxious to try to discuss and find some solution. And
I find the Armenians unwilling to give up an inch. One inch.
There is an easy answer to this and it is very recognizable on the
map. There is an Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan. We know about that.
Nagorno-Karabakh. But also there is an Azeri enclave in Armenia. The
Azerbaijanis are open to talking about some kind of a land swap where
they would swap the entire Nagorno-Karabakh region which used to be
part of their territory, which is major Armenian and should be part of
Armenia, they would swap that and give their legitimacy for that in
exchange for a corridor to that enclave of Azeri population in Armenia.
Mr. Chairman, that deal that is so obvious to those of us on the
outside is not being seriously considered because the Armenians believe
the United States is on their side, Russia is on their side, all the
big boys are on their side, so they do not really have to give up a
thing. That attitude is what has prevented peace.
If we really love Armenia and love people and are trying to help end
suffering, and we love Azeris and Armenians on an equal level, because
that is what we are supposed to be, evenhanded in trying to bring about
peace and freedom in this world, then we will have the courage to tell
our Armenian friends back home that we are going to have to reach a
compromise here and they are not going to get every single thing that
they want; that there is going to have to be a compromise to reach
peace.
If there is that kind of compromise, both sides will be better. Let
us have the courage to call it as it is here. Let us meet our
responsibility as the world's leading power and at the very least not
be forced into positions by strong minority groups within our own
country to take positions that are contrary to the interest of world
peace, contrary to freedom, and contrary to our own long-term national
security interests.
So, I rise in strong support of the repeal of 907 and thus oppose
this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to removing Section 907 from our
bill. Let me just bring this debate down to a more reasonable level
that at least I understand. I am sure it is very confusing to any
television audience that might be listening to this debate or any
Members of Congress who might be back in their office.
First of all, we are not talking about money. We are not talking
about giving money to Azerbaijan. We met with President Aliyev when we
were in Azerbaijan. I took our subcommittee there specifically for this
reason, to see if indeed this country was sincere in its indications
that they want to move towards a democracy. Mr. Aliyev did not ask us
for money, nor is he asking us for money in this bill, nor do we give
him any except for refugees. We give money to Armenia. We give more
money to Armenia per capita than any other nation in the entire world,
other than Israel. We are not talking about what kind of assistance we
are giving to these countries. We are talking about a slowly emerging
democracy.
Mr. Chairman, when we met with President Aliyev, we talked about what
he wanted. And I will admit, it was difficult for me to believe,
sitting there talking to one of the top leaders of the former Soviet
Union telling us sincerely that he wanted to democratize, he wanted to
move his country up.
They are blessed with the resource of oil that a lot of emerging
countries do not have. They want to send this oil to the West rather
than through China. So we are not talking about money.
We are talking about his plea to let the United States people help
him with his educational process. Mr. Chairman, with 907, it cannot be
done. We are talking about assistance and help and care for the people,
the sick people of Azerbaijan. With Section 907, it cannot be done. We
are talking about lifting that. We are not talking about giving them
money. We are not talking about anything that has to do with foreign
assistance monetarily.
We are talking about a confused region of this world that has been
warring for centuries. We are talking about a country that has had
differences with Azerbaijan and has a tremendous advantage in any peace
settlement as long as this thing is in place. Let us not talk about
whether or not this is going to permit the United States to dump
millions of dollars into Azerbaijan, because it is not.
I know a lot of these people that have spoken today are very
compassionate. Many of them have been to Azerbaijan. Many of them may
even be able to point it out on the globe. Some of them, probably,
cannot. But let me tell my colleagues, the Constitution of the United
States of America says that the administrative branch of government
will determine foreign policy, the Congress of the United States shall
be the check and balance.
The people of this country elected President Clinton. He, in turn,
has appointed Secretary Albright as Secretary of State. Secretary
Albright called me and said this is one of the most important things
that this Congress can do for this administration to have an effective
foreign policy.
Now we have all of these Members of Congress who may have been to
Azerbaijan, like me only once, who now have become pseudo-Secretaries
of State. They are trying to impose their will against the direction of
the professionals we have hired.
The administration is pushing for this. It is not the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) nor I. We recognize how important it is.
Azerbaijan has another alternative with respect to that oil. They can
send it through China. That would probably be the easiest route to go.
But if we deny our American businesspeople, and we talk about oil
companies, the right to participate, not with giving them money but
with giving them OPIC assistance and Eximbank assistance, then we do
not stand a chance to compete with the French and the German and the
British and the Japanese and the Chinese who are all there trying to
keep this section 907 in place because it is disadvantageous to
American oil companies.
So let us not talk about money. This has nothing to do with money to
Azerbaijan. It has to do with a policy that the foreign policy
professionals of that this country have hired to have foreign policy
ability, and this is one of the top priorities that Madeleine Albright
has requested and that is that we remove 907.
This committee has taken a good look at it. I think we probably
looked at this area of the world more than any other area of the world.
We have been there. We have seen the needs. Some on the committee still
disagree. But to those who have never been there, to those who have not
had the opportunity to discuss this intelligently with the Secretary of
State, I remind them that they are not Secretaries of State; they are
Members of the House. They have a responsibility to the administration
to give them the latitude they need to have an effective foreign
policy.

{time} 1645

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on International
Relations, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I object to the
bill's striking of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act both on the
substance and the procedure.
I do not think that many of us consider ourselves, with all due
respect, to be secretaries of State, and I have heard many colleagues
on both sides of

[[Page H7992]]

the aisle suggest that they do not have the full abdication to the
administration of what the United States role is in the world or a
blank checkbook for that regard.
For 9 years, 9 years the government of Azerbaijan has blockaded, not
embargoed, but blockaded, meaning using force to blockade Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabagh cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine and
other vital supplies, creating a humanitarian crisis requiring the
United States to send emergency life saving assistance to Armenia.
By contrast, section 907 does not prevent the delivery of
humanitarian aid to the people of Azerbaijan. As a matter of fact, to
date more than $130 million in United States humanitarian and exchange
assistance has been provided to Azerbaijan but through nongovernmental
organizations.
Azerbaijan has failed to live up to the basic conditions set forth in
U.S. law pursuant to section 907. What does that say? Quote, taking
demonstrable, demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other
offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh.
For this reason, we should not lift restrictions on aid to
Azerbaijan.
Second, I object to the provision of the underlying bill on
procedural grounds. As a member of the Committee on International
Relations, the committee which has the authorizing jurisdiction for the
Freedom Support Act, I am clearly concerned that we set the process and
the pattern, that the Committee on Appropriations usurped the
jurisdiction of our committee, and that the Committee on Rules extended
protection to the provision despite its violation of House rules on
authorizing in appropriation bills.
Section 907 remains an essential element of U.S. foreign policy
towards the Caucasus as well as an expression of Congress' objection to
Azerbaijan's illegitimate blockade of the Armenian people.
I want to address one or two other things I have heard in debate. To
suggest that American citizens of this country who identify with a
certain national entity of another country, who may have been born here
in the United States but whose roots in fact come from some other
ethnic background, that those citizens have less of a right to petition
their government for what they believe the United States policy should
be any place in the world and that U.S. companies, however, with
multinational interests have a greater right than United States
citizens to petition their government in my mind is outrageous.
We should take risks for peace but those should be on the side of
making sure that Azerbaijan ceases to be the aggressor. Oil and oil
interests themselves cannot be the guiding star of United States
foreign policy, particularly at a time of an oil glut. We can get our
pipeline, but the pressure should be on Azerbaijan, the aggressor, the
aggressor, not the victim.
When we assist the aggressor, we send the wrong message throughout
the world. When we assist those who are undemocratic, we send the wrong
message throughout the world. When we assist those who are trying to
strangulate a people, we send the wrong mesage throughout the world.
When we look the other way, when we lend a blind eye to what is
happening in these parts of the world, simply based on economic
interests, we go down a road which we have already had in our history,
and we need not repeat that chapter again in our history.
That, Mr. Chairman, is really in my mind the guiding principles we
should be looking at as we determine how we vote on this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the Radanovich-Pallone amendment.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I categorically reject the arguments made by the
preceding speaker as being both foolish and misguided.
Nobody has come before this House to argue that oil is more important
than human beings. There is nobody in this House who is arguing that
any one group of Americans should be less entitlted to come before this
House and argue their case than any other group of Americans.
The whole point of bringing this authorized repeal to the floor
within this proper piece of legislation is to remove a foolish, ill-
conceived provision that takes sides in a battle between two countries
in another part of the world is because we do not have an Armenian-
American interest any more than we have an Armenian-Azeri interest.
We promote the interest of the United States of America in world
policy. And it is our obligation, as representatives of the people of
the United States, be they Armenian or Azeri or of any other ethnic
background, it is our interest to see to it that they are equally and
properly represented in the national interest of this country. To
suggest otherwise is incredibly wrong.
I have heard some interesting arguments here today on this issue,
some of them based in sincerity, some of them based in fact, and some
of them based in total misinformation.
Mr. Chairman, section 907 is a provision that we passed in 1992 after
the Azeris and the Armenians were engaged for some years, in a tragic
war with major loss of life on both sides. There were ultimately no
winners because both sides lost lives and suffered great casualties.
Azerbaijan lost territory. Nagorno-Karabagh, which was an Azeri piece
of property, is now virtually totally controlled by Armenians and there
was ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Armenians because the Azeris,
some 700,000 of them, are living in refugee camps in Azerbaijan. I
would like to reduce it, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan)
did, to understandable terms so that my fellow Americans can understand
this issue.
If I had two neighbors down the block from my neighborhood involved
in an ongoing battle and I was worried that that battle was going to
escalate, inflame my neighborhood, could possibly result in tremendous
death and hardship to my neighbors, I would do something. In order to
break up that battle, I walked over to one of them and I started
beating him with a stick, and for 6 years I beat him on the head with a
stick. For the other neighbor to come to me and say, we are almost
going to solve this problem but just do not stop beating that guy over
the head with a stick or else we will never solve the problem, that is
effectively what we have done with Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Certainly, we have friends who are Armenian Americans. I remember the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) who addressed us. She takes
pride in her heritage, and well she should. Armenian Americans have
come to this country and worked hard and prospered and done well. I
guess we do not have very many Azeri Americans. So they have not come
here, they have not prospered, they have not done well, and they do not
have much access to Congress.
For one reason or another, in the middle of a war, we go over there
and start beating the Azeris with a stick. It is called section 907.
And it says, we cannot transfer aid. We cannot deal with the Azer-
baijan Government. But we have given plenty of aid to the Armenians, as
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has already pointed out. They
are one of greatest recipients of aid that we have in the world.
What we are doing here today is not proposing that we cease our
friendship with Armenia. It is just that we lessen our Congressional
hostility toward the Azeris. It is an important part of the world. To
suggest that it is due to oil is shortsighted and simply disingenuous.
Is there oil in that part of the world? Yes. Is that important? Yes.
Why is it important? Because if we can develop that oil in that part of
the world, some \3/4\ of the world's oil reserves, we might make the
Middle East less important.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston) has expired.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for
3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

[[Page H7993]]

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, the oil is important. One should never think, though,
that the oil is the cause for this change in policy, other than to
deemphasize the critical impact on the Middle East. We have for years,
virtually since 1947 but certainly more recently, since my 20 years in
Congress, we have been embroiled in disputes between Israel and her
neighbors. One of the key ingredients for the strength of some of her
neighbors is because of their possession of oil. They use it as clout.
In the 1970's, 1980's, the fact is we had an oil embargo because they
used it to strangle not only the Middle East but the entire world. By
opening up the spigots in the Caspian region, both in the Caucasus and
in Central Asia, we will deemphasize the importance of Middle East oil,
and the stranglehold that those Middle Eastern oil territories have
over Israel and the entire world.
Repeal of section 907 is the national interest of the United States.
That is not me speaking alone. That is Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, last time I checked still a Democrat, who says, section 907
creates the impression that the U.S. approach to the Nagorno-Karabagh
conflict is not balanced.
It is critical that the U.S. be perceived by both Azerbaijan and
Armenia as a fair and honest broker in its bilateral relations with
each country and multilateral relations through the OSCE Minsk Group,
of which we are a co-chair. We believe, this is from Secretary
Madeleine Albright, that section 907 encourages other parties to
calculate that the United States will continue to press only Azerbaijan
and that they can accordingly maintain an intransigent posture towards
the Minsk Group process.
Madeleine Albright, our Secretary of State, the President of the
United States, the entire Democratic administration and our Committee
agree that section 907 should be repealed. We are also working with
American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti
Defamation League, the B'nai B'rith, the National Conference on Soviet
Jewry. Why? Because they understand that it is in Israel's interest
that this thing be repealed.
The gentleman's suggestions are outrageous. And when he says that
this is just oil related and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with
U.S. national policy, I reject his position.
I urge the repeal of section 907 and the defeat of the amendment by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Radanovich).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations took such umbrage. I was referring to
remarks made by previous speakers. I am glad to hear that the chairman
says that no person in this country whose ethnic heritage is such that
they should be diminished versus a U.S. company, but one of his
previous speakers from his side of the aisle suggested that. So I hope
that he takes his umbrage to his colleague and suggests to him that
that type of suggestion is inappropriate for the Chamber and
inappropriate insofar as that we do not want to make citizens in this
country, because they come from a certain lineage, second-class
citizens. I agree with him.
On the question of oil, my simple suggestion is, there clearly has
been various mentions of the question of the access to oil and the
concern from it. That is a legitimate issue and interest of the United
States, but the question is, does it rise to the national interest, the
national security interest, and is this our beacon of light for U.S.
foreign policy? I think that those are legitimate issues to raise.
I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding to
me.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make a couple of points,
following up on what I have heard in the recent debate here.

{time} 1700

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the position of the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and in support of the amendment on the
floor to restore the 907 provision to this bill.
But I do agree with the chairman on a few points. One is that this
region, the Armenia-Azerbaijan region, is a very important region of
the world and policies there have serious ramifications.
I agree that we must be, in making our policy decisions, acting in
the interest of the United States of America. And I believe that the
makers of this motion are doing just that.
I understand that the chairman was dismayed when there was question
of the motivation for the action taken in full committee, where 907 was
repealed, and the motivation was attributed to the interest of the oil
companies. I do not like questioning the motivation of our colleagues,
and I understand the chairman's dismay. But I take issue also in the
chairman's attributing motivation to those of us responding to the
Armenian Americans in our country.
I will have to get time later to continue my point, but I support the
amendment on the floor.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on International
Relations, I rise in strong support of language in the foreign
operations bill that eliminates 907 of the Freedom Support Act and in
opposition of efforts to strike this provision of the bill.
I do not think section 907 should have ever been in the law itself. I
think it is regrettable that it was. I think the United States has to
do everything it can to bring peace among all parties, and we know that
is a troubled area in the world.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), the ranking Democrat
on the Committee on National Security, says this:

Security matters remain a major issue in the region. The
United States' ability to promote peace and economic reforms
in the region are significantly hamstrung by section 907. The
United States must be perceived by both Azerbaijan and
Armenia as a truly neutral peace broker in its negotiations
and approach to end conflict in the region. Section 907
damages U.S. national interest by undermining the
administration's neutrality and promoting a settlement in
that part of the world, an ability to encourage economic
embroiled legal reforms in Azerbaijan, and efforts to advance
an east-west energy transport corridor.

We all know, and even those on the other side know, that one of these
days 907 is going to be eliminated. And why not now? Why do we want to
wait another year, like some suggest? I think this is the opportunity
we have this year to eliminate it.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for
yielding to me, and I rise in opposition to this amendment and in
support of the elimination of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act in
the foreign operations appropriations bill.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we can no longer pursue a failed policy of
prohibiting U.S. assistance to the government of Azerbaijan. The
conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is difficult and complex, as we
have heard this afternoon. However, retaining section 907 does not
assist in the resolution of their dispute. Moreover, it does not serve
our national interest and our foreign policy initiatives.
Section 907 limits our ability to be a neutral broker in the process
of mediating the ongoing conflict. With section 907, we restrict our
flexibility in dealing with a nation that is moving towards a market
economy but, in the meantime, is greatly underdeveloped.
Last January I had the opportunity to visit Azerbaijan, and I can
tell my colleagues that we can influence great change with the lifting
of section 907. The nation is greatly underdeveloped, with weak
institutions and basically a closed society. By lifting section 907, we
could provide technical and economic assistance, which would provide
reforms that would create a more open society and increase stability
and promote regional cooperation.
While our foreign assistance to Armenia should remain in place, it is
appropriate that at this time we move to

[[Page H7994]]

repeal section 907. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we
defeat this amendment and restore section 907.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in strong support of the Radanovich-Pallone amendment
to preserve the humanitarian aid corridor.
I think I would want to begin my remarks by agreeing with one of the
assertions made by the full committee chairman, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), in indicating the bipartisan nature of this
debate, the importance of the debate, and the fact that all of us have
the same goal in mind, and that is energy security, from an economic
and national security perspective, as well as the issue of peace. The
debate that is taking place today is a debate about the difference of
opinion as to how to achieve both those goals.
We have a situation in the Caucasus today that is not perfect; that
if all of us collectively could affect, we would want to make perfect.
We have a static situation that we want to move in the right direction,
and that, again, is the question of the debate: What is the right
direction.
I do want to make sure we put the debate in the proper perspective
and to reflect on events of just an 11-day period of time 83 years ago,
when on April 8th, tens of thousands of Armenian men were rounded up
and shot. Hundreds of thousands of women, men and children were
deported southward across the mountains to Silesia and Syria. On April
15th, the Armenians appealed to the German ambassador in Constantinople
for formal German protection. The request was rejected on the grounds
that it would be offensive to the Turkish government. By April 19th, 11
days later, 50,000 Armenians had been murdered.
Much has been said today during the debate about the war that is
taking place today. In 1989, the government, not the people, the
government of Azerbaijan began to kill Armenians because they were
Armenians. A war took place because the Armenian government then began
to defend itself and its people.
This Congress, President Bush, then signed into law the Humanitarian
Aid Corridor in 1992. And progress was made 2 years later because there
was a cease-fire put in place that, as I understand today, 4 years
later, remains in place. I think all of us, again, regret that it is
simply a cease-fire and not a lasting peace, but progress was made
because of the actions of this institution and President Bush in 1992.
As many speakers have indicated before, this is not a question of are
we wanting to cut off aid to Armenians. That is not the question. We do
not want to do that. Do we want to cut off aid to the Azerbaijan
people? We do not want to do that. We remain very concerned on our side
of the issue about ensuring that the Azerbaijan government acts
responsibly. And, as again a number of speakers have indicated, they
have it within their power by the close of business today to end the
blockade and to then have that relief money flow through their hands.
Over $130 million has been provided for Azerbaijan refugees over this
period of time. And it is important for all of us to note that in 1995
the Armenian government indicated that they would allow relief supplies
to flow through Armenia for the relief of Azerbaijan, in a remote area
of that country, and the Azeri government refused to allow those goods
and supplies to flow through Armenia. And I certainly question the
government's, not the people's, intentions in this matter.
The issue is, and someone has used the illusion that we are beating
up one of these parties; that we are hitting them with a stick; that we
are being unfair. We have a cease-fire in place. People are not being
killed. As has also been indicated, people have talked to each other.
And I think at this particular moment, if we would now lift the
restriction, without the lifting of the blockade, what we are saying to
the Azeri government is it is okay to blockade other countries; it is
okay to provide for the restriction of commerce, medical supplies and
humanitarian aid; it is okay, pursuant to Ms. Albright's letter to this
institution, to try to extort money from our government.
The chairman of the committee alluded earlier to the letter that
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, sent to this institution. I
find another passage very revealing.
Mr. Chairman, I simply would ask my colleagues to vote in favor of
the Pallone-Radanovich amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I had prepared remarks, but I would like to use much of
my time to respond to particular statements that have been made by
opponents to the amendment.
The first is that it is the President, charged under the
Constitution, with making United States foreign policy. This is indeed
a misnomer, a statement found in many eighth grade civics books but
never found in any Supreme Court opinion or found in the Constitution
itself.
I commend those who oppose the amendment to the Barclays Bank case,
decided by the Supreme Court a few years ago, in which the court
recounts the very clear constitutional principle that foreign policy is
to be made in the Congress and effectuated by the administration.
The second issue is that we are not talking here about money or aid
going to Azerbaijan. That is all we are talking about. Section 907
restricts the transfer of U.S. tax dollars to the dictatorial regime in
Azerbaijan. Those who want to talk about fiscal conservatism should
draw the line here and say that the butchers in Baku should not get a
single dollar of American tax money, at least while they blockade
Armenia.
We are told that Armenia should be blamed for the refugees that exist
in Azerbaijan, and our hearts go out to those refugees. But why are
they refugees? Because of the policy of the dictatorial government in
Baku.
We are told that where two countries are battling that we should be
evenhanded. I have been very interested in the Middle East, and now and
then we are told to be evenhanded between Israel and her enemies. We
should not be evenhanded between the blockaded and the blockader. We
should not be evenhanded between the perpetrator and the victim. We
should not be evenhanded between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
We should remember, as the gentleman from Indiana pointed out, that
the government in Azerbaijan, that some would say we should send money
to, is the government that butchered people on the streets of Baku just
a few years ago.
We are told that American policy tilts toward Armenia because of the
activities of Armenian Americans. I would point out that American oil
companies are at least as influential as Armenian Americans. The reason
why our policy tilts toward Armenia is because Armenia is right and
because their position reflects American values.
We are told that many in this House do not understand the oil, do not
understand the strategic importance, the economic importance of the
Newly Independent States and of Central Asia. I would say that that
expertise resides in the Committee on International Relations. But this
authorizing provision never went to the Committee on International
Relations, and there is no better reason to adopt this amendment than
to say that this issue should come from the committee of jurisdiction.
We are told that there are too many unilateral sanctions. Section 907
imposes no sanctions. Azerbaijan enjoys Most Favored Nation status with
the United States. Those who care about fiscal conservatism should not
embrace the language, the terminology, that says that it is sanctions
against a country for us not to give them U.S. tax dollars.
Finally, I would like to point to the role of Joseph Stalin in this.
Fifty years ago Joseph Stalin tried to strangle Berlin, and we
responded with the airlift. Two generations earlier Joseph Stalin drew
the borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia for the purpose of
disenfranchising and leading to the oppression of Armenians in Nagorno
Karabagh.

{time} 1715

We did not let Joseph Stalin strangle Berlin and we should not allow
those who walk in his footsteps, those who

[[Page H7995]]

served in his KGB, we should not let them strangle Armenia. Today there
is an airlift to Armenia that should be unnecessary, because we should
continue to tell Azerbaijan to stop blockading Armenia. We are told
that the Armenians are intransigent and are unwilling to give up
territory. Nothing is further from the truth. The government of Armenia
is willing to trade land for peace, recognition and an end of this
blockade.
Vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) for striking
907 in the bill. I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) also
had a stand-alone bill and I commend him, also.
Let me just make two points. First of all, I was watching the debate
earlier this afternoon and several folks made the point that in 8 to 9
years the folks in Azerbaijan had not made any movement. To me that is
a sign of a failed policy and it demonstrates once again the problem of
a unilateral sanctions policy that I think that people in this body are
going to want to look at in the future.
The second point I would make is from the national security
perspective. I suspect most of us know where Azerbaijan is. Their
northern border is Russia, their southern border is Iran. It is a lot
different being in their neighborhood than being between Canada and
Mexico. In late March of this year, a shipment of 22 tons of stainless
steel came south from Russia into Azerbaijan. It is a type of steel, a
special type that is used for fuel tanks for Scud missiles. The Russian
government had apparently been put on notice that this shipment may be
coming from a company but it was able to get out of Russia nonetheless.
Azerbaijan stopped the shipment within their country.
Now, what did they do? Did they call the Russian company and say,
``You've got this stuff mislabeled with phony labels, we've caught you,
give us a bribe''? No. Did they call Iran and say, ``We've got your
steel, let's make a deal''? No. They called the United States Customs
officials and said, ``We think we've found something that may be of
interest to you.'' The United States evaluated the steel and it turned
out to be a type that is used in fuel tanks for Scud missiles, part of
the Iranian missile development program. Does Russia reward this
behavior for Azerbaijan? Of course not. This is a terrible
embarrassment for Russia as it demonstrated once again that they have
some problems in their export controls. Does Iran reward Azerbaijan and
say thank you for stopping this import of this material we were trying
to get from Russia so we could further develop missiles? Of course not.
They needed that material. So what do we do? And what have we done?
Nothing. We have not even bothered to pass a meaningless resolution
thanking them for stopping this shipment that would have contributed to
the development of the Iranian missile program. We can appreciate their
courage, we can appreciate their location in a dangerous part of the
world, but frankly that shows little benefit to a country in their
particular geographic situation.
I am going to vote ``no'' on this amendment for those two reasons. It
is a failed policy that demonstrates once again the problems with the
United States unilaterally going it alone; and, number two, they ought
to be rewarded for contributing to our national security and helping
our United States Customs officials stop this type of steel from going
into the Iranian missile development program.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have genuine respect for my colleagues who care
deeply about human rights anywhere in the world. It is a noble cause to
commit oneself to human and individual rights, whether we be talking
about Nagorno-Karabagh, South Africa, Armenia, Azerbaijan, or frankly
right here in the United States of America.
I know there has been much discussion today about the history of war
and human rights in this area, in the area of the former Soviet Union.
Frankly I would imagine that if the truth were to be known, there have
been human rights abuses on both sides of this serious conflict between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. I would imagine if the truth were to be known,
we are not dealing with saints in either situation. I am not clear we
will ever know the true history of some of the terrible human rights
abuses in this part of the world. But what I do know is that this
debate is not about who is for and who is against human rights in the
world. I think this debate is about what is the best way, what is the
best policy to bring about peace in a terribly critical part of the
world, a strategic part of the world. For myself, I side with the Bush
administration, the Clinton administration and our present Secretary of
State in saying that 907 has not worked, it has not brought about
peace, and that we should try repealing that particular sanction.
I would like to make one comment on a personal note about the whole
energy question that has been brought up. Some have said, that those of
us that favor repeal of 907 are fighting for the oil companies. This is
not about who is for or against the oil companies. But I would like to
talk about the importance to our national security of having an
independent source of energy outside of the Middle East.
In 1991 when I voted to send American soldiers to fight against
Saddam Hussein, we knew that we were sending soldiers to fight for,
one, the democracy of Kuwait, but let us be honest, we were also
fighting for stability in a part of the world where we depend upon
their great resources of oil. I had to welcome back some of the
families to Fort Hood in my district who were there to accept
posthumously the silver medals and the bronze stars that were given to
people, young men, who fought in that war. I had to see people come
back in body bags rather than come home to families and communities to
heroes' welcomes. The reason I say that is I think it is not just in
the interest of the oil companies, far more importantly it is in the
interest of American national security, and it is in the interest of
those American soldiers who might have to go to other parts of the
world like they did in 1991 in Kuwait and put their lives on the line
if we do not diversify our source of energy. All it takes is one more
war in the Middle East and unless we diversify our oil resources, we
are going to have more soldiers from my district and citizens from your
districts have to put their lives on the line to fight for, not oil
companies but stability in the world economy and stability of our
political system in the world. I think it is important in saying that
in my opinion, repealing 907 perhaps will save some other young
American soldier someday from having to come back to this country in a
body bag or in a casket.
So while I have tremendous respect for all of those who fought
mightily and successfully over the last several years for human rights
in this part of the world, I think that policy has not worked. Peace
has not prevailed because of that. It is time to change that policy, to
have an evenhanded policy. In the eyes of the Bush and the Clinton
administration now, let us push an evenhanded policy that has a chance
of bringing about peace in that part of the world, a chance of
stabilizing a critically important part of the world, and a chance of
preventing American soldiers from having to go back to the Middle East
someday and put their lives on the line. That, Mr. Chairman, I think is
important.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share
his concern. Not being on either foreign affairs committee but from the
Committee on Commerce I have watched, and the concern I have is that
when we are dealing with the central Asian republics and the republic
of Turkey, we cannot continue to turn our back on this part of the
world. That is why I rise and agree with my colleague from Texas.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I think it seems clear to all of us here
who

[[Page H7996]]

have talked about this issue and I think the debate has been a very
good one, that we ought to be able to agree on at least three goals:
The first and most important goal is that we establish a condition of
peace and normal relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That ought
to be the highest priority for the United States. Secondly, that we do
everything within our power to encourage the development of the Caspian
oil fields controlled by Azerbaijan by American oil companies. And the
third goal would be that the oil pipeline to carry that oil developed
by American oil companies to market go through Armenia. That would be,
Mr. Chairman, a win-win-win situation for Armenia, for Azerbaijan and
for the American oil companies. Unfortunately, people in that part of
the world do not necessarily see things the way we do in the United
States where there is a win-win-win, and often it is seen that if one
side gains, the other side loses and you have only out of that a
stalemate.
Let us also agree that this administration's efforts in the peace
process in that part of the world have been weak. This administration
has not placed this at a high priority, has not done the kinds of
things that can bring the parties to the table, and their latest ham-
handed effort was to force concessions on the Ter-Petrossian government
in Armenia that were not acceptable to the Armenian people which then
caused that government to lose a vote of confidence, caused that
government to resign and a new government, a new capable government to
take charge, the Kocharian government which is in some ways, much to my
chagrin, a much harder line government than the one that was previous
to that. So have American efforts been good or have they worked? No,
they have been poor and they have not worked. All of us ought to get on
this administration to make this at a high priority.
Now, if someone is to act, should it be Azerbaijan or Armenia? We are
engaged in this effort right now about repealing 907 because Azerbaijan
says to the American oil companies, ``You can do business with us, but
only if you get your government to repeal 907.'' We insist on the other
hand that the Azeris themselves cause the repeal of 907 by simply
saying, ``This blockade is over.'' They can do it tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, this conflict began in 1988 with anti-Armenian pogroms
in the Azeri city of Sumgait. Ethnic cleansing was going on there
before it ever went on in Bosnia. A nation of 7.5 million people
attacked 150,000 of their Armenian minority. And there was brutal
ethnic cleansing going on when in 1992 Wayne Owens, a Democrat, offered
on the floor of the House the Freedom Support Act and said, no American
money should go to a government that is permitting and encouraging and
causing this kind of ethnic cleansing. And when that government ceases
to blockade Armenia and when it ceases other offensive actions, then
907 will cease to exist.
Unfortunately, Azerbaijan continues its strangling blockade on
Armenia four years after a cease-fire had occurred, in 1994. The Azeris
could declare that blockade over tomorrow and section 907 would cease
to exist. Because of the blockades by Azerbaijan and Turkey,
humanitarian and all other assistance, including U.S. aid, has to be
routed through Georgia, costing additional time and money to our
country trying to help people in need. The Azeris and the Turks could
stop these blockades simply by declaring them over. Yes, Azerbaijan has
oil reserves and yes, Armenia is landlocked and a resource-poor country
that is very dependent upon foreign assistance to survive these
blockades, and the Azeris could have stopped the blockade long ago and
there would be no 907.
So should we today undo 907 gratuitously and give this repressive
regime in Baku a victory they do not deserve? Should we side with a
dictator?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. PORTER. Should we side with the intransigent party? Should we
side with the aggressor in a brutal war of ethnic cleansing? Should we
side with an administration that cares nothing about its own refugees
from the war? Should we side with a government that many believe is
very corrupt? If so, you should vote against the Radanovich amendment.

{time} 1730

Or should we at this point in time continue to side with the
government that is moving more than any other in the region toward
democracy? Should we side with people who are the victim of brutal
aggression? Should we side with a party more willing to negotiate face
to face and asking for face-to-face negotiations among the parties that
are refused by the other side?
Should we side with people who share our values? And should we then
all insist that this administration move this to a high priority and
bring the parties to the table, and have them both give up a little bit
so that each can win, along with the United States as well?
Mr. Chairman, I think that we have to continue within 907, that 907
gives us the leverage to work and force the Azeris to make the
concessions they ought to make, and I insist that this administration
put this at the highest possible level and make the three goals that I
outlined originally work. That is, peace and the normal relationship
between these two very fine countries, a development of the oil field
by the American oil companies, and by the building of a pipeline
through Armenia.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, Barbara Tuckman once wrote a book about how governments
through the ages have acted in their own noninterest. To adopt this
amendment would not be in the interests of the United States of
America. To adopt this amendment will not be in line with what we have
as our goals in this world and to help shape a region to make it more
stable and secure.
We are confident that genuine independence and peace and prosperity
for the nations in the southern area of the Caucasus and central Asia
allows them to resist aggressive Iranian and Russian pressure, promises
of American national interests.
It is important that we understand what is at stake here. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) spoke about a pipeline that might
go through Armenia. What if that pipeline went through Iran? That will
not be in our self-interest at all. Why do we shove our allies, our
friends, those that did us a favor and do favors for us, why do we
shove them, if this amendment is adopted, toward the country of Iran?
We know what it has done. There is terrorism in the area of squashing
human rights.
We must also think of our ally of Israel. It is interesting to read a
letter from the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish
Organizations that speaks on this issue and says that we must promote
what is in the base bill for the interest of Israel as well.
Azerbaijan has resisted all efforts to locate foreign troops on its
territory. It has resisted the Fundamentalist government. Azerbaijan
has also been strongly supportive of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe's Minsk group, and the United States of America
is a co-chair of that Minsk group.
I think it behooves us to realize what is really at stake. Do we want
to further American interests in this area, or do we by this wish to
help the Iranian interests in this area?
I think that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is right.
What he and his committee put into the base bill is correct. I fully
support what is in this bill, and I will vote with the chairman and his
committee against this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston) the chairman of the full committee, to continue the
presentation that he was making earlier.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I
will be brief. I just thought it was important to sum up my feelings
that 907 undermines the neutrality of the United States with respect to
the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We want both countries to
be our friends, and we want to extend the hand of friendship to both
countries, but 907 puts us in the position of slapping the

[[Page H7997]]

hands of the Azeris while extending the hand of friendship to the
Armenians.
Secretary Albright understands that. That is why she supports the
repeal of 907. The American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish
Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the B'nai B'rith, the National
Conference of Soviet Jewry, they understand that proposition, as well
as the importance to Israel, that we need to be neutral in our approach
to both countries.
I have heard a lot of arguments about how we made no progress over
the years and therefore we should maintain Section 907 to sanction
Azerbaijan. The gentleman from Arkansas pointed out that even then,
Azerbaijan has been very helpful in working out matters of great
importance to the United States.
I would refer my colleagues again to the New York Times
International, Monday, September 14, 1998, page A-6. The fourth and
fifth paragraphs relate to the first movement, the first glimmer of
hope for the settlement of the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Admittedly, with Section 907 in place, there has been no hope. Now that
we are talking about getting rid of Section 907, the New York Times
says:

There has been no settlement or no substantial movement
toward a settlement of the conflict, and the sides remain so
far apart that some fear another war. But last Monday, the
Prime Minister of Armenia, Armen Darbinyan, flew to
Azerbaijan to attend a regional trade conference.
Before meeting privately with his guest, President Heydar
Aliyev of Azerbaijan told reporters that he looked forward to
``the restoration of friendship between Azerbaijan and
Armenia in the context of a peaceful resolution in Nagorno
Karabagh.'' It was the first time in memory he had made such
a statement.

We have progress now. The progress can be continued, but we need to
lift Section 907, not reinstate it. If this amendment is adopted, it
will be maintained as if nothing had happened, and the chances for
progress in that part of the world will not likely be any more
prominent, any more effective, than they have been since 1992.
It is in the interests of the United States, it is in the interests
of Israel, it is in the interest of all American and Israeli citizens,
it is in the interest of the entire Western civilized world that peace
comes to the Caucasus and peace comes to central Asia. And the only way
we can do that is to deal evenhandedly with two countries, both of
which should be our friend, and neither of which should be hostile to
us nor should we be hostile to them. But that can only come to pass if
we repeal Section 907 and reject this ill-conceived amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I support the realistic approach
of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) to this whole issue
dealing with Section 907.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first apologize to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) for not allowing him to speak beyond the 5
minutes, and I am glad to see that we are talking extra time at this
point, because I think everyone should be allowed to speak for as long
as they want this evening.
I do want to say, though, that the notion that somehow the United
States and the State Department have been taking a neutral position and
that somehow the existence of 907 tilts us towards Azerbaijan or tilts
us toward Armenia is simply not true. The United States is not neutral
between these two countries. The U.S. has clearly taken a pro-Azeri
position from the very beginning, and this administration and the State
Department continue to take a pro-Azeri position.
I say that because they tried to impose a settlement in Armenia with
regard to Nagorno Karabagh that was not acceptable. They did not and
they continue not to recognize the territorial integrity of Nagorno
Karabagh, which existed as an entity even during the Soviet era. And
the United States clearly and the State Department clearly have not
taken the position that is supportive of Armenia.
I am very afraid that by repealing section 907, we would be sending a
clear signal to Azerbaijan that we are 100 percent supportive of their
position and, as a result, they would have absolutely no incentive to
try to resolve the conflict in the Caucasus, to try to resolve the
conflict in Nagorno Karabagh and make peace ultimately with Armenia.
Let me just address a few other things that were mentioned here
tonight. I know a few of the speakers said we should not look at human
rights abuses because they have existed on both sides. If we take that
position, we are denying the historical fact of the Armenia genocide,
and that is why so many people on our side of the aisle who are pro-
Armenia feel so strongly about what is going on there.
Nagorno Karabagh was attacked by Azerbaijan. They suffered an
aggressive attack by the Azeris and by Azerbaijan as a nation, and they
had to defend themselves. The aggressor here was Azerbaijan. The
aggressor historically in that area has been either the Azeris or the
Turks, and to suggest that somehow this blockade which prevents
humanitarian assistance from going to Armenia is not in some ways a
continuation of that historic genocide is a denial of history.
That is why we cannot allow this section 907 to be repealed, because
otherwise the people of Armenia will continue to suffer and will not
receive humanitarian assistance.
Let me talk about the energy issue. I understand that some people
feel that we should not discuss the energy issue here, but others have
brought it up and talked about our energy dependence. The bottom line
is that if we repeal section 907, we create no incentive for Azerbaijan
to share its oil resources in the Caucasus region and to work with
Armenia, which suffers an energy crisis. And right now, there is
absolutely nothing that would prevent Azerbaijan from building a
pipeline through Nagorno Karabagh, through Armenia and down to the
Mediterranean. That is the direct way to do it, that is the easiest way
for that pipeline to be built.
Armenia has said historically that they would like to share energy
resources and work with Azerbaijan in terms of a free flow of oil to
the West. If we repeal section 970, we create no incentive for using
that oil in a cooperative way within the Caucasus countries. That is
the kind of signal that we are going to send.
And lastly, let me talk about the peace process, because some of my
colleagues on the other side have said that somehow repealing 907 will
lead to peace. That is not the truth. What they are doing here is
rewarding the aggressor. They are telling the country that attacked the
Armenians in Nagorno Karabagh, they are telling the country that
continues to blockade, that they are going to be rewarded by repealing
section 970.
We know historically that appeasing the aggressor does not work. It
did not work in the case of Chamberlin. And what did we get? We ended
up killing 6 million Jews in the Holocaust in Nazi Germany because we
appeased the other side. We appeased Adolf Hitler. Start that policy of
appeasement again, and we will see another genocide in the Caucasus, we
will see a continual genocide of the Armenian people.
I do not think that it is fair for people to ignore the historical
reality of what is going on here, and if we want to achieve a policy
where these three Caucasus nations work together, then do not reward
the aggressor.

{time} 1745

Do not reward the country that is continuing the blockade. Let these
countries work together. Let the United States show that it can be
neutral and work equally with the other countries. There is nothing to
stop the United States from telling Azerbaijan that they should share
their resources, their energy resources and work with Armenia and the
other Caucasus nations.
The U.S. is powerful enough to basically give the signal to
Azerbaijan that if they do not lift this blockade, that we will not
continue to support them, and that is what we should be sending, that
signal to Azerbaijan.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the fine arguments of my friends from
across the aisle, and with great due respect to the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, I do have to say that the bottom line I
think of this legislation is fairness, and I really believe that it is
unfair for a country like

[[Page H7998]]

Azerbaijan to block the foreign aid of another country, Armenia, when
they are receiving foreign aid themselves. This is an issue of an equal
playing field in that region of the world. Section 907 protects an
equal playing field.
In closing I just want to say it protects a level playing field, and
with all due respect, we should not be blocking the foreign aid of one
country to another. This preserves that level playing field in that
region of the world, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Yates) for yielding, and I want to just convey a few
thoughts at the end of this debate.
First of all, may I identify my opposition, with reluctance, to the
initiative as our distinguished chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). He knows the high regard in
which members of the committee, including myself, hold for him, and I
regret having to oppose his well-intentioned initiative, which was
successful in full committee.
I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) and others who have been part of putting this amendment
forward to repeal the repeal of Section 907.
I think that some of the statements that have been made here today
have been very useful and this debate has been useful. It certainly has
focused the attention of our colleagues on a very important region of
the world, and one which has emerging challenges for us. So in that
regard, this debate has been very helpful, because it has been very
educational on both sides of the issue.
Frankly, both sides have very legitimate arguments about Section 907.
However, I come down in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Radanovich) and commend him for his leadership in
putting it forward.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) in his
remarks laid out the issue very clearly. The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) earlier laid out the issue I think very clearly, as did
many of our colleagues in the course of the debate. So I will not
revisit that, except to say very simply that this Section 907 was put
into place because there was a blockade of humanitarian assistance. The
blockade was by Azerbaijan and Turkey for assistance going to Armenia.
The minute the blockade is lifted, Section 907 is lifted. So this is
about balance. I do not understand how this new amendment came to the
full committee where we said, let us be fair, let us lift Section 907,
and let us leave the blockade in place. It seems to me we have balance
here with Section 907.
As my colleagues know, some of the Section 907 provisions were
relaxed in the course of time. We said that assistance could go to NGOs
in the region, nongovernmental organizations in the region, but not to
the Azeri government. There were concerns that people had of
uncertainty about the leadership in Azerbaijan: the President had been
the head of the KGB when Azerbaijan was part of the Soviet Union. So
there were serious questions about human rights and Democratic freedoms
in Azerbaijan, but the main issue was the blockade.
Through the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf),
Section 907 was further relaxed when he visited there, saw that the
Azeri refugees needed assistance too, and we knew that, but he brought
the story back firsthand, that certain assistance could not reach them
through the nongovernmental organizations. Some aid had to go through
the government. So we agreed, under the gentleman's leadership, we
agreed to this relaxation so that humanitarian assistance would be
delivered through NGOs wherever possible, and if not, in some instances
through the government. So everyone has been open to this being an
effective tool for balance in the region.
One more point about the peace process. There is a Minsk process in
place which some Members have addressed here, and the 907 is a
motivation for the Azeris to participation in the Minsk process which
could bring peace to the region. Our humanitarian assistance and our
cooperation with all the other countries in the region, whether it be
Armenia, Nagorno Karabagh or Azerbaijan, should be related to their
willingness to participate in the peace process.
So in terms of substance, I think Section 907 is the motivation to
keep the Azeris at the table, and again, would be lifted when the
blockade is lifted. So much for the substance. Our colleagues who are
very familiar with this issue have presented it very, very clearly
before us, but I just wanted to put that in perspective a little bit.
Now, in terms of some of the debate that has gone on here today about
questioning motivation. Since the oil companies have been interested in
Azerbaijan, there has been a heightened awareness of Azerbaijan and the
need by some to lift the Section 907. I am not questioning anybody's
motivation here today; I think there are legitimate arguments on both
sides. However, I want to say 2 things.
My chairman knows what high regard, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Livingston) knows what high regard I hold for him. But for him in the
same remarks to be expressing his dismay at the suggestion that the oil
companies were influencing our decision and then questioning the
motivation of our colleagues, saying that they are motivated because
there are Armenian Americans in their community
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Yates was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank my
colleagues for their indulgence.
For the distinguished chairman to be questioning the motivation of
our colleagues because they are motivated by the Armenians in their
community, and in the same presentation talk about the American Jewish
Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti Defamation League,
B'nai B'rith, who are on his side of the issue, I think is not fair. I
think it is contradictory. The fact is that the American Jewish
Committee and the Anti Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress
and B'nai B'rith have every right to express their view on this
subject, but do not say the Armenian Americans are not an appropriate
motivation for Members to come to this floor, but these other groups
are. We welcome their input anywhere in the world starting, of course,
with Israel, and if they care to intervene in some other area of the
world, they have a right under our law to do that, and I respect that.
But I hope that the rights of Armenian Americans would be respected as
well.
My final point is that I listened attentively as the distinguished
chairman spoke about this as something that the administration wants
and we cannot tie the administration's hand, and that Secretary
Albright is for this. Well, that is interesting. That is very
interesting, and I would like to, for the record, just talk for a
moment about the statement of administration policy about this bill,
because Secretary Albright and the President of the United States are
concerned about the dollar amount in this bill, but that interest seems
to be ignored by the same chairman who was using them as an authority
for why we should go forward with lifting Section 907.
The administration strongly opposes Mexico City restrictions, as they
say in this. The administration strongly objects to the committee's
action to leaving U.S. funds for the Korean Peninsula Development
Organization, including language prohibiting the President from
exercising his authority to transfer funds from other sources for this
purpose, and it goes on and on. The administration objects to the low
figure for the New Independent States, and are concerned about the low
funding for economic support.
So if we are going to use giving the administration a free hand, we
have to go across the board with that. And with that, since my time has
expired, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

[[Page H7999]]

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
think that we are nearing a closure on this debate, but I certainly
would agree with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), that this is what the Congress is all about. This has been a
very spirited debate, and we have people on both sides of the aisle who
feel very serious about their view on this.
But let us not lose sight of our mission. Do my colleagues think for
one moment that anybody who is in favor of the lifting of this ban
against Azerbaijan is really against any human rights help? Do my
colleagues think that we have any mission other than peace? No. This is
an avenue for peace, and that is what this debate is all about. We are
not here saying that we favor Azerbaijan over Armenia, or vice versa.
We are not talking about money, because we do not give money to
Azerbaijan, nor does Azerbaijan want money. We are here about talking
about a possible avenue of peace.
They have a group called the Minsk Group, and that group is trying to
establish a process where they will sit down at a table and they will
sign an agreement. When that happens, this war that has been going on
for so many years will end through negotiations. But the
administration, Secretary Albright and the President, tell us that the
administration cannot create this peace document that both sides will
sign, unless indeed this is lifted. It is an unfair advantage that the
Armenians have. But it is not a question of whether one is pro-Armenian
or pro-Azeri. That is not the question.
The question is, what is the best possible avenue to finally have a
peace agreement signed, drafted and signed by both parties, and as a
result of that, create an opportunity for Azerbaijan to ship their oil
through Armenia, hopefully someday, into the straits whereby it can be
utilized by the western world, instead of the opposite direction of it
going through China and being totally utilized by the Chinese.
So it has been a very spirited debate. I encourage my colleagues to
go along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston)'s plan to
help in this peace process, and the way to do that is to vote ``no'' on
this amendment and to give the administration the ability they have to
effectuate a peace in this region that has been fighting for so many
decades.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, picking up on the comments of the previous speaker, let
me state that I am not speaking in a pro-Armenian mode or a pro-Azeri
mode. I am trying to be pro-American and pro-American values.
I think the question before this House on this issue is whether or
not, when we look at this or any other region of the world, we look at
it in terms of what all of our values are, or whether we will, in fact,
simply look at a region in terms of our economic or materialist values.
It seems to me that we have to have a flexible view of our insistence
on human rights. The best writing I ever saw on the subject of human
rights was by Father Brian Hehir, who was the driving force behind the
creation of the Catholic Bishop's document on nuclear war.

{time} 1800

He observed in that statement that we had an obligation in promoting
human rights to take into account both our ability to affect the
situation and other considerations that impacted on the world's safety,
the possibility of war, and our own security.
The point he made is that there are some occasions when other issues
are so overriding, such as the necessity to prevent the proliferation
of nuclear weapons or the use of those weapons, that perhaps human
rights have to take a second or third seat on the train.
But when those issues are not at stake and we have a greater ability
to press for human rights without interfering with our security or
other values, then we have an obligation to do so. I think we face that
situation in this instance.
I have often been at odds with representatives of the American-
Armenian community because I have never favored earmarking funds in any
foreign aid appropriation bill for anybody. An earmark means that you
require the President to spend at least a certain amount of money. I
have always been opposed to that for Armenia or anybody else.
But on this issue, while I must confess to a certain degree of
uncertainty because there are value judgments on both sides that are
important, in the end I come down on the side of the amendment simply
because I think that whether we are talking about the Executive Branch
of government or the Legislative Branch of government, that all too
often in this country and in our political system, when big business
and big dollars speak, we tend to listen to them more than we do any
other sector of our society. I think that is wrong.
Does anybody really believe this amendment would have a chance of a
snowball in Hades if we did not have a list of 14 oil companies who
were lobbying for it? I do not say that to question the motive of any
Member, because there are a good many other reasons for Members to be
for this amendment.
But when we see that we do have the Amoco, Exxon, Mobile, Penzoil and
a number of others interested in seeing us change our position, then we
see a likelihood that Congress will switch its position.
But if we have other regions of the world where we do not have large
economic players, then we do not pay any attention to them. I think
that that represents a gap in what our values ought to be. I think that
the best thing to do is to stick with the policy that we have stuck
with the last 2 years. Support the amendment.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, which would restore Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
Over the past several years, the people of the Caucasus have suffered
terribly ongoing military conflict in the region. Of particular
concern, the extreme hardship and deprivation endured by the people of
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh defy both American and international norms
regarding the human rights of innocent civilians.
Recognizing the humanitarian needs of the Armenian people, U.S.
Government has endeavored to provide assistance to the innocent victims
of the conflict. Unfortunately, the delivery of much of this aid
continues to be stymied by Armenia's neighbors.
I have often spoken out against nations which have attempted to
interfere with U.S. humanitarian effort around the world. I supported
the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in 1995 and its strengthening in
1997, which banned aid to nations which block shipments of U.S.
humanitarian assistance to other countries.
The United States government has concluded an ongoing effort to
promote peace and reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, both
to end the human suffering and to achieve stability in the region. At
this time, it would not be advisable to unilaterally eliminate the
diplomatic tool that it embodied in Section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act. This tool is intended to provide an incentive for peace, and I
hope it will continue to be used effectively to that end.
I urge your support of this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Porter-
Radanovich amendment to maintain section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act.
As Members know, Armenia is a land-locked country in the Caucasus
that in 1991 finally achieved its long-sought goal of independence.
Unfortunately, geography and conflicts with its neighbors has prevented
the Armenian economy from flourishing. Armenia wants nothing more than
a resolution to the conflicts with its neighbors.
However, these neighbors must also be willing to negotiate with
Armenia in good faith. Maintaining section 907 is essential to ensuring
that there is a good faith peace process between Armenia and
Azerbaijan.
Vote in favor of section 907.
Support the Porter-Radanovich amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my colleagues Rep. Pallone and Rep. Radanovich to overturn
the repeal of Section 907 in the fiscal year 1999 foreign operations
appropriations bill and restore the original language that has been in
law since 1992.
Section 907 was adopted by Congress in 1992 as the Freedom Support
Act and signed into law by President George Bush. It has always enjoyed
strong bipartisan support. It provides guidelines for U.S. foreign aid
to the

[[Page H8000]]

New Independent States and places restrictions on U.S. government-to-
government aid to Azerbaijan until that country ends its aggression and
lifts its illegal blockades against the Republic of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabagh.
Since 1992, the U.S. has been able to provide over $130 million in
humanitarian and exchange assistance to Azerbaijan through non-
governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations. Section
907, therefore, has not been an impediment to humanitarian and
community-based development assistance for the Azeri people.
During that same time frame, the people of Armenia have established
democracy, engaged in free elections, and undertaken market reforms.
The people and Government of Armenia would like to integrate the
Armenian economy with the West, but has been blocked in these efforts
by the continuing blockade of Azerbaijan. For the past nine years,
Azerbaijan has blockaded Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh, cutting off the
transport of food, fuel, medicine and other vital supplies.
For its part, the Azerbaijan government remains authoritarian and
continues to use blockades and force against the Armenian people and
the people of Nargorno-Karabagh, thus failing to live up to the basic
condition set forth in U.S. law. To date, the Azerbaijani government
has taken no demonstrable steps to lift these illegal blockades.
Furthermore, the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for 1997, the Amnesty International Report 1998, and
the Human Rights Watch Report 1998 have all documented the Azerbaijani
government's human rights violations, its censorship of the media, and
widespread police brutality.
On the eve of upcoming elections in Azerbaijan, it would be
unconscionable to repeal the democratic and non-aggression requirements
embodied in Section 907. The corrupt and authoritarian government of
former KGB General Geidar Aliyev would view the repeal of such
restrictions as a ``green light'' for his undemocratic practices.
Indeed, Azerbaijan's major opposition parties are boycotting the
elections and have issued a joint statement denouncing the electoral
framework as unfair and undemocratic. These political parties have
called upon President Clinton to help the Azeri people overcome the
current ``atmosphere of dictatorship.'' The Congress must not ignore
the democratic aspirations of the Azeri people.
So, why are we faced with the possible repeal of Section 907? For
oil, Mr. Speaker, for Caspian oil. For the profits, Mr. Speaker, to be
gained from ``black gold.'' Oil companies have been lobbying heavily in
support of a repeal or the weakening of Section 907 so that an east-
west pipeline might be built to bring projected, but still
undiscovered, Caspian oil out of Azerbaijan to Turkey and out to the
West.
So while the energy benefits of repealing Section 907 are largely
speculative, the political consequences are clear and concrete:
Continued repression in Azerbaijan; continued suffering and hardship in
Nagorno-Karabagh and Armenia; compromise the ability of the U.S. to
maintain its role as ``impartial mediator'' in the Caucasus; and
jeopardize further regional security.
Mr. Chairman, the only hope for lasting peace and stability in the
Caucasus is to retain Section 907. The only choice in support of human
rights and democracy is to retain Section 907.
I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone-Radanovich amendment and
overturn the repeal of Section 907.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 182, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No 447]

AYES--231

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Camp
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Jones
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sanders
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Souder
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)

NOES--182

Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Danner
Davis (FL)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frost
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Quinn
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--21

Bartlett
Berry
Clay
Fawell
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goss
Hilliard
Johnson, E. B.
Kennelly
King (NY)
Lewis (GA)
Meek (FL)
Myrick
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Rush
Sanchez
Schumer
Whitfield

{time} 1823

Messrs. SKEEN, WELDON of Florida, FOLEY, PEASE, PETERSON of
Pennsylvania, SCARBOROUGH, and NADLER changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mrs. CLAYTON and Messrs. SHAYS, CUNNINGHAM, RAHALL, YOUNG of Alaska,
FOSSELLA, and DICKS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

[[Page H8001]]

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) for yielding to me, and I would like to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman.
Earlier this session, as the gentleman knows, by a vote of 356 to 61,
this Congress passed and the President signed into law the Tropical
Forest Conservation Act of 1998. This law provides the administration
with the authority to reduce debt where appropriate for less developed
countries that have globally outstanding tropical forest with the
intention of protecting these valuable and rapidly dwindling natural
resources.
Mr. Chairman, $50 million was authorized for this new program for
this year. While I am disappointed that those funds are not included in
the pending appropriations bill, I realize that the authorization was
enacted into law after the subcommittee completed its work and that
budget constraints make it difficult to fund new programs this year.
I would still hope, Mr. Chairman, that something could be worked out
with the Senate. But in any case, it is my sincere hope that the House
Committee on Appropriations will be able to fund this program in the
next budget cycle.
There is a provision of the recently enacted law that can be
implemented at no cost to the U.S. Treasury. This provision amends
section 808 of the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize common sense and
cost-free debt-for-nature swaps and debt buybacks. However, I have been
informed that in order to implement this provision, a technical
amendment must be made to the appropriation for ``debt restructuring''
in the current appropriations bill.
I realize that the gentleman from Alabama is not entertaining
legislative amendments, and I respect that. However, I would inquire of
the subcommittee chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, if
this critical change could be made in a conference committee with the
Senate.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio. First of all, I would like to
congratulate him on his success in achieving enactment of his
legislation. It had broad bipartisan support and should make a real
difference in tropical forest conservation.
Second, I am aware that the bill authorizes debt swap at no cost to
the Treasury. Even though no appropriation is required, legislative
language is necessary in this bill in order to allow the Treasury
Department to implement this provision. I can assure the gentleman from
Ohio that I will make every possible effort to ensure that this
language is included in any final appropriation legislation that is
sent to the President.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
I deeply appreciate those assurances from the gentleman from Alabama
and I look forward to continuing to work closely with him in the future
in implementation of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Torres

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

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Torres:

H.R. 4569

At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the general short title) the following:

LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS

Sec. 701. 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.

{time} 1830

Point of Order

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against
consideration of the amendment, pursuant to the rules of the House,
because an amendment in the form of a limitation must await the end of
the reading of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. TORRES. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to
include extraneous material therein.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is advised that it is not in order to revise
and extend remarks when addressing a point of order.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks on this
amendment by thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I object to consideration of the amendment
and raise a point of order for consideration of the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) must confine
his remarks to the point of order. Does the gentleman wish to be heard
on the point of order made by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop)?
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I do not see how his point of order in this
instance applies here. This is an amendment being raised. It is printed
in the Congressional Record. It is in keeping with the decorum of
debate here in the House. I do not understand how the gentleman terms
to limit this amendment to be brought before us as a body of Congress.
Perhaps he can explain to us?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) wish to be
heard further on the point of order?
Mr. BISHOP. I will be happy if the Chair would make a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy)
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I understand this bill
has been open to amendment throughout the course of the debate and the
amendment was printed in the Record properly. We recognize that there
are issues that can be brought up at the end of the bill, but this was
a regularly scheduled amendment. It was accepted as a printed
amendment, and the bill has been amended in regular order throughout
the previous procedures.
To set a new record, a new precedent at this point saying that this
should be knocked to the end of the bill would, I think, violate the
rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. Under the rule, the last
four lines of the bill have not yet been read. This amendment is in the
form of a limitation, which must await the end of the reading of the
bill, under clause 2 of rule XXI. Therefore, the point of order by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) is sustained at this time.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

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

Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 105-725 offered by
Mr. Tiahrt:
Page 8, line 10, after ``services'' insert the following:
; and that any such voluntary family planning project shall
meet the following requirements: (1) the project shall not
make use of quotas, goals, or other numerical targets, on an
individual, local, regional, or national basis, of total
number of births, the number of family planning acceptors,
acceptors of a particular method of family planning, or any
other performance standard (this provision shall not be
construed to include the use of quantitative estimates for
budgeting and planning purposes); (2) the project shall not
include payment of incentives, bribes, gratuities, or any
other form of compensation or reward, monetary or
nonmonetary, to (A) an individual in exchange for becoming a
family planning acceptor, or (B) program personnel for
achieving any numerical goal or quota; (3) the project shall
not deny any right or benefit, including the right of access
to participate in any program of general welfare or the right
of access to health care, as a consequence of any
individual's decision not to accept family planning services;
(4) the project shall inform family planning acceptors, in
comprehensible terms, of the nature of the family planning
method chosen, its contraindications and potential health
risks, and available alternatives; (5) the project shall
provide a reasonable range of options of methods of family
planning, including natural methods; and (6) the project
shall ensure that experimental methods of family planning are
administered only in a scientifically controlled study in
which participants are advised of potential risks and
benefits; and, not later than 30 days after the date on which
the Administrator of the United States Agency for

[[Page H8002]]

International Development determines that there has been a
violation of any provision contained in the preceding 6
paragraphs, or a violation of any other provision contained
in this heading, the Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on International Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate a report containing a
description of such violation.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is to provide a definition for the term ``voluntary''
for organizations which provide family planning assistance overseas.
Certain restrictions already exist on this financial aid, and they
are that none of the funds can be used to pay for abortions, that none
of the funds can go to organizations which support coercive abortions
or involuntary sterilization, and the programs that are to be used are
to be totally voluntary. This does not change any of those current
restrictions.
It does change the definition, but, however, neither the law nor the
regulations under the United States Agency for International
Development or USAID, those regulations do not define the term of
``voluntary.'' As a result, there has been gross violations of human
rights.
Human rights organizations have reported that nations across the
globe that receive USAID funds are committing practices such as bribes
to women to use experimental chemicals without warning them of any side
effects. They are demanding sterilization quotas from health providers
which prey on poor women and surpass their own means of doing so
safely, resulting in death or permanent injury.
In Peru, as reported by the New York Times and other major papers
across the Nation, as my chart indicates, women were coerced into
sterilization and in some cases this resulted in death. This does not
change or add any restrictions to funds that USAID distributes.
However, the term ``voluntary'' is defined, and I believe we can change
at least some of these abuses by setting guidelines and setting
guidelines for these countries on how this money is distributed.
This amendment defines voluntary in the context of participation of
population control or family planning projects so that projects shall
not use quotas, shall not use payment of incentives or bribes, shall
not deny any benefits like food or clothing and will provide full
disclosure of the method chosen for birth control and also make
available any information on family planning options.

Involuntary Sterilization Horror Stories

All of the following countries receive USAID funding and are engaging
in forced sterilization tactics.

BANGLADESH

Women receiving sterilization and contraception were offered payment
incentives of $3 each, plus a new saree. Population Research Institute
Review, July/August 1997, pg. 6
The government also pays incentives to providers for signing up
women. Earth Summit Watch web page on implementation of the Cairo
Conference Programme of Action, one year after Cairo Report
Women consent to sterilization out of desperation for food.
Population Research Institute Review, July/August 1997, pg. 6
Routine medical practices such as evaluating side effects of drugs
and providing follow-up checks are ignored. Population Research
Institute Review, May/June 1996, p. 5
USAID endorses coercive incentives. Earth Summit Watch web page on
implementation of the Cairo Conference Programme of Action, one year
after Cairo Report

HONDURAS

USAID funds help implement coercive program for experiments with
Ovrette, an unapproved contraceptive pill. Warnings about the
experimental drug's side effects on nursing mothers were hidden from
the women in the program. Population Research Institute Review March/
April 1998, p. 3, 7

INDIA

Family planning programs depend on quotas, targets, bribes and
coercion. Population Research Institute Review September/October 1997,
p. 10--based on Washington Post article ``Teeming India Engulfed by
Soaring Birthrate: Sterilization Quotas Blasted as Inhumane and
Coercive'' August 21, 1994
USAID funds sterilizations using Quinacrine which is illegal in India
and scars/burns the fallopian tubes. Population Research Institute
Review July/August, 1997 p. 14
Conditions are miserable at the USAID funded sterilization camps,
there are primitive, unsanitary conditions and appalling mortality
rates. Population Research Institute Review September/October 1997, p.
10--based on Washington Post article ``Teeming India Engulfed by
Soaring Birthrate: Sterilization Quotas Blasted as Inhumane and
Coercive'' August 21, 1994

INDONESIA

Family planning programs rely on threats and intimidation to bring
women into the clinics. Population Research Institute Review, November/
December 1996, p. 11
Studies have shown that IUDs are inserted at gunpoint. Population
Research Institute Review, November/December 1996, p.11
The programs employ life-threatening denials of treatment and follow
up care and offer no informed consent. ``From One Day to Another:
Violation of Women's Reproductive and Sexual Rights in East Timor''
June 23, 1997, by Miranda Sessions, Yale University

kenya

Dr. Stephen Karanja (Karan-ya) has seen the following in Kenya family
planning clinics:
Women are coerced into Norplant implantation and sterilization.
Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 4
Sterilized women are denied health care for debilitating
Complications. Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997,
p. 4
USAID is the biggest supporter of population control in Kenya.
Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 4

mexico

A young medical professional who goes by the name ``Maria Garcia''
has seen the following in Mexican family planning programs:
Hundreds of forced sterilizations are documented. Population Research
Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 4
Medical personnel are fired for their refusal to perform
sterilizations. Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997,
p. 5
Women refusing sterilization are denied medical treatment. For
example, one pregnant woman with an umbilical hernia was refused
treatment for the hernia unless she agreed to have a tubal ligation.
Population Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 5

peru

Many women, including Victoria Vigo Espinoza have been sterilized
without consent, while others including Maura Castillo Nole and
Ernestina Sandoval are sterilized in exchange for food. Still other
women like Juana Guiterrez Chero and Celia Ramos Durand have died after
forced sterilizations. Peru's Family Planning Under Fire: Critics
Allege Poor Women are Coerced to Undergo Sterilization, by Anthony
Faiola, Washington Post, February 12, 1998
Family planning programs use coercion, misinformation and quotas and
sterilization-for-food efforts. Peru's Family Planning Under Fire:
Critics Allege Poor Women are Coerced to Undergo Sterilization, by
Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, February 12, 1998
Medical personnel must meet sterilization quotas and surgical staff
are insufficiently trained and work under poor conditions. Population
Research Institute Review, March/April 1997, p. 8
USAID sponsors family planning billboards signaling to Peruvian women
that the family planning methods employed are U.S. sanctioned. Alianza
Latinoamericana para la Familia, PRESS RELEASE--February 11, 1998
USAID targets local governments with quotas as a condition for
funding and encourages pharmaceutical companies to push contraceptives
on unsuspecting Filipinos. Population Research Institute Review, March/
April 1997, p. 5
Women are secretly injected with abortifacient while receiving
tetanus vaccines. Population Research Institute Review, November/
December, 1996, p. 3
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) seek
the time in opposition?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I do
seek to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) will control 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I can accept the amendment proposed by the gentleman. I think that
the intentions behind it are good and certainly it is a restatement of
what we

[[Page H8003]]

all support, which is voluntary family planning.
I do want to, though, bring up a couple of points about it, because
paragraph 5 of the amendment requires that each family planning project
provide a reasonable range of options of methods of family planning,
including natural methods. I think that that is a very fine provision
in his amendment.
Under current law, the DeConcini amendment, which we have discussed
here before, which is not deleted by this amendment, voluntary family
planning projects must offer directly, either directly, referral or
information, a broad range of family planning methods and services. The
amendment has the effect of requiring that each project itself provide
a range of family planning methods and options. Earlier we were talking
about projects overall must offer a range of family planning methods.
But according to the gentleman's amendment, it is every single project
must offer a range. In other words, referral information about the
availability elsewhere of other family planning options.
I am reading the language of the bill. But simply put, the issue I am
bringing up in support of the gentleman's amendment is that in the
natural family planning, other options are not necessarily available in
their projects. The gentleman's amendment does not delete the DeConcini
language, which allows natural family planning projects to offer that
option without offering a range of, a reasonable range of options,
methods of family planning, including natural methods. So I think that
we will have to address this issue in conference, but as I say, I say
this rising in support of the amendment, calling attention to the
gentleman to the situation that the amendment presents.
I do want to use the balance of my time to say that the gentleman's
emphasis on the word ``voluntary'' is one that I think every person in
this body supports. International family planning is very, very
important. I believe that it does reduce the number of abortions
internationally, and that is a goal that we all share.
It also is helpful for women to determine the size and timing of
their families and that should not be a matter of coercion but a matter
of conscience and of health and well-being of that particular family.
So certainly involuntary sterilization, et cetera, has no place in any
family planning projects that we would support. In fact, they would be
repulsive to all of us who support international family planning.
Again, the thoughtful Tiahrt amendment gives us the opportunity to
say how many families internationally have benefited from that and that
in our bill, we do support projects which Georgetown University has
played a role in that provide projects, that provide natural family
planning as their means of just that, family planning.
The amendment also requires a report from the administrator within 30
days of finding any violation of any provisions with this amendment.
This, I think, is an onerous requirement. I think the report should be
made, but I am just saying that the 30 days may or may not be
realistic. I hope we could revisit that in conference. Just for
example, one family, one health service provider not informing one
family planning acceptor of potential health risk is a violation. Even
if corrected, the nongovernmental organization manager of the project,
a report must still be prepared and filed with the committee.
I just think it is onerous. It is appropriate, but we should talk
about what will work and stay in the spirit of the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) has expired.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Tiahrt
amendment.
This important amendment is being offered today to ensure that
international population control programs which currently receive U.S.
funding are administered in a voluntary manner. Unfortunately, as we
can all see from the newspaper headlines on this chart, this is not the
case in countries now receiving USAID funding.
Mr. Chairman, every woman in this Nation has the right to choose, the
right to choose whether or not to use family planning services, the
right to choose which family planning method best serves their personal
needs and values, the right to be fully informed of all methods
available, the nature of the method chosen, including any health risks.
Mr. Chairman, I believe poor women in poor countries deserve a choice,
too.
Recently, the government of Peru instituted national yearly
sterilization quotas. In 1998, the government set a quota of 22,000
vasectomies and 78,000 tubal ligations. As my colleagues can see, the
number of women targeted is three times greater than the target set for
men. This, of course, is no accident.
Everyone knows government enforced quotas for population control
bureaucracies inevitably lead to women being coerced. In Peru and other
poor nations involuntary sterilizations of women has been the result.
And in several instances, the procedure, as the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Tiahrt) said, has been performed by butchers in unsanitary
conditions, which has led to death. Women in poor nations are
vulnerable because their reproductive health needs are easily exploited
by programs which move from making family planning available to making
them compulsory.

{time} 1845

In Mexico, hundreds of cases of forced sterilizations have been
documented and women routinely are inserted with IUDs after childbirth,
often without knowledge or consent. Mr. Chairman, these abuses must
stop, and that is exactly what this language will help achieve.
Mr. Chairman, if this Congress is not prepared to defend the human
rights of poor and helpless women in third world nations. Who will? I
urge my colleagues to support the Tiahrt amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
before yielding my final 30 seconds to my colleague from New Jersey, to
say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) that I would be
pleased to work with the gentlewoman to make something that would be
amenable to both of us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and for his excellent amendment.
Mr. Chairman, volunteerism is not something that is in the eye of the
beholder. It needs a definition. We have heard it is voluntary, what
goes on in China. It is not. In many countries, including many
democracies, there is something far less than a voluntary program for
family planning.
I had a hearing in my Subcommittee on International Operations and
Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations last February
25th, and we heard from a doctor, a whistle-blower who actually worked
in the program in Peru, and he talked about how coercion and all kinds
of games and brinkmanship was used to get women to get tubal ligations
against their will.
We had two women who were sterilized against their will. One, bottom
line, she said, ``They tricked me.'' Now, we want no part of that. It
should be voluntary. And I really think the amendment of the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) sets a great and valuable service and I urge
support for it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tiahrt
amendment to the foreign operations bill.
Each year in the developing world, 600,000 women die of pregnancy-
related complications. Maternal mortality is the largest single cause
of death among women in their reproductive years.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, our support for reproductive health
services becomes more important every day. Voluntary family planning
services give mothers and families new choices and new hope--increasing
child survival and promoting safe motherhood. Without our support for
international family planning, women in developing nations will face
more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and more despair.
Mr. Chairman, I find it to be extremely ironic that often the same
people who would deny women in the developing world the choice of an
abortion, would also seek to eliminate our support for family planning
programs that reduce the need for abortion.

[[Page H8004]]

Without access to safe and affordable family planning services, there
will be more abortions, not fewer. The abortions will be less safe and
put more women's lives in danger.
Mr. Chairman, I wish that I were here today to support legislation
that would allow our foreign aid dollars to pay for a full range of
reproductive health services, not just the limited services that get a
rightwing seal of approval every year.
But at the very least, we should keep the doors of more family
planning clinics open for the women who are desperately in need of
their information and services. This will help reduce the number of
abortions and improve the lives of women and their children.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to the
foreign operations appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) will
be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Livingston

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 105-725 offered by
Mr. Livingston:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short tile) the following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

amendments to the foreign assistance act of 1961

Sec. 701. (a) Repeal of Contingencies Provisions.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 5 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2261) is hereby repealed.
(2) Conforming Amendments.--(A) Section 634A(a) of such Act
(22 U.S.C. 2394-1(a)) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``, chapter 5 of part I.''.
(B) Section 653(a) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2413(a)) is
amended by striking ``451 or''.
(b) Special Authorities Provision.--Section 614(a)(4)(C) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2364(a)(4)(C))
is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting
``$35,000,000''.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
I was under the impression that we are going from side to side, and
the last amendment was offered by the other side of the aisle.
The CHAIRMAN. Members of the committee have precedence for
recognition, and the chairman of the relevant committee has additional
precedence upon recognition.
Mr. DEUTSCH. And that is regardless of going back and forth, from
side to side?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. That is under the precedents of the
House.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we are offering an amendment in response to the
apparent determination of the administration to abuse existing law in
order to rush $27 million in additional U.S. foreign assistance to
North Korea within the next 2 weeks.
Now, many of our colleagues might wonder why the administration would
choose this moment to rush $27 million in additional foreign aid to
North Korea, aid that is to be provided on top of $35 million we have
already given to North Korea so far this year. After all, North Korea
is a Communist country, an official state sponsor of terrorism, and a
nation still technically at war with our Nation. They just fired a
missile across Japan and, according to recent press reports, have been
caught red-handed building an underground facility intended to conceal
illegal nuclear activities.
But I am not here to question today the wisdom of the
administration's policy that has turned North Korea into the largest
recipient of United States foreign aid in East Asia, even before the
extra $27 million the administration wants to rush their way. I am not
here to question the need for the extra $27 million nor the wisdom of
the administration's timing. But I am here to object to their plan to
misapply the law in order to do all of this.
One of the legal authorities they plan to use to rush this extra
funding to North Korea is section 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act.
That provision allows the President to spend up to $25 million per year
on unanticipated contingencies. The administration proposes to declare
that North Korea's need for more foreign aid is an unanticipated
contingency. That, of course, is observed.
KEDO, the international organization that delivers our aid to Korea
is deeply in debt. But that is nothing new. This fact was brought to
the attention of the Committee on Appropriations last year, and the
Congress agreed to insert additional funds in the fiscal year 1998
foreign operations bill for KEDO. The administration did not think
those extra funds were sufficient. But we often end up giving the
administration less money than it wants. The fact is that Congress has
known KEDO's debt situation for a long time and has legislated a
solution to it.
The only unanticipated contingency here is that the administration
does not like the Congress' considered response to the situation, which
Congress passed and the President signed into law last year.
I would point out that all U.S. assistance for KEDO is, by law,
subject to the so-called notification or reprogramming procedures under
which the administration must notify the congressional authorization
and appropriation committees before obligating those funds.
For many years, under Democratic and Republican administrations, it
has been understood that when these procedures apply, objections by any
of the relevant committees to the proposed obligation of funds would be
honored by the administration. In this case, both Chairman Helms and I
have been informed that our objections would not be honored. This is a
dramatic departure from long-established practice, a departure that, if
continued, would jeopardize our ability to continue to work with the
administration on many sensitive foreign policy issues.
This amendment responds to the administration's proposal to misuse
section 451 by repealing that provision of law, and also amends section
614 of the Foreign Assistance Act so that the administration cannot use
that provision next year to give KEDO more than $35 million that was
requested by the President in the fiscal year 1999 budget submission.
In closing, let me say that I recognize the bill before us is not
likely to be enacted in time to stop the administration's misusing
section 451 this year. We are, in effect, closing the barn door after
the horse has run away. But it would be unconscionable to do nothing in
response to this proposed abuse of existing law, and, accordingly, I
invite support for this amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) seek
the time in opposition?
Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is with the greatest regard for the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations that
I reluctantly rise in opposition to his amendment. We usually are in
more agreement than we are today, but I have grave concerns that this
amendment can do real damage.
I understand that this amendment has come about because of Congress'
understandable concerns about the administration's use of the transfer
authority to provide assistance to the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization. However, I think that this amendment severely
constrains

[[Page H8005]]

the use of the section 614 waiver and to end altogether the Secretary's
authority under section 451.
These are two extraordinary authorities used judiciously by all
administrations, including the present one, to respond to urgent and
unforeseen foreign aid requirements. I am particularly concerned
because it is directed at KEDO specifically, the Korean Energy
Development Organization. KEDO's needs are urgent.
We are well aware of strong opposition on the other side to KEDO, and
that debate had appropriately taken place in our committee. I regret
enormously that the Committee on Rules did not allow my amendment in
order, which would have been a very fair amendment, which would say
none of the funds would go unless the U.S., we ourselves, the United
States, could confirm that the North Koreans were complying, that we
had access to confirm the compliance. But the Committee on Rules chose
to reject that. Now the chairman is coming in with a further hit at the
administration on this.
I say to the chairman, with all due respect on this, that he is
playing with fire. We played with fire in the committee, and this is
another step down that road. And so I urge our colleagues to oppose the
Gilman amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the House has an obligation here to
think not about whether we like or dislike the North Korean regime, but
what will most protect the interests of the United States.
There is no regime in the world that is one-tenth as crazy, as wrong,
as abusive, and as dangerous as the North Korean regime. Everybody
understands that. But the way to deal with an unstable regime, which at
any moment could take an action which could put 50,000 American troops
at risk, is not to eliminate the administration's flexibility in
dealing with it.
With all due respect, if we are going to leave in the middle of
October and not be back in session until late January or February, we
cannot afford to have the administration without the authority to react
to the world. And this amendment, in my view, simply adds to the
reckless nature of the provisions already in the bill.
It is misguided because we do not like certain folks, if we take away
our own tools in protecting our national interest in dealing with those
folks. I do not think it is an either wise or responsible thing to do
and I would urge opposition.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and following on the
remarks of our distinguished ranking member, I want to say that I share
the concerns that our colleagues have about the irresponsibility of the
North Korean regime. Members of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, several of the members, I do not see any of them in the
room at this time, visited North Korea last year. And by that, I do not
mean Panmunjom but into North Korea, to P'yonghang the capital, and I
can certainly firsthand agree with the horrible state of affairs.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, I
have traveled with our chairman and members of the committee throughout
the world and have seen poverty everyplace. But the poverty of spirit
we saw in North Korea, the cruelty of the regime, that they could sit
back while their people were eating bark and roots and grass, and yet
spend a fortune on the war machine that is there, because they are
focused and they are militant and they are irresponsible, it is for
those reasons that I think we are playing with fire today when we are
trying to tie the hands of the administration.
Once again, the inconsistency of our colleagues who argue on 907 that
we should not tie the administration's hands, and on this very, very
dangerous issue, proceed to do just exactly that.
This is a very serious vote. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the Gilman amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the amendment.
If 50 years ago we had said to Adolf Hitler, ``We will build you a
truck plant if you just promise us that you won't build any tank
plants,'' I think people would have thrown us all out of office. That
is basically what we are doing with the North Koreans. We are building
them a peaceful nuclear reactor in hopes they will not build any
harmful nuclear reactors or engage in dangerous missile development.
The fact is they are not even keeping their part of the bargain. They
launched a missile over Japan, and this administration wants to throw
money at them. The administration got permission from us to spend $15
million. They then spent $27 million and have just thrown it at North
Korea in the hope that they will be less dangerous. This will not
happen.
Let us not spend any more money and let us not give this waiver
authority. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1900

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:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Other Bilateral
Economic Assistance, economic support fund'', after the first
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(decreased by
$14,000,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Funds Appropriated
to the President, International military education and
training'', after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(decreased by $1,400,000)''.

Mr. TORRES (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
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Let me just see exactly where we are.
As I understand it, the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) has
requested as a member of the committee that he bring up an amendment
that is in order by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Is
that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman that any Member
may call up an amendment which has been printed in the Record. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) as a member of the committee has
called up the amendment which has been read.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Out of deference to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling), I would like to ask, is he aware that the gentleman is
bringing his amendment up at this time? Could I make that inquiry?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not state a parliamentary inquiry.
Does the gentleman wish to reserve a point of order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if you could explain to
me the parliamentary procedure to offer a substitute amendment to the
Torres amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is not able to yield to
another Member for the purpose of offering an amendment, but for debate
only. When the gentleman from California has completed his debate, then
other Members may be recognized and at that point an amendment to the
amendment may be in order.
The gentleman from California is recognized on his amendment.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks as I started out
earlier by thanking the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his
ongoing efforts to working with me on funding for the School of the
Americas provided in the foreign operations bill.
I would point out that this year's bill contains similar language to
what we adopted last year conditioning funding for the school on a
certification report to be presented in January of 1999. Now, one
positive outcome of last

[[Page H8006]]

year's requirements is the establishment of screening procedures at
U.S. embassies for all candidates to U.S. military training programs,
including the School of the Americas. Our embassy personnel are now
required to do a double-check of the candidates once the host country
has done an initial screening. The new screening process if carried out
properly can certainly prove valuable to weed out those individuals
with questionable backgrounds. Yet I am compelled today with my
colleagues the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) to offer this amendment to prohibit
any of the funds in this bill to be used for the school.
I was disappointed in the certification report presented this past
January wherein the Defense Department contended that the conditions to
allow funding to the school had been met. Those conditions had resulted
from a sustained public outcry from our constituents over the human
rights track record of the School of the Americas' graduates and
revelations that the school taught techniques that violated human
rights. Unfortunately the certification report revealed a lack of
understanding on the part of the military establishment on the depth of
the human rights concerns surrounding the school and a lack of
commitment, if you will, to improve the school's teaching.
Has the School of the Americas reformed? Well, I see there are few
changes in the school's standard curriculum. Most students continue to
get only a mandatory four hours of human rights training in the courses
that range from eight days to 47 weeks. There are continuing problems
in the oversight of the curriculum because there is still no adequate
external evaluation of the current curriculum. Most of the curriculum
evaluations are done by subject matter experts, which are the
instructors for the course that they are responsible for reviewing.
Furthermore, there is a blatant admission by the Defense Department
that it has no intentions of monitoring the school. These days, most
government programs are scrutinized for performance measurements and
results. Unlike other universities which are private institutions, the
School of the Americas, a government, tax-funded institution, must be
accountable to the U.S. taxpayer and judged by measurable results. By
refusing to monitor its graduates, the School of the Americas denies
the taxpayers that right.
Mr. Chairman, in addition, new links between human rights violations
and the School of the Americas graduates have been identified. In
particular, the graduates of the school from Colombia. They are some of
the principal architects of military-paramilitary collaboration that
fuel the escalating violations in Colombia today. The statistics are
staggering. Last year, over 3,500 people were killed for political
reasons in Colombia. Paramilitary organizations operating with the
complicity or even direct support of the armed forces were responsible
for 60 percent of those killings. A definitive human rights report
reveals that an astounding 124 out of 247 military personnel, that is
50 percent, 50 percent of Colombian officials responsible for human
rights violations were graduates of the school. Mr. Chairman, that is
not just a bunch of bad apples.
Mr. Chairman, I include in my remarks the list of those officers.
The document referred to is as follows:

The School of the Americas and Colombia: A Dishonor Roll

Colombia's SOA graduates feature some of the principal
architects of military-paramilitary collaboration that fuels
much of the violence in the escalating human rights crisis in
Colombia today. Over 3500 people were killed for political
reasons in 1997; while the violence originates from all
sides, paramilitaries were responsible for 69% of these
killings last year, according to the State Department.
Paramilitary organizations operate frequently with the
complicity, and in some regions the direct support, of the
armed forces. A shocking 124 out of 247 military personnel--
50 percent--cited in the definitive work on Colombian
officials responsible for human rights violations (El
Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia), were SOA graduates. Some
Colombians implicated in severe human rights violations were
featured as guest speakers or instructors or included in the
``Hall of Fame'' at the SOA after their involvement in such
crimes. The list below is only a small sample of Colombian
SOA graduates involved in horrific human rights abuses. The
abuses continue.
Pauxelino Latorre Gamboa.--Commander of the Twentieth
Brigade when it was implicated in the murders of three human
rights defenders in 1998. The Twentieth Brigade was just
disbanded in late May by the Colombian government because of
its involvement in these and other grave human rights
violations. Information provided by troops under his command
led to the May 1998 illegal assault on the offices of the
Catholic human rights group, Justice and Peace (Justicia y
Paz). In this raid, soldiers held guns to the heads of nuns
and other workers, forcing them to kneel on the ground while
soldiers ransacked office files. (1980, Commando Operations)
Gen. Mario Hugo Galan.--Just in the news for calling Human
Rights Watch/Americas director Jose Miguel Vivanco and a
Washington Post reporter ``enemies of the people'' for
reporting that the Twentieth Brigade was being investigated
in connection with the murders of human rights defenders.
Such a label is tantamount to a death threat. (1971, course
#0-26)
Gen. (Ret.) Farouk Yanine Diaz.--Former commander of the
army's Second Division in Bucaramanga, Yanine ``was accused
of establishing and expanding paramilitary death squads in
the Middle Magdalena region, as well as ordering dozens of
disappearances, multiple large-scale massacres, and the
killing of judges and court personnel sent to investigate
previous crimes.'' (State Dept. Human Rights Report for 1997)
(1991, 1990, guest speaker at the SOA; 1969, Maintenance
Orientation.) Yanine's SOA guest appearances occurred after
his alleged involvement in crimes such as the 1988 Uraba
massacre of 20 banana workers, the 1987 assassination of the
mayor of Sabana de Torres, and the 1987 massacre of 19
businessmen.
Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman Rodreguez.--Dismissed by President
Samper in 1994 in an overhaul of military leadership to root
out corruption and drug trafficking (Reuters, 11/22/94),
Guzman was alleged to protect and aid the paramilitary death
squad MAS between 1987 and 1990, when it was responsible for
at least 149 killings. He also commanded the soldiers who
tortured, gang raped and executed Yolanda Acevedo Carvajal in
1986 (also implicated was SOA graduate 1st Lt. Samuel Lesmes
Castro, 1984, Cadet Arms Orientation). (Organization Mundial
contra la Tortura, et al., El Terrorismo de Estado en
Colombia, 1992) In 1993, after these crimes, Guzman was added
to the SOA ``Hall of Fame.'' (1969, Maintenance Orientation)
Cpt. Gilberto Ibarra.--Used 3 peasant children in February
1992 to walk in front of his patrol to detonate mines. Two
were killed; one was seriously wounded. (U.S. Committee for
Refugees, Feeding the Tiger, Colombia's Internally Displaced,
1993) (1983, Cadet Arms Orientation)
Segovia Massacre.--Nine SOA graduates were implicated in
the 1988 massacre at Segovia, in which 43 people died,
including several children. (Capt. Gilberto Alzate Alzate,
1983, Cadet Arms Orientation; Henry Borda, who was issued an
arrest warrant for his failure to prevent the massacre, 1980,
Cadet Arms Orientation; Major Luis Roberto Garcia Ronderos,
1983, Patrol Operations; 1st Lt. Edgardo Hernandez Navarro,
1985, Combat Arms Orientation; Gen. Raul Rojas Cubillos,
1971, Special Maintenance Orientation; Capt. Luis Fernando
Rojas Espinoza, 1984, Cadet Arms Orientation; 1st Lt. Carlos
Eduardo Santacruz Estrada, 1983, Cadet Arms Orientation;
Capt. Hugo Alberto Valencia Vivas, 1980, Cadet Arms
Orientation.) (El Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia)
Trujillo ``Chainsaw'' Massacres.--Three SOA graduates were
implicated in the gruesome Trujillo massacres, in which from
1988-91, at least 107 prisoners of the village of Trujillo
were tortured and murdered--Col. Alirio Antonio Uruena
Jaramillo (1976, Small Unit Infantry Tactics), Col. Roberto
Hernandez Hernandez (1970, Automotive Maintenance Officer;
1976, Small Unit Infantry Tactics) and General Eduardo Plata
Quinones (1977, Command and General Staff College,
distinguished graduate; 1969, Maintenance Orientation). One
eyewitness said Uruena tortured prisoners, including elderly
women, with water hoses, stuffed them into coffee sacks, and
chopped them to pieces with a chainsaw. Uruena was dismissed
from the army in 1995. Quinones is believed at a minimum to
have been involved in the coverup. (AP, 2/7/95; El Terrorismo
de Estado en Colombia.)
Riofrio Massacre. Alfonso Vega Garzon (1989, Cadet
Artillery Orientation) allegedly took part in the 1993
Riofrio massacre and was charged by the Attorney General's
Office on 12/6/94 (El Espectador, 12/6/94). Jesus Maria
Vergara was commander of the Third Division when troops under
his command committed the Riofrio massacre. He took part in
the subsequent coverup. (Special Maintenance Orientation,
1971)
Chucuri Paramilitaries. Four out of seven officers charged
by human rights delegate for the armed forces in November
1992 for their role in organizing paramilitaries in the
Chucuri region were trained in the SOA. (Human Rights Watch,
Colombia's Killer Networks, 1996, p. 81.) (General Carlos Gil
Colorado, Course #0-6, 1969; Capt. Gilberto Ibarra Mendoza,
Cadet Arms Orientation, 1983; Capt. Orlando Pulido, Cadet
Branch Orientation, 1983; Lt. Francisco Javier Corrales,
Cadet Arms Orientation, 1987)
Enrique Camacho Jimenez. Attorney General's office issued a
warrant for his arrest in connection with the formation of
paramilitary groups that kidnapped and killed

[[Page H8007]]

five peasants (El Espectador, 12/23/94). (1985, Cadet Arms
Orientation)
1st Lt. Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz.--Alleged to be
intellectual author of a 1989 paramilitary massacre of a
judicial commission, in which 12 officials, including 2
judges, were killed; they were investigating military-
paramilitary cooperation (also implicated was fellow SOA
grad. Col. Ramon de Jesus Santander Fuentes, 1986, Command
and General Staff); implicated in Ramirez family massacre,
1986, and other murders. (El Terrorismo de Estado en
Colombia) (1983, Cadet Arms Orientation)
Victor Bernal Castano--Colombian legislature asserts that
Bernal Castano was enrolled at the SOA to avoid having to
answer to investigator about the Fusagasuga massacre of a
peasant family. (Charles Call, Miami Herald, 9/9/92).
(Command and General Staff, 1992; made ``Chief of Course'')
1st Lt. Pedro Nei Acosta Gaivis.--Ordered the massacre of
11 campesinos, 1990. (El Terrorismo del Estado en Colombia)
(Cadet Arms Orientation, 1986)
Capt. Carlos Javier Arenas Jimenez.--Participated in the
detention and torture of 19 individuals in June 1988. (El
Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia) (1987, Cadet Arms
Orientation)
Major Alejandro de Jesus Alvarez Henao.--Principal member
of ``Muerte a Secuestradores'' (MAS), a paramilitary death
squad responsible for numerous assassinations and
disappearances (El Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia)(1984,
Joint Operations)
Capt. Hector Alirio Forero Quintero.--Commanded a patrol
that disappeared 4 people on Feb. 11, 1988. On the same day,
he himself detained 2 more individuals and tortured them with
the help of fellow SOA graduate Carlos Morales del Rio. (El
Terrorismo de Estado en Colombia) (1977, Small Unit Infantry
Tactics)
Gen. Ramon Emilio Gil Bermudez.--Dismissed from his
position as commander of Colombian Armed Forces in November
1994 in an effort by President Samper to root out corruption
and drug trafficking among the armed forces (Reuters, 11/22/
94), Gil is alleged to have established, protected, and
participated in the activities of the MAS death squad. (In
1988, after his alleged death squad involvement, was guest
speaker at SOA; 1969, Maintenance Orientation.)
Gen. Marino Gutierrez Isaza.--Implicated in the killing of
Gustavo Albeiro Munoz Hurtado in May 1982. (Guest instructor,
1985-86; 1973, Military Police Intelligence)
Major Jorge Lazaro Vergel.--Aguachica military commander
who, according to a 1995 police investigation, organized
local paramilitaries. In June 1995, paramilitaries under his
command carried out the Puerto Patino massacre, in which 8
people in a village were executed. (Human Rights Watch,
Colombia's Killer Networks, 1996, pp. 48-51.) (1981, Cadet
Arms Orientation.)
Gen. Jaime Ruiz Barera.--Implicated in the assassination of
Colombia's Attorney General Carlos Mauro Hoyos in 1988 and
alleged to have ordered the assassination and torture of
Claudio Medina Caycedo in 1979 (El Terrorismo de Estado en
Colombia) (Attended SOA after assassination of attorney
general, 1970, Military Intelligence)
Gen. Luis Bernardo Urbina Sanchez.--Implicated in
paramilitary death squad activity, 1988-89; in the
assassination of Amparo Tordecilla, 1989 and Union Patriotica
member Alvaro Garces Parra; in ordering the detention,
torture and assassination of Mario Alexander Grandados
Plazas, 1987; in the disappearance of William Camacho Barajas
and Orlando Garcia Gonzalez, 1986. (El Terrorismo de Estado
en Colombia) (1985, Command and General Staff College)
Col. Rito Alejo Del Rio Rojas.--Recently promoted to
commander of the Bogota area, Col. Rito Alejo as commander of
the 17th Brigade in Uraba during the mid-1990s facilitated
one of the most ruthless paramilitary campaigns in the
country. Believed to be one of the Colombians recently denied
a visa by the United States. (Washington Office on Latin
America, ``Human Rights Advocates Under Attack in Colombia,''
1997) (1967, Cadet Orientation Course)
Capt. Juan C. Alvarez.--As commander of the Barrancabermeja
intelligence network, Alvarez is alleged to have given the
orders to paramilitaries to carry out killings. Dozens of
murders of local citizens were attributed to the network
during 1991-2. (Human Rights Watch, Colombia's Killer
Networks, 1996, pp. 30-41.) (1987, Psychological Operations)
In 1997, 99 Colombians were trained at the School of the
Americas; Colombia was number 3 of countries sending the most
students to the school that year.

This list, of almost 40 high-ranking Colombian military officers who
attended the school have been linked to murders, assassinations,
disappearances, massacres, tortures, rapes, et cetera, et cetera of
Colombian civilians. One of the most notorious graduates is the
commander of Colombia's infamous 20th Brigade which was implicated in
February of 1998, this year, for the murders of three human rights
activists.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama insist upon his point
of order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. No, Mr. Chairman, I am going to remove my reservation
of a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, a part of my request is to delay the
process until we can give the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling), who is the principal sponsor of the original amendment, an
opportunity to come to the floor and explain what his original
amendment did. Based upon what I am reading here, I do not think I am
really going to object to his amendment, as far as final passage is
concerned. But I do think we ought to take this time, especially since
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not here to defend his original
amendment, we ought to take this time to talk about the merits or
demerits of the School of the Americas.
I for one agree with the Secretary of Defense who has contacted me as
late as this afternoon and told me how very, very important IMET
training is to our national defense. No more than I want to interfere
with the Secretary of State's ability to have an effective foreign
policy, do I want to do anything, and especially in a bill with my name
on it, that would deny the Secretary of Defense the funds to
effectively have a national defense, and that is precisely what he
tells me.
He tells me that the U.S. Army School of the Americas ``continues to
be a key asset for pursuing our national security strategy in Latin
America,'' for example. ``We have made great progress in promoting
democratic values and respect for human rights through intensive
interaction at all levels with the defense establishments of the
region. The Defense Ministerial of the Americas, senior bilateral
meetings, joint staff talks, and service chiefs' conferences convey our
concerns at the highest levels.''
So here we have the man that the President has put in charge of the
national defense telling us that this is very critical. Now, he is
talking about the School of the Americas. If he knew tonight that we
were talking about reducing the funding for IMET training, which is the
fund that trains military people all over the world so we do need to
engage in any encounter that the people who are fighting alongside our
soldiers and sailors will know exactly what we are doing. They will
know our methodology. I think it is a very serious mistake.
I know where the gentleman is coming from and I know where the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) is coming from. But the
amendment before us tonight is simply saying we reduce the IMET
training appropriation by a total of $750,000. So even with this
amendment, it would not deny the Administration the ability to spend
the rest of the IMET training on the School of the Americas, so you are
not really accomplishing your purpose.
I just think if you looked at the School of the Americas, and I know
all of the horrible history that the Jesuit priests have told me about,
questionable curriculum at the School of the Americas, but I sent my
staff down there, and we checked the curriculum, and I have conveyed to
them that if anyone anywhere can show me one iota of a textbook that
teaches soldiers to go back to their countries and violate human
rights, I personally will do everything I can to shut it down. But that
is not the case.
I think we should continue the School of the Americas. At this point
I think we ought to have a full debate.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am advised that Jeffrey Dahmer, the human cannibal
from the Midwest who is now long past this life, was a graduate of Ohio
State. By the reasoning of the minority, we would close down Ohio State
because of Jeffrey Dahmer.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I know that, if I may reclaim my time, you are not
going to believe this, Mr. Chairman, but I imagine even some graduates
of the University of Alabama have committed some atrocious crimes. But
we ought not shut down the University of Alabama because of that. Now,
when they play Auburn University, it is different. Maybe they ought to
be disadvantaged, because my kids now attend Auburn University and I
have sort of had a transfer of allegiances there.
But I do think, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) ought
to

[[Page H8008]]

be able to defend the substitute that has been offered to his amendment
and, I would encourage Members of the House to take heed to the
Secretary of Defense, who has asked us today, please, do not cut these
funds.
The Secretary of Defense,

Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC, September 17, 1998.
Hon. Sonny Callahan,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Earlier this year in fulfillment of the
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998. I forwarded a letter
and report to Congress on the U.S. Army School of the
Americas. That report explained how we are ensuring that the
school is providing the kind of instruction the American
people expect from its military services. As I wrote you
then, the instruction and training provided by the School of
the Americas is fully consistent with the training and
doctrine, particularly with respect to the observance of
human rights, provided by the Department of Defense to our
own military students.
The U.S. Army School of the Americas continues to be a key
asset for pursuing our national security strategy in Latin
America. We have made great progress in promoting democratic
values and respect for human rights through intensive
interaction at all levels with the defense establishments of
the region. The Defense Ministerial of the Americas, senior
bilateral meetings, joint staff talks, and service chiefs'
conferences convey our concerns at the highest levels.
However, it is through our interaction with lower level
officers, noncommissioned officer and soldiers that we make
our biggest impact over the long run, and the School of the
Americas is one of the best ways to reach them. Students of
the school return to operational units and put the lessons
they have learned about professionalism, subordination to
civilian leadership, and respect for human rights to
immediate use. These are the people that will lead the
military institutions of the future.
I hope that you will support our efforts to maintain the
U.S. Army School of the Americas as viable asset in meeting
our national goals and objectives in Latin America. I
reiterate my commitment to the Congress and to the American
people that the School of the Americas is and will continue
to be a professional U.S. military institution, dedicated to
the goals of improving military professionalism, encouraging
regional cooperation, supporting democratic ideals and
principles, and promoting respect for human rights.
Sincerely,
Bill Cohen.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts as a Substitute for
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Torres

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a
substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts as a
substitute for amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Torres:
In lieu of the matter proposed add the following:
``In Title III, in the item relating to ``Funds
Appropriated to the President, International Military
Education and Training'' after the first dollar amount,
insert the following: `` `(decreased by $756,000)',''

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for
the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to
say a few words about the individuals who are also cosponsoring and
have initiated this amendment at other times, and that is my good
friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) who himself has
dedicated his life to improving the lives of not only Hispanic
Americans here in the United States but Hispanic Americans throughout
the hemisphere. He has worked extensively throughout Latin America, he
has been involved in our own military in that region, and he is a very,
very strong supporter with great credentials to say that the funding
for the School of the Americas should come to an end.
I am also joined by my friend and our most senior colleague the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) although you would never know that
by looking at him. He, too, has had a distinguished record of standing
up for the poor and for people that are voiceless in our world. I am
honored to have him join with us this evening to declare that once and
for all, school is out for the School of the Americas.
Defenders of the school used to claim that they did not teach human
rights abuses. But then a set of torture manuals were found in the
curriculum. Defenders of the school used to claim that they taught our
allies to respect human rights. But then one of the instructors came
forward and said that the courses were a joke. Defenders of the school
used to claim that the School of the Americas should not be shut down
just because a few bad apples had attended the school, like convicted
drug dealer Manuel Noriega of Panama or El Salvador death squad leader
Roberto D'Aubuisson. But it is not just a few bad apples. It is enough
of the barrel to say the whole thing is rotten.

{time} 1915

Here are the facts:
The School of the Americas' graduates include 19 of the 26 El
Salvadoran officers accused of the 1989 murders of four Jesuit priests,
10 out of the 12 El Salvadoran officers cited for the El Mozote
massacre of 900 civilians;
2 out of the 3 officers responsible for the assassination of
Archbishop Romero;
124 out of the 247 Colombian officers cited in the definitive work on
the Colombian human rights abuses;
6 Peruvian officers involved in the murders of 9 students and a
professor;
3 top leaders of the fearsome Guatemalan military intelligence unit,
D-2.
Defenders of the school say that the abuses have ended, but that just
is not the case.
Here are the facts:
The commander of Colombia's 20th Brigade was linked to the murder of
3 human rights' workers earlier this year.
A fellow Colombian SOA graduate forced 3 peasant children to act as
human minesweepers, and 2 died when they stepped on explosives.
Journalist Richard Velez testified on Capitol Hill that he was beaten
by troops under the command of another SOA graduate, where he was
recording footage of soldiers striking a peasant demonstrator with a
rifle butt.
The Guatemalan bishop issued a report linking the School of the
Americas' graduates with some of the worst abuses in that country.
In Mexico, an SOA graduate commanded the troops who committed the
1994 Chiapas massacre.
Defenders of the school have taken a page right out of the psyops
manual and come forward with another rationale to keep the school open.
It is called counternarcotics. But dressing up the school in a new
uniform will not fool anyone. The fact is that only 75 of the 981
students, less than 10 percent, took the counternarcotics operation
course.
Mexico, a major transshipment point for drugs headed to the United
States, trains more military personnel than any other nation at the
SOA. A full third of last year's student body came from Mexico, but
only 10 percent of the Mexican officers took the counternarcotics
operations course.
Defenders of the school cite the SOA's new-found commitment to human
rights, but let us look at that. That commitment extends to a single 4-
hour mandatory human rights course which includes a slide show, a movie
and a quiz. The SOA curriculum does include a 2-week elective human
rights train-the-trainer qualification course, but not a single student
has ever bothered to sign up for it.
Defenders of the school say it has cleaned up its act, but how do we
know? There is absolutely no tracking of graduates to measure whether
or not our foreign policy goals are being met by the school or whether
or not the human rights training is making any impression at all.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today not only in the name of peace and justice,
but in the memory of all of those who are not present to speak out
today against the school: the victims of these massacres; the
disappeared; those who have been cowed into silence. We will not be
silenced. Let us defeat the School of the Americas.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am totally offended that someone
would come to this floor and attempt to take my amendment and totally
distort it for whatever purpose they had in mind.
I have been working on this issue for probably 5 or 6 years. Last
time, in fact, my amendment passed unanimously.

[[Page H8009]]

What I do in my amendment is tell the American people that we will
not spend their hard-earned tax dollars by sending military aid to 6
countries that cannot even support us 25 percent of the time in the
General Assembly in the United Nations. Cannot even support us 25
percent of the time. In other words, their idea about life and about
human rights and about all those things that we hold near and dear in
this country, their idea is totally opposite. Yet we ask our taxpayers
to constantly send them money.
I do not touch humanitarian aid, I do not touch developmental aid,
because maybe there is some hope with both of those to try to do
something about their violations of human rights. But now we are trying
to turn this all around and say, well, these specific countries have
something to do with human rights violations. It has nothing related to
my amendment, which deals with their ability to support us in the
United Nations 25 percent of the time.
To me it is just a total unbelievable miscarriage of what we normally
would think of camaraderie, I suppose, in the Congress of the United
States.
Again, when I began this crusade, there were 30-some nations who
could not vote with us 25 percent of the time because their beliefs
were so opposite of what we believe in the United States, and that is
fine. That is fine for them. But we do not spend U.S. dollars, we do
not spend tax dollars to support those violations.
Thirty-some nations, when I first began this crusade; we are now down
to 6. And again, I am totally offended that we would take my amendment,
distort it, use it for some other purpose totally different than what I
had intended in the first place.
I am looking at taxpayers' dollars, taxpayers' dollars that we are
collecting to send to nations and send military aid to nations that
cannot even support us 25 percent of the time in our deliberations in
the United Nations. That is a real tragedy. Americans should be
incensed, and Americans are incensed, and that is exactly why the last
time the legislation passed unanimously; not a distortion of the
amendment, not what someone else wanted to present, and I am not sure
why they did not present it on their own, but a distortion of my
amendment.
And I cannot emphasize enough, the American people watch our
deliberation, American people want to give humanitarian aid,
humanitarian aid and developmental aid to countries. They do not wish
that we send military aid if, as a matter of fact, everything they do
is totally opposite of the beliefs that we have in this country.
And so again I cannot emphasize enough: Do not somehow or other
relate this amendment to a good faith effort to make sure that the 6
remaining, the 6 remaining countries that we are now down to, and take
them off the hot seat and somehow or other distort that by some other
effort that others want to make and could make strictly on their own
and have nothing to do with my amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I rise in support of the substitute amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration of the Member who just
spoke, but I will point out, those of us on this side of the aisle did
not vote for the rule that required this procedure. They did. We asked
them not to. They brought a rule to the floor which violated agreements
which were made with the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee
on how amendments would be dealt with on family planning. They brought
a rule to the floor which established a 5-hour cap on all debates, so
that if one amendment took longer than it should, other people would be
squeezed out and would not be able to offer theirs. And then when the
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) did precisely what the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) asked, said that he should have done,
he tried to offer his amendment on the School for Americas, and he was
precluded from doing so because of the nature of the rule.
So what happened was that the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres)
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) were left with no
choice but to use the rule that they imposed on us to enable us to
debate this issue, and the reason we did it is because this amendment
goes to the core values of what it means to be an American. What it
means to be an American is not to support a school for the Americas
that produces some of the biggest butchers who have reigned in Central
America or Latin America.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has had his time, and I would be happy to
yield to him after I make my point, but the gentleman said his piece
and I am going to say mine.
This bill should never have come to the floor under this rule. In my
view, it is absurd to allow any Member of the House to offer an
amendment put into the Record by someone else. But they passed that
rule, we did not. We are simply operating under the rule, the only rule
that they gave us, and we found a way, using their rules, to get the
amendment onto the floor which goes to America's core values.
And so the question is: Do my colleagues want to continue to provide
financial support for a school which has a track record which would
embarrass any decent American who is concerned about human rights? When
this school produces people like D'Aubuisson, who goes on national
television in El Salvador and publicly threatens the life of the
American Ambassador there, it is time to question whether that school
has a curriculum worth teaching.
We have heard for years they are cleaning up their operation. We have
seen the results, we have seen the blood, we have seen the torture, we
have seen the human pain, for far too long to tolerate it.
So it seems to me that these gentlemen should not be condemned, they
should be congratulated for enabling the House to reach a vote on this
issue, even though the rules were contrived to prevent it in the first
place.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I join in the amendment to close the school.
Closing the school would go a long way to dispel the perception that
the United States only supports military juntas in Latin America.
By a strange trick of fate, Mr. Chairman, this bill contains funds
for two kinds of messengers that are sent by the United States to Latin
America. We are sending the graduates of this school who go down there
to act as dictators and violate the human rights of the people of the
countries to which they are sent. We are also sending the Peace Corps
to build up the countries, to educate the people, to foster the best
interests of the people of the country. In which group do we believe?
And which is better for the country?
I think the school should be closed. The $15 million that this bill
would have included ought to be made available for the Peace Corps, and
it would be better for the countries they serve.
So I say, Mr. Chairman, let us close the school because of the
history of what has happened and is still happening down there.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Torres-
Kennedy 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 their
press, intimidate their citizens. It must be shut down.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an
additional 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
Objection is heard.

{time} 1930

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the school, in my judgment, 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 the United States foreign policy.

[[Page H8010]]

The question before us today is whether the United States has a 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 in my judgment 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 the
United States foreign policy should be about. That is why we must close
the school.
Fifty years ago, the School of the Americas was opened with the goal
of improving United States 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 most 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 shut
down.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleagues' efforts
to cut funding for the Army's School of the Americas. It is time to
close that institution that has long been responsible for teaching the
world's great killers, human rights abusers, and brutal dictators.
Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of experience in this area. As some
of my colleagues know, I led the investigation of the murders of the
priests in El Salvador back in 1989. The 6 Jesuit priests were killed
in cold blood, and I remain committed to the promotion of peace in this
beautiful country and throughout Central America.
During that investigation, Mr. Chairman, I was horrified to learn
that 19 out of the 26 killers we implicated in the murders were
graduates of the School of the Americas.
As I dug deeper into the problems of El Salvador, I learned more and
more what these graduates' exploits used in tearing the country apart.
Massacre after massacre of innocent people were led by proud graduates
of the School of the Americas.
When I traveled to El Salvador last November to participate in
ceremonies commemorating the deaths of the Jesuit priests, crowds of
people came to me at the mass and pleaded with me to close that school.
They could not understand how we, the world's greatest defender of
human rights, could support such an institution of terror. They could
not understand how the United States could run such a school that was
responsible for the deaths of so many of their brothers and so many of
their sisters. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I did not have an answer
for these good people, but I did pledge to them that I would work to
speak the truth about the School of the Americas.
Mr. Chairman, since that time, every time I hear of another brutal
massacre or egregious abuse of human rights in Latin America, the
School of the Americas graduates are involved. It is almost uncanny how
often we discover these graduates planned the killings, covered up the
truth, and pulled the triggers.
Mr. Chairman, do not just take my word for it. Open up any newspaper
and read about what is going on in Mexico's Chiapas region; read about
what is going on in Colombia; read about what is going on in Guatemala.
Time and time again, School of the Americas' graduates are killing
their own people, and we are responsible for their training.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on, but all I ask is please, it is
time to close the school.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to
me.
I just want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) who did a tremendous job in
leading the investigation of the murders of the Jesuit priests in El
Salvador in 1989. I was with him when he was down there last November
at the mass, and I too was approached by so many people who had come to
urge us to shut down the School of the Americas.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Kennedy-Torres amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to stop funding for the School of the
Americas.
Every year, the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies spend billions of
dollars in a broad array of training programs with Latin American
militaries.
Just yesterday, this House approved over $2 billion for counter-
narcotics activities in the Western Hemisphere, including a substantial
increase in training, operations and equipment for Latin America.
Under the Department of Defense, U.S. Special Forces teams carry out
dozens of joint training activities each year with Latin American
militaries.
Latin American military officers receive education and training at
150 places other than the School of the Americas through our IMET and
INL programs.
The operation of U.S. bases, joint military exercises, and other
joint trainings throughout the region would not be affected by this
amendment.
These programs are by far the central part of the U.S. relationship
with Latin American militaries.
The Pentagon's National Defense University recently opened a Center
for Hemispheric Studies right here in Washington, DC, to train Latin
American officers in civil-military relationships.
In brief, our relationships with Latin American militaries will not
falter by prohibiting any funds in this bill from going to the School
of the Americas.
Our relationship with the people of Latin America, however, who have
been so gravely harmed by so many students and graduates of the School
of the Americas, will be greatly enhanced.
I know many of my colleagues have been told that the abuses of the
School are in the past. That simply is not true. Just this year, in
1998, three human rights advocates were murdered in Colombia. The
Twentieth Brigade, commanded by a graduate of the School of the
Americas, is deeply implicated in these murders.
And so our history of being partners in the murder of the very best,
the most democratic, the most humanitarian Latin American citizens goes
on. Thanks to the School of the Americas.
The School refuses to review and evaluate the conduct of its
graduates. My esteemed colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr.
Torres, has requested such information and has been told the Pentagon
will not undertake such a survey. The School does not want to know what
its students and graduates are up to.
But let me be clear, the School cannot escape its past, and it cannot
escape its present.
The past is very much alive in the people of Latin America. The past
is very much alive in the hearts and minds and souls of the families
and friends and colleagues of those who have been murdered,
disappeared, tortured and abused by students trained by the School of
the Americas.
For the people of Latin America, when they wish to recall someone's
memory, they say, ``PRESENTE.'' For them, the past is always present.
Last year, I rose in support of this amendment and spoke from my
heart about dear friends--six Jesuit priests and two laywomen--who were
murdered by Salvadoran military units filled with students of the
School.
Last November, I traveled to El Salvador with Mr. Moakley to
participate in events commemorating the lives of these martyrs. We
spoke at the University where these priests worked, taught, and carried
out human rights programs.
We participated in an outdoor Mass celebrating their lives and their
living memory. I cannot adequately describe the scene to you of this
Mass. Thousands of people came to participate, covering the hillsides.
Humble people. Students. Many who had walked for days to get to San
Salvador in time for the Mass. Diplomats from many nations, including
for the first time, the U.S. Ambassador. And as I prepared to take
communion, I made a promise that I would return to Congress and work
with my colleagues to stop funding for this School.
For the people of this hemisphere, I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.

[[Page H8011]]

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) is recognized
for 2 minutes, which is the amount of time remaining under the rule for
amendments.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration, I rise in
opposition to the amendment and the substitute offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the underlying amendment by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres) which would prohibit funding the
School of the Americas. While I respect the proponents of the amendment
and share their alarm at some of the anecdotes, I cannot agree with
their conclusions that the School of the Americas has no constructive
role to play.
It is in our interest to see that the militaries of Central and South
American countries play a positive role in the region's fragile
Democratic societies. While proponents of this amendment have
spotlighted abuses of authority in human rights, there are hundreds and
hundreds of soldiers and police officers who graduated from the School
of the Americas and have gone on to conduct themselves honorably. That
is not mentioned.
Moreover, I believe that the cutoff of U.S. military assistance and
links to the Guatemalan Army in the late 1970s provides an instructive
example that we should heed. In the ensuing absence of American
influence, the Guatemalan Army escalated its brutal counter-insurgency
war that led to the slaughter of untold numbers of innocents. Despite
the good intentions of the proponents of this amendment, I do not
believe that the case has been made that ending the military-to-
military contact that takes place at the School of the Americas will
actually make things better.
General Serrano, the respected director general of the Colombian
National Police who has an outstanding record of protecting human
rights, even in the midst of a raging narcotics-fueled war, recently
told our committee, and I quote, ``The School of the Americas trains
our reaction forces for use in fighting narcotics trafficking with
excellent results, and I am a witness to the fact that it is a very
valuable instrument for training our men to carry out the antinarcotics
fund.''
I will, of course, continue to support prudent restrictions to ensure
that students in the school are screened for human rights and receive
adequate human rights training, as well as reports on the School's
training and assessments of its recent graduates.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment to cut funding to the Army School of the Americas. This
school has an infamous history, one that still haunts us today. In the
past, the school literally taught military personnel how to oppress
their people. We have all heard the shameful statistics on how many of
the worst human rights abusers in Latin America were trained at the
Army School of the Americas. For example, nineteen of the officers
cited by the U.N. Truth Commission for the murder of Jesuit priests in
1989 were graduates of the School of the Americas.
People in Latin America still suffer from School of the Americas
graduates today, particularly in Colombia. Just this year, three human
rights activists were murdered in Colombia by a member of a brigade
commanded by a graduate. A human rights report implicated 40 high-
ranking Colombian military officers who attended the school in mass
murder and disappearances.
Bishop Juan Gerardi was brutally murdered after releasing a report on
human rights abuses in Guatemala that linked School of the America
graduates to those abuses.
Supporters say that the curriculum of the school has changed. But the
world has changed as well. Now that many Latin American countries have
turned away from military dictatorship to become democracies, we do not
need to have military relations as the cornerstone of bilateral
contacts. Military relations should no longer be the focus of the new,
constructive U.S. relationship with fragile Latin American democracies.
We can still pursue the same kind of military-to-military contacts we
have with many countries around the globe, without having this school.
Cutting the funding for the Army School of the Americas sends an
important signal that the United States is repudiating the policies of
the past.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to
efforts to limit or reduce funding for the Unites States Army School of
the Americas. For those colleagues of mine who may still have concerns
about the School, I draw your attention to the language in the FY 1998
Appropriations bill. I believe it adequately and responsibly deals with
any remaining questions or concerns about the school. Specifically, it
prohibits the use of international military education training funds
for the school until: (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies that
training provided by the School of Americas is fully consistent with
U.S. training and doctrine, (2) the Secretary of State has issued
specific guidelines governing selection and screening of candidates for
the school, and (3) the Secretary of Defense has submitted a report on
the training activities of the school.
For the past five and a half years, I have had the honor of
representing the area of southwest Georgia where Fort Benning and the
School are located. I am proud of the school as I am proud of all other
institutions that make up our military. I believe it is the best armed
forces in the world and the most well run. The United States Army
School of the Americas is but one small institution in our entire
military system. It is an institution that has provided professional
training to over 58,000 military and civilian police personnel form
throughout Latin America--training that includes classes covering the
principles of human rights and representative democracy.
The school's contribution to the transformation of Latin America from
totalitarianism to democracy has been tremendous. Today, only Cuba
remains a totalitarian stronghold. Representative government has begun
to take root in every other country in the region. As the record shows,
many of the school's graduates have played leading roles in this
transformation.
If you have an opportunity to talk to these graduates, many will tell
you that the values they studied and discussed during their stay at the
school influenced their political thinking and motivated them in their
countries' fight for democracy.
In spite of this record, the school is once again under attack.
Without one shred of real evidence, the people who are involved in
these misguided attacks falsely accuse the school of promoting
totalitarianism and torture. If you get beyond the rhetoric, which can
be as deceptive as it is emotional, you will find their case is
factually based on just two things: one, the few graduates who have
been involved in human rights abuses--and two, certain military
intelligence training manuals which were once used at the school in
classes attended by some of the students, although not all--which the
school got rid of six years ago.
It's true some of the school's trainees have been linked to human
rights abuses. Some, in fact, have been linked to sickening atrocities.
But this, alone, is not evidence of wrongdoing at the school. As a
matter of fact, most of the graduates have been among the good guys in
the region's shift to democracy. Graduates have instituted human rights
reforms in their militaries, prevented military coups against freely-
elected civilian governments, and have made their soldiers more
professional servants of democratic governments. We need this to
continue. The Latin American democracies are very fragile, this is not
the time to stop the work we have started with our neighbors.
This whole argument gets a little ridiculous. We know of other Latin
American human rights abusers who attended colleges and universities in
the United States. One is the notorious Hector Gramajo of Guatemala,
who did not attend the School of the Americas but did graduate from
Harvard. Personally, I think it would be absurd to brand Harvard as a
school of assassins or call for its closure.

In his own report on the school, Representative Kennedy says: ``We do
not question the good values and the commitment of the U.S. personnel
at the school today.'' According to his report, the reason for
attacking the existing school is to make a fresh start. But that start
has already been made. The school and its curriculum have undergone
intense scrutiny over the past few years, and instruction on human
rights and democratic principles has been exhaustively reviewed,
sharpened and expanded. This institution is one of the most transparent
in the U.S. military.
The United States Army School of the Americas has been investigated
and studied by the DOD Inspector General's Office, by the General
Accounting Office, and by an outside private consulting firm. Every
course except for the computer course has mandatory human rights
instruction. Every instructor is certified to teach human rights. The
school has a permanent human rights council and a Board of Visitors on
which strong human rights' advocates serve. All say the school is
effectively promoting U.S. policy on human rights and democracy, and in
no way is violating it.
This is certainly a cost-effective program.

[[Page H8012]]

For less than $4 million a year, the school is promoting democracy,
building stronger relationships with our neighbors, and combating
narcotics trafficking. The school's critics never consider the cost of
the crimes and human rights violations that were not committed because
of the school's influence. The critics never count the benefits of the
drug labs taken down, the terrorism prevented, the mines removed by
trained professionals, and the peacekeeping operations. The school
teaches all of these things, and its graduates carry out these missions
day-in and day-out.
Just listen to what the officials and agencies responsible for
developing and implementing our foreign policy have to say about the
school.
Our drug czar, who served as a former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S.
Southern Command, has said:

As Commander in Chief, 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
Americas was, and continues to be, the Department of
Defense's pre-eminent educational institution for
accomplishing these goals.

The State Department has stated:

The School of Americas today is an important instrument for
advancing our goals for the hemisphere. The school's
curriculum has changed to reflect the end of the Cold War and
our commitment to democracy, human rights, and development in
Latin America.

And Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Henry H. Shelton, has
commented:

I firmly believe that the US effort to promote democracy,
encourage regional cooperation, foster respect for human
rights, and reduce the flow of illegal drugs in this
hemisphere would be seriously affected if the School were
closed.

This is an issue that touches me personally.
I regularly visit the school. I know the men and women who serve
there. These are highly-trained, dedicated professionals who believe
deeply in their country and in the country's mission to promote human
rights and democratic principles everywhere. It is wrong to accuse them
of violating their trust and working against the interests of democracy
when all of the evidence reaffirms that this is not true.
I strongly urge all of my colleagues to visit the school, learn more
about the job it is doing, and not to rush to judgment on the basis of
false and unfounded accusations made by people who may have good
intentions, but who have little regard for the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the truth.
Support the United States Army School of the Americas.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of saving the time of the
House, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a roll call
vote on the Tiahrt amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the voice vote stands, and the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is agreed
to.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) as a substitute for 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.

Recorded Vote

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, any vote on the
underlying Torres amendment will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 212, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 448]

AYES--201

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilchrest
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--212

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Mollohan
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Redmond
Reyes
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Visclosky
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--21

Clay
Cramer
Davis (IL)
Dingell
Fawell
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goss
Kennelly
King (NY)
Manton
McIntosh
Meek (FL)
Myrick
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Rush
Sanchez
Schumer
Tauscher

{time} 1958

Mr. TIAHRT and Mr. NORWOOD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. LARGENT, Mrs. ROUKEMA and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 2000

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).

[[Page H8013]]

Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Torres).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last four lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

Titles I through V, the appropriations paragraphs of title
VI, and sections 601 through 604, of this Act may be cited as
the ``Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1999''.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
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. 4569)
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 542, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255,
nays 161, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 449]

YEAS--255

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Collins
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crapo
Cubin
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Morella
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Strickland
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NAYS--161

Ackerman
Baldacci
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berry
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Goode
Gordon
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lee
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Skaggs
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Clay
Davis (FL)
Fawell
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goss
Kennelly
King (NY)
Manton
Meek (FL)
Myrick
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Rush
Sanchez
Scarborough
Schumer

{time} 2019

Messrs. HINCHEY, STRICKLAND, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, and LEWIS of
Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________