Segment 2 Of 3 Previous Hearing Segment(1) Next Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
FOREIGN POLICY REFORM ACT, MARKUP OF H.R. 1486
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Will Members please take their seats?
The Committee on International Affairs meets in its open session pursuant to notice to continue its markup of H.R. 1486.
When the Committee recessed yesterday, it completed one amendment to Title V, which is still open to amendment. There are more than a dozen amendments to Title V that are brought to the attention of the Chair. In all, there are perhaps 40 amendments to the entire text that have been brought to the attention of the chair.
The staff, acting on my behalf and, I believe, on behalf of the Ranking Democratic Members, as well, have been engaged in discussions aimed at disposing of some of these amendments by way of an en bloc amendment for expediting their consideration by way of time limitation agreement. The staff is also trying to explore a variety of compromise arrangements, such as language that would satisfy amendment sponsors but be acceptable to the other side or to the Administration, as the case may be.
I would ask that Members please be open to approaches from the staff or from your colleagues in the interest of trying to expedite the business of the day. Please also make yourself available if you have to go to another committee, leaving a phone number where we can reach you in the event we come to a vote and need your presence here.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
We will now proceed with Title V and we have an amendment from Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the clerk report the amendment?
By unanimous consent, time will be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes for Republicans and 10 minutes for the Minority on the Development Fund for Africa.
Is there an objection to the unanimous consent? If there is no objection, we will move on that basis.
Would the clerk report the amendment?
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted as read.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
[The amendment of Mr. Hastings appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Hastings is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. I am delighted that I have an opportunity to present this amendment. But, first, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Ranking Member for doing all that you can to assure that we do get this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. And I would like to add my thanks to the Majority staff and to the Minority staff and I hope the Chairman will not take umbrage if I say specifically to the Minority staff because they worked with me, as did the Majority staff, in trying to assure that I would be involved in this process.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to increase funding for the Development Fund for Africa—its acronym, commonly referred to as DFA—from $600 million to $700 million and I hope that all Members of this Committee will support my effort. As a matter of fact, since most of the Members are not here, I should shut up and call for a vote, Mr. Chairman.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I have always been a supporter of foreign aid and I will continue to be a supporter of foreign aid, particularly aid to Africa. I am privileged to serve on the Subcommittee of Africa with the new distinguished chairperson of that committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, and several of my colleagues that have invested a substantial amount of their time and energy in trying to assure that the African continent is enhanced rather than regresses. Particular note should be made that Don Payne, long before coming to Congress and in addition to his work in Congress, was involved on the continent of Africa in a number of efforts trying to assist people in famine relief.
The African continent is among the poorest in the world, if not the poorest in the world, in terms of the people on that continent. It is plagued by war, famine, disease, drought, and quite frankly, abject poverty. But some countries in the continent show signs of great hope, illustrating that U.S. leadership and assistance can make a difference.
Mr. Chairman, I was on the trip with Speaker Gingrich recently and other Members and a bipartisan delegation to China and the Speaker mentioned the fact that Africa has immense resources that are on tap and are waiting for leadership in order for it to be coordinated. And he seemed very interested in wanting to assure that we would put forth some effort in that regard. But some countries of this continent are still languishing.
The Development Fund for Africa was created in 1987 by a bipartisan group of Congresspersons who were determined to shield long-term development programs in Africa from short-term political pressures. The Development Fund for Africa utilizes its funding efficiently by focusing on countries where the chance of success is the greatest, using local participants to design and implement the programs.
The DFA is USAID's single development account for Sub-Sahara and Africa and, at 800,000,000, it represents about .05 percent of the entire Federal budget. This is an extremely small piece of the pie for an extremely important area of the world. I ask the support of the Members for this amendment to increase funding for this important program from $600 million to $700 million.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has used 4 minutes of his time, 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. Houghton will control the time on the Majority side. Ten minutes.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to applaud Mr. Hastings and thank Mr. Royce and the Chairman for their support of this. This should be really non-controversial. It is something that was brought up a couple of years ago. It strengthens the earmark for Africa. It helps us prioritize more funds for Africa. It is the right thing to do and I support it.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would like to thank Mr. Hastings for yielding and also for his amendment. As the Ranking Member on the Africa Subcommittee, I would like to wholeheartedly support his amendment. When Africans are well-fed and employed, when they are able to harness their nation's natural resources, when the rate of infection for AIDS is sufficiently slowed, when Africa's children have access to education and the possibility of a bright future, the opportunity for stability and good governance increases dramatically and so does the opportunity for American enterprise abroad, a continuing, developing market with enormous potential, and certainly our funds in this case have shown to be one in which we make significant progress and by which we lay the foundation for the trade and investment that so many in the Congress are talking about.
Yes, we seek to promote trade and investment with Africa. But we need to lay the foundation to continue the broad expanse of development that will create the opportunity for that trade and investment. The gentleman from Florida's amendment is excellent and I wholeheartedly support it and I yield back the balance of my time to him.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
The gentleman has now utilized——
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman——
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has utilized 5 minutes.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Mr. Chabot would like to speak.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman and I want to compliment and commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Houghton, for offering this. I believe it is a very good amendment. I am on the Africa Subcommittee. I do intend to support this amendment.
Africa certainly has had its problems over the years. It is a continent which has an abundance of natural resources and I hope we can play a role in solving some of its problems. I hope we can do a better job than we have in the past. But it is also going to take the people of Africa themselves, and particularly their leadership, to do a better job in allocating those resources. We have seen countries—Nigeria is probably one of the best examples—which have a great abundance of natural resources which, because of corruption and just bad leadership at the top, there is too much corruption. The resources are not benefiting the people whom they should. So a lot of work needs to be done on that continent. But I think this is an excellent amendment and it is my understanding that this is not new money but there is an additional $100 million to go to Africa, which I support. But it is coming from several other funds, I believe——
Mr. HASTINGS. Right. That is correct.
Mr. CHABOT. Because I, obviously, am one of those fiscally conservative Republicans who are looking at these dollars very closely. But, as we can shift the pie around, I do very much agree with both of the gentlemen that more of that pie should go to Africa where it can be utilized and is needed very much there. So I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. I am just seeking clarification based on the gentleman's point and that is, I guess I am not quite as fiscally conservative as the last speaker. I would like to increase aid to Africa by $100 million but not necessarily at the expense of other important development aid projects. If we are increasing aid by $100 million to Africa, where is that money coming from?
Mr. HASTINGS. There are a number of accounts that you will find that the money will come from. The Committee is still going to have a substantial amount of time to work on this matter.
Let me say to you, Mr. Sherman, something that I have learned around here. Largely, what we are in—and let me be very frank with you—is a policy exercise. The appropriators are going to determine where this money is going to go. I cannot get excited about your question and I am not excited about where it is coming from. What I want is for it to happen.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes. If the gentleman would yield a minute. Thank you very much.
As I understand it, the money is going to come from the Development Assistance Account, as will funds for the next item of business, which will be the Foundation.
Mr. CHABOT. So, the effect will be to move $100 million from other parts of the——
Mr. HOUGHTON. From the Developmental Assistance Account and the Child Survival Account, I am told here.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes. Mr. Campbell.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Campbell.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Amo.
To my friend, Mr. Hastings, thank you for offering this.
To my friend, Mr. Sherman, let us get this done, if we can.
And, Mr. Hastings, you are going to be offering a second amendment, I understand, from the Foundation? Let me just take a moment and say to all of my colleagues, please support both. If you cannot support both because of the concern that you expressed about where the money is coming from, then it is my intention to offer a specific suggestion as to where the money is coming from, which would be controversial but it will be specific. And I believe it might be better policy for us to get support behind Mr. Hastings.
And what I would do, Mr. Hastings, is suggest that when you offer your second amendment that is coming up, if it passes, that is great. If it does not, then I will offer mine. So that is how I would like to orchestrate this today.
Mr. HASTINGS. I appreciate very much the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. You yield back the balance of your time?
Mr. Houghton has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I think we yield the balance of our time.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton, will you yield to me, please?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. I welcome the gentleman's amendment, which is going to fund the Development Fund for Africa at the Administration's requested level of $700 million. Africa is a region of the world in greatest need of development assistance and we are also pleased that the bill before us reinstates the DFA earmark which will help institutionally protect those badly needed funds in Africa.
The current crisis in Zaire and the millions of people who have been displaced by chaos and strife serves as a warning to us all about the importance of successful development efforts in Africa. Accordingly, I support the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
The question is now on the Hastings amendment. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?
The amendment is agreed to.
Further, I ask unanimous consent for consideration of the amendment by Mr. Hastings that is coming up regarding the authorization level for the African Development Foundation be limited to 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the sponsor of the amendment and Member in opposition. Without objection, so ordered.
Does the gentleman have an amendment?
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings: ''In Section 5——
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted as read.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read.
[The amendment of Mr. Hastings appears in the appendix.]
The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to increase the funding level for the Africa Development Foundation from $11.5 million to the President's request of $14 million and I hope that I will gain the support of you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members for this effort.
The African Development Foundation plays a unique role within our foreign aid plan. It is the only Federal agency that works directly at the community level in Africa to alleviate poverty and foster sustainable development. No funding is provided to or through governments. Instead, the Foundation works with grassroots groups to define their problems, identify solutions, mobilize resources and implement activities themselves. This unique approach is premised on self-help and it promotes self-reliance and independence. ADF encourages the growth of indigenous institutions which can respond to the needs of the poor.
By supporting full funding for the ADF, we invest in a Federal agency whose primary function is to support grassroots development that enables Africa's poor to participate in problem-solving and develop their own potential. By supporting the ADF, we also invest in approving the system of aid delivery and ensure development sustainability. ADF's unique participatory methodology produces replicable development models, thereby providing valuable tools for bilateral PVO and international donors.
Last, Mr. Chairman, by supporting full funding for ADF and other Africa-related development assistance, we are also indicating that a partnership with the people of Africa matters. ADF's program has earned our country's enormous respect and good will throughout Africa and the United States. This program, in my opinion, warrants the fullest bipartisan support in Congress. I ask you to please support this amendment and I, at this time, reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman has consumed 2 1/2 minutes. Mr. Royce will be controlling 10 minutes on the other side.
Mr. Royce, do you want to recognize anyone?
Mr. Houghton is seeking recognition, Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Houghton.
Chairman GILMAN. Amo.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Could we have just a minute, Mr. Chairman, please?
Chairman GILMAN. We will pause for a moment.
While we are doing that, there is a Republican conference that has been called at 11 a.m. Accordingly, we are going to recess our proceedings from 11:15 until 12:30 to give Members an opportunity to attend the conference and also to have lunch and get back here at 12:30 at which time we will continue our work until 5 p.m.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment to Mr. Hastings and——
Mr. CAMPBELL. I reserve the right to object.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, Mr. Campbell is reserving the right to object and the clerks are working on this at this moment.
Chairman GILMAN. Please proceed with the debate. There is a request that we withhold the vote on this until after the conference.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes. The thrust of my amendment is this, Mr. Chairman, and let me just give you a little bit of background. The African Development Foundation used to be funded at about $16 million. Then it went down to $11.5 million and we are trying to bring it back. Now, you can say that some of the funding of this is going to come from maybe some other African funding and that may be so. But there is a general pool of money in terms of the Development Assistance Account which incorporates Africa, South America, a variety of other countries. And what we would like to do is to increase by $2.5 million—from $11.5 million to $14 million—the amount of funding for the African Development Fund.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The language, I think, is going to suggest—and I am not sure Mr. Campbell is going to agree with this—but it is going to suggest that the Administration may put this money back into the fund. This does not bother me a bit because I think we can work with the agency and we can accommodate their feelings. But it is not a ''shall.'' It is not an absolute. The Administration may be able to transfer out of the African Development Assistance Account another $2.5 million to the African Development Foundation. That, in effect, is what we are searching.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Would you yield?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, I would yield to Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Houghton. There is no question of your good will and that of our good friend from Florida.
My concern is simply this, and I hope we can work it out—right now, Mr. Hastings' amendment refers to ''shall.'' It shall happen. Mr. Houghton's proposal, at least presently, says, ''We give authority to the Administration so that it may.'' So it is a big thing to move from a ''shall'' to a ''may.'' And so it seems to me, Mr. Hastings, that the heart of your amendment is at risk here. This is not a light issue.
Mr. HASTINGS. I certainly agree, if the gentleman will yield.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I will, sure. He gets my friend's time.
Mr. HASTINGS. ''Shall'' means exactly what it says and ''may'' does not mean much at all.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Well, if I could reclaim my time—I do not get hung up on this. I mean, obviously, the distribution of funds into this Foundation is something which everyone has to be agreed to and I think we can work with the Administration, so the difference between ''shall'' and ''must'' is not a big issue. ''Shall'' and ''may'' are not a big issue, as far as I am concerned.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I yield to Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Just to conclude, then, my thought would be this. During the break which we are going to have naturally, I guess, coming up pretty soon, let us do our best to get some sense of what the Administration's will is and if all we have is a wink and a nod and an unenforceable understanding, I am not for it.
Mr. HASTINGS. I follow you.
Mr. CAMPBELL. OK. Thank you.
Mr. HASTINGS. With that, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, procedurally then, if the debate on this matter be abated until such time as after the conference and then we resume with the remaining amount of time, at which time I would believe that I would be prepared to yield my time if the matter has been worked and then we could go to a vote. Is that satisfactory? Or would the Chairman have a better suggestion?
Chairman GILMAN. That sounds like a worthwhile idea, except that the time that has already been utilized will be——
Mr. HASTINGS. We will count it.
Chairman GILMAN. It will be counted.
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, sir.
Chairman GILMAN. All right.
The gentleman—are we going to make a unanimous——
Mr. HASTINGS. I make a unanimous request along the following lines of what you and I just muddled through.
Chairman GILMAN. There is a unanimous consent request before the Committee to set aside the Hastings amendment until we return after the recess. Without objection.
Are there further amendments to Title 5?
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Any amendment to Title——
Yes, sir. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman has an amendment at the desk to Title 5.
Mr. SHERMAN. I have three at the desk and if staff could focus on the one dealing with Nagorno-Karabagh and distribute that.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment by Mr. Sherman: At the end of subchapter A of chapter 2 of title V, add the following (and conform the table of contents accordingly): ''Sec. 514. Assistance for Nagorno-Karabagh. (a) In General—Amounts made available to carry out chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 may be made available——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Sherman appears in the appendix.]
I recognize Mr. Sherman for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. This amendment does not require the expenditure of an additional cent. The amendment simply authorizes that some portion of the over $800 million that we are providing for the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union can be spent in one area that up until now has been deprived of U.S. assistance and that is the area of Nagorno-Karabagh. This region has been beset by blockade and warfare. There is perhaps no area within the former Soviet Union that is more in need of American aid. This amendment states that it does not influence and is not designed to affect the U.S. position with regard to the final status of Nagorno-Karabagh.
It is important that my amendment here today simply provides for an opportunity to feed those who are hungry and to provide medical assistance to those who are sick. I could have written this amendment to say the Independent Republic of Nagorno-Karabagh and turned it into a political document. There are others that could try to turn this into a political document by setting forth some other characterization of this disputed region. The purpose of this amendment is not political disputes. It is simply to authorize money that is to be spent somewhere within the former Soviet Union to be spent in small part in this region.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I will.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am having a little trouble because we have some folks caucusing in between us here.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman turn on his mike?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, if you could turn on your microphone.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, my mike is on. But I wonder if we could have this caucus step aside so we could have some dialog on the issue on the floor, please.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.
Mr. SHERMAN. If my time could be restored for that delay, yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Please take your conversations to the anteroom.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it the gentleman's understanding that today no aid is available to refugees from Azerbaijan who have been made refugees because of this war?
Mr. SHERMAN. It is my understanding that monies are not being spent within the region of Nagorno-Karabagh. I did not hear your full question, however.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it the gentleman's intent that the United States provide aid only to the Armenian refugees, basically, in this region? Or that aid be made available to all refugees, whether they are Azerbaijanis or Armenians or residents of this particular region?
Mr. SHERMAN. There is nothing in this amendment, and there should be nothing in our policy, that focuses on the ethnicity of those who are sick or those who are hungry.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, as far as the author of this amendment, your intent is not to provide humanitarian assistance only for one group of people suffering in that area.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. SHERMAN. No. The present bill provides for humanitarian assistance in Armenia, in Azerbaijan, and all the other regions that were once the Soviet Union. And this one particular disputed region should be clearly identified as a region where the Administration is authorized to expend dollars.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the gentleman is not trying to push American policy in terms of what we see as a solution to the conflict but, instead, as a humanitarian endeavor aimed at all the people of the region.
Mr. SHERMAN. Exactly.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.
Mr. SHERMAN. And thank you.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman. I am seeking recognition.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes?
[Pause.]
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. I would like to hear the State Department's position on this amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Can we have Ms. Larkin please take the stand?
Ms. LARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Administration opposes this provision. We already provide assistance in all areas of Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh. We provide it through the ICRC and we generally oppose any provisions that would place conditions or restrictions on the way that we do that. But the aid is already being provided and we fear that by cutting out this one area, it would have a detrimental effect on our efforts to provide assistance to all refugees that are in need of it.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HILLIARD. That is fine, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the spokesperson there for the Administration.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, inquiry?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do we or do we not have a prohibition on Section 907 of aid going to refugees in Azerbaijan?
Ms. LARKIN. Let me confer with my counsel. I believe we do, but we provide assistance through the International Committee of the Red Cross. You are correct.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So, would passage of this amendment then permit us to provide assistance to one side but not the other? Is that what is going on here?
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield just on that point?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly.
Mr. BERMAN. I think the prohibition is on direct governmental assistance. It does not prohibit assistance to non-governmental organizations for work in Azerbaijan, the present law. And, in other words, we have foreign assistance dollars going into Azerbaijan. It is just not direct government-to-government programs.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And how would this amendment change that?
Mr. BERMAN. This amendment would not change that. This amendment simply highlights that one aspect of our foreign assistance problem is the issue of refugees and displaced persons in Nagorno-Karabagh and authorizes assistance to go there. The other prohibition still maintains. It prohibits government-to-government money.
If you want to talk about the government of Nagorno-Karabagh, as I understand this amendment, it is provided through non-governmental organizations and private voluntary organizations. Is that your understanding? Is that the State Department's understanding?
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I see your point. Are you prohibiting aid to one government and then allowing aid to a——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me state my concern for the body and that is that I have come to the conclusion that we have two stubborn peoples at war with one another in that area and both of them have something right on their side. The Armenians believe and are justified in believing that the people of this region, a majority of the people of this region, are Armenians and would like to be part of Armenia. The Azerbaijanis on the other side have a real justified position. This used to be part of their territory. And what we need to do is, we need to encourage both of them to sit down with one another and we need to pressure them to reach an agreement rather than trying to come down on one side or the other to facilitate one side's victory. That is just a formula for continued conflict.
Mr. BERMAN. I could not agree with you more.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. So I am hoping that this amendment is not viewed as something that is anti or pro either side.
Mr. SHERMAN. I drafted it in an effort to achieve that result, Mr. Rohrabacher, by explicitly just referring to the region of Nagorno-Karabagh and saying that this amendment is not to be construed as taking a position as to the status of that region. There are those who asked me to refer to Nagorno-Karabagh as an independent republic. There are others that have asked me to put in the words, ''Nagorno-Karabagh, region of the Republic of Azerbaijan.'' I do not want to do either of those things. This is a humanitarian amendment. We have done everything possible to not provide a political advantage to either side.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Could you agree to language, for example, something like, ''In the region of Nagorno-Karabagh, which would include Armenians, Azerbaijanis and anyone else who is any other refugee in need of humanitarian assistance''?
Mr. SHERMAN. I want to think about that, but I think it goes without saying that there are, I believe, within this region some persons of Greek descent, Kurdish descent, Azerbaijani descent, Armenian descent, and I would hate to think that in each of our foreign aid provisions we would have to say that our aid to India goes to Sikhs and Jains and Hindus and Moslems.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned regarding this amendment that, although the amendment states that any U.S. aid provided directly to the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabagh should not be construed as affecting the U.S. position on the legal status of that region, the treatment of the region as a separate entity for purposes of assistance will inevitably have an adverse effect on the negotiations to resolve the conflict.
The government of Azerbaijan has communicated strong concern over proposals such as this which it sees as infringing on its territorial integrity. I would like to ask the representative from the State Department to tell us what is the Administration's position on this proposal. Specifically, whether providing aid to the region of Nagorno-Karabagh as a separate entity might be interpreted by any of the parties to the conflict there as a change in the U.S. position on the status of the region.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, that is a concern, Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. That is a concern.
Well, I am also concerned that this amendment may be seeking funding for humanitarian assistance for less than critical needs and I hope my colleagues will listen to this. Our Committee staff has been informed by the State Department that the U.S. Government will have provided $3.5 million in humanitarian assistance to the region of Nagorno-Karabagh through the International Committee of the Red Cross by the end of this year. We have also been informed that the Private Humanitarian Fund, known as the Hagasten Fund, provided a further $3.8 million in humanitarian aid to the region of Nagorno-Karabagh in 1995 and 1996 alone.
The population of Nagorno-Karabagh is estimated to be about 126,000 people at this point, of which only 30 or 35,000 are believed by the International Committee of the Red Cross to be in need of assistance. Thirty-five thousand out of 126,000. And only several thousand of the number are actually refugees or internally displaced persons. Those in need in Nagorno-Karabagh have received food, wheat, seed, cement, nails, corrugated iron, plastic sheeting and school materials through American aid.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I will not try to compare the needs of several thousand refugees in Nagorno-Karabagh with the needs of the close to 800,000 refugees in the rest of Azerbaijan, but I know that many of those refugees who have been forced to leave Nagorno-Karabagh have been living in abandoned buildings, rail cars, under soccer stadium bleachers and in mud huts for several years now. I understand that a report prepared ''in association'' with the American Red Cross has found substandard water quality, shortages of pharmaceuticals, a lack of antenatal care programs, and so on in Nagorno-Karabagh. But I have to assume that these are problems shared by many people in the countries of Azerbaijan and Georgia today. In fact, I am told that the French Humanitarian Organization, Dr. Sans Frontiers, withdrew from Nagorno-Karabagh because it saw more critical needs elsewhere in the region.
We have to remember that our humanitarian aid is indeed intended for the most critical needs in this area in the world. So I oppose this amendment in its present form and I would like to propose an amendment to it, Mr. Chairman, and that amendment I would like to have handed out to the Members.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Is this an amendment to the existing——
Mr. BURTON. It is an amendment to the amendment, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the Burton amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Burton. Page 1, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 17, and insert the following: ''Sec. 514. Humanitarian Assistance——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is deemed to have been read.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[Mr. Burton's substitute to the amendment offered by Mr. Sherman appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Burton is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment——
Mr. BERMAN. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman's inquiry?
Mr. BERMAN. When you say strike line 1 through line 17, I wonder if you are thinking of a different amendment, another amendment that Mr. Sherman was contemplating offering, because the amendment in front of us does not have lines 1 through 17 and I am wondering if you are anticipating a different amendment and——
Mr. BURTON. Let me double-check that. Can you hold on 1 second?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SHERMAN. My amendment has 14 lines.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, evidently there has been a mistake. Let me just say that we would like to correct our amendment to strike lines 1 through 14 and substitute our amendment in place of that, so——
Chairman GILMAN. A unanimous consent request to amend the amendment by striking lines 1 through 14.
Mr. BERMAN. A unanimous consent?
Mr. BURTON. Well, if it is not——
Mr. BERMAN. I object.
Mr. BURTON. Well, if it is not acceptable, then what we will do is, we will withdraw this amendment and I will resubmit another amendment to the amendment, posthaste.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman withdraws his amendment.
Mr. BURTON. Wait, wait, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, are you proposing the amendment be adopted by unanimous consent, or that you have the right——
Mr. BURTON. No, no. I am proposing to correct my amendment to strike lines 1 through 14 of the current amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. I have no objection to modifying the——
Chairman GILMAN. No objection to the modification amendment.
Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for the remainder of his time.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment revises the text of Mr. Sherman's amendment by simply calling on the President to seek the cooperation of the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan and in ensuring that humanitarian assistance is available to all the needy citizens within Armenia and Azerbaijan, including those in the region of Nagorno-Karabagh. It also requires the President to report to the Congress on the humanitarian needs throughout Azerbaijan and Armenia and on the provision of humanitarian assistance, to meet those needs by the United States and other donor organizations and States to give a complete accounting on all that.
I believe that this Congress should seek more comprehensive information on the status of humanitarian needs throughout Armenia and Azerbaijan before it begins to provide additional funds for specific areas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. I would like to speak against the amendment to my amendment.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. The purpose here is twofold: One, to provide humanitarian assistance, and I think the gentleman agrees with me on that. But the second is to avoid enshrining into our statutes any particular characterization as to the legal status of the region. We do not want to call it an independent country, nor do we want to refer to it as a region of Azerbaijan.
Unfortunately, your proposed amendment to my amendment seems to imply that there are only two governments in the region—that of Armenia and that of Azerbaijan. That is one side's characterization. The other side's characterization is that there are three governments and three nations in the region—Armenia, the independent republic of Nagorno-Karabagh, and Azerbaijan.
I think our drafts are relatively similar. We both wish to see humanitarian aid go to those who are in need in the Caucusus. The difference is, do we want to characterize Nagorno-Karabagh as a mere region of existing independent States? Do we want to take the other extreme, which is to refer to Nagorno-Karabagh as an independent republic? Or do we want to simply, as my amendment does, provide aid without making political judgments?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman cannot reserve the balance of his time on 5 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of the Burton amendment and——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think this amendment is unambiguously neutral in establishing that American policy is not aimed at trying to support one side or the other in this tragic conflict that goes on and on in this far-away area in Asia. And we must scrupulously maintain this mentality or we are asking not for an end to the war, not for compromise, but instead for one side to think that they can fight their way through and have whatever they want without compromising. And that would lead to an elongated conflict.
We have to do our very best. We have to provide humanitarian assistance to those people, whether they are in Azerbaijan, or whether they are in Armenia, or whether they are in this enclave that we are talking about, who are suffering. Just for humanitarian reasons, provide them some assistance. But, because it is emergency assistance, it is not some development assistance, this is emergency assistance for people caught in a conflict. But if we structure it in a way that is not carefully crafted—and I believe that Mr. Burton's amendment is carefully crafted to ensure that the United States maintains its neutrality in the conflict—there will be unintended consequences.
I believe the way the original amendment is worded would lead people to believe that we are tilting toward Armenia and instead we should be tilting toward peace. And, with that, I will yield to Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Will the——
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last words.
Mr. BURTON [continuing]. the gentleman just yield to me briefly?
This does do pretty much what my colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, just said and the thing is, the President——
Mr. HILLIARD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON. The President is going to be preparing and transmitting to the Congress, according to this resolution, on a regular basis a report on humanitarian needs throughout the entire area—Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabagh. He is going to let us know whether or not those needs are being met. And I think that is the goal that the gentleman's original amendment intends to achieve. The only thing is, you are putting us in a position of coming down on one side or the other—at least, that is the appearance. And appearance in international relations is very, very important. And this, I think, strikes a very fair and non-biased approach, if you will, but still solves the problem the gentleman wants to make sure that humanitarian needs are met in all those areas.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If I can be heard, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I would be——
Actually, Mr. Hastings——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher still has the time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think Mr. Hastings has asked for me to yield.
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman and I would like to associate myself with his remarks and just caution that very occasionally in these very sticky situations like this one, in an effort to achieve peace, as I am sure both makers of the amendment would like to see, we may be better off saying nothing. There is a very delicate matter with reference to the pipeline that we all know about here that is as equal to the concerns of this country as would be our concerns for humanitarian relief.
Equally important are other agencies—the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Lisbon, last year. They took a position in 1996 and we need to be mindful of those things when we proceed. And that is all that I wish to add. Thank you very much.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I support the Sherman amendment and I think he is exactly on target. He is a new Member. He has tackled one of the more difficult problems in foreign policy today and I think he has done it in an appropriate way. If I understand what he is doing, he is trying to address the humanitarian issue, pointing out the real plight of the refugees there. There are a lot of needy people within the enclave as a result of 5 years of war. At the same time, he is trying to do that in such a way that he does not put the United States in on one side or the other.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
We have just recently taken a more active role as mediator in this situation and I think it would be a mistake now for this Congress to tip its hand in this kind of a situation given the role that the United States is going to play. The thing for us to do is to try to help on the humanitarian side. That is what Mr. Sherman's amendment does. It is exactly on target. I commend him for it and I intend to support it.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask just one real quick question of the Administration. Can you be comfortable and support my substitute?
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, Mr. Burton, we can support your substitute.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I am going to now recess the hearing and the vote will be delayed until we come back from recess. We will be recessed until 12:30 during which time I urge our Members to take advantage of lunch and we will work from 12:30 through 5 p.m.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Members please take their seats. I am asking to set aside the pending business for the purpose of considering an amendment en bloc by unanimous consent. Is there an objection?
If no objection, pursuant to yesterday's unanimous consent agreement, I offer an amendment en bloc. The clerk will please distribute the amendment. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman. At the end of title XVII add the following: ''Sec. 1712. Sense of Congress Relating to Recognition of Ecumenical Patriarchate by Government of Turkey.——
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[The amendment en bloc of Mr. Gilman appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment will be deemed to have been read in full. The amendment en bloc is being distributed. The amendment en bloc consists of the following amendments:
An amendment by Mr. Gilman relating to the Ecumenical Patriarchate; an amendment by Mr. Gilman relating to the funding for the Organization of American States; an amendment by Mr. Hastings relating to Hong Kong; an amendment by Mr. Gilman relating to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization; an amendment by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gilman relating to child labor issues in the annual human rights report; an amendment by Mr. Gilman to exchanges with South Africa; an amendment by Mr. Smith relating to international broadcasting; an amendment by Mr. Gilman relating to Bosnia debt relief; an amendment by Mr. Gilman relating to technical debt relief issues; an amendment by Mr. Gilman relating to credit unions; an amendment by Mr. Berman relating to AFSA; an amendment by Mr. Hamilton relating to agriculture; an amendment by Mr. Bereuter relating to North Korea.
[Laughter.]
Chairman GILMAN. Is there any Member seeking recognition? If there are no—Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your cooperation on this.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HAMILTON. And I also want to say——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HAMILTON. We must thank the staff who have worked very hard to produce this en bloc amendment. It is going to save the Committee an awful lot of work. I support the 13 items—I believe that is the number you mentioned—in the en bloc amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. Now, your en bloc amendment does not preclude me from making more amendments from this section, this title.
Chairman GILMAN. It does not preclude you.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK, thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any further amendments, further comments? If not, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Hastings was engaged in debate on his funding measure just before we recessed. There was no vote on it. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, after consultation with my colleagues, I am prepared at this time to withdraw the amendment as offered, and yield to Mr. Houghton, who I believe will offer an amendment at this time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hastings withdraws his amendment. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Just to pick up the strings here that Mr. Hastings amendment to add $2.5 million to the African Development Foundation without an offset, is the amendment that has been withdrawn, and so my amendment which says that the Administration——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton, are you offering an amendment?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, I am.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the clerk read the amendment and distribute the amendment?
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Houghton. ''In section 511(a) of the bill (in section 107(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by such section——
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. Houghton is recognized for 5 minutes on this amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Houghton appears in the appendix.]
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. Yes, my amendment now is the one that is presently in order, and it says that the Administration, which is really the USAID, may, and underline may, transfer $2.5 million to the African Development Foundation by taking the funds out of the Development Assistance account.
And if I understand it, without taking your name in vain, Mr. Chairman, you and Mr. Hamilton and Chairman Royce, and the Administration, and Mr. Hastings and I are all in support here. That is for the year 1998.
Because the original language was to further cut this foundation, that the account now says that we will add in 1999, $4 million, so in 1998, it will add $2.5 million to bring it up to $14 million. Keep it at $14. We will add in 1999 $4 million.
Then if I could just continue a minute, and again talking a little bit, probably Mr. Campbell should state this on his own, but to continue the continuity, Mr. Campbell then is going to offer an amendment to my amendment which would change one word, the ''may'' to ''shall'', and we will explain this far more eloquently than I possibly can, thereby requiring a transfer of funds to the foundation from also the Development Assistance Account.
So the position of those who currently support my amendment is to oppose the Campbell amendment, and if Campbell then passes the Chairman and Ranking Member, the Administration will oppose Houghton as amended by Campbell, and if Campbell then fails, I hope they will support the amendment unamended which I propose now.
I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Houghton. Mr. Lantos.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I merely would like to speak strongly in support of Mr. Houghton's amendment. I think it is very reasonable and very badly needed.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell. In the matter proposed to be inserted at the end of Section 107(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, strike ''may'' and insert ''shall''.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Campbell to the amendment by Mr. Houghton appears in the appendix.]
Mr. CAMPBELL.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Pardon me.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I will take no more than a few of those five. If you support the Africa Development Foundation, then we ought to be willing to put $2.5 million more into it this year, and $4 million in the next.
In terms of the size of this bill, it is very, very small. The Africa Development Foundation's activities have been described, but what strikes me as most valuable is that they are involved in micro-enterprise, in lending to small businesses, in getting an entrepreneurial economy going so that countries do not continue to depend upon aid.
If you do not accept the amendment, then all we have here is a ''may'', and that does nothing. I suggest that if the logic in favor of supporting Mr. Hastings position convinces you, then you really should support my amendment at this time.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Notice that Mr. Hastings' amendment was a ''shall''. It was a ''shall'' and the substitute by my good friend from New York takes that away. If the opportunity is lost, then I will seek other opportunities to try to fund this as best as I can, and that, Mr. Chairman, is all I intended to say. I would yield to anyone else who wishes some of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I would be pleased to yield to the chairman of the Subcommittee.
Mr. ROYCE. I will yield to Mr. Houghton of New York.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to my friend from New York.
Mr. ROYCE. And then I shall respond.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I do, I understand where Mr. Campbell is coming from, and in a perfect world, that word which really ties down, or that $2.5 million is far better. However, we must be able to get this in place, and I think both Mr. Hastings and myself, and the Administration feel that this is a better way of doing it, and I am not despondent about this language. I do not think it is a throw-away. This is something that I think can happen if we put it in place——
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
Mr. HOUGHTON. And also work——
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct, the Committee is not in order. Would you please pay attention to Mr. Houghton, who has the floor? Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I think that if the will is there, and the concept is accepted, and we work very closely with the agency which I think we ought to do, then I think that this is do-able and preferable.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the Subcommittee.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I would just like to point out to the Members that the Campbell amendment would eliminate the question of spending offsets, but it calls for increasing spending without attention to some significant concerns about the African Development Foundation that were brought to light by several GAO audits.
Now, there is no compelling reason why the budget for ADF should be increased by $2.5 million. For the past two fiscal years, the ADF budget has been set at $11.5 million, and that is the current mark as well, but let me just point out, the GAO has issued several reports suggesting that the management of ADF is top-heavy, and that the agency's overhead is too high.
What type of signal are we sending if we increase the budget in the face of these concerns? Can anyone here state definitively that ADF has addressed the GAO management and overhead concerns?
And I would suggest to you that in light of serious concerns about the direction at ADF, we ought not to increase in haste the budget of an agency whose management practices have been called into question, and whose government funding is supposed to be phasing out.
Now, I support the current level of $11.5 million. I am willing to support the Houghton amendment which would grant the Administration the authority to shift funds from the Development Assistance Account to ADF, but it would not mandate this though, which would allow us time to work with the Administration and decide if this is an organization that we want to be beefed up.
And as I say, that is why I am opposing Mr. Campbell's amendment, and supporting Mr. Houghton's amendment.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS. Right. Mr. Chairman, as would be the case in every instance where we work with people as fine as my chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I would like to begin by saying that I have the greatest respect for him and the new work that he is doing on this committee.
I take exception, Mr. Chairman, only for the reason that sometimes when good work is done, it is ignored. After the criticisms, and we had hearings on it, after the criticisms of GAO were offered, the Development Fund for Africa, you asked in your statement if anyone could say that there has been progress.
Well, I stand ready to say that there has been. They are under new management. They have addressed many of the concerns that the GAO report—as a matter of fact, most of the concerns that the GAO report reflected.
I do not mean to be facetious, but we just voted to increase money for spending of this bloated bureaucracy called our own funding, and maybe we could take $3 million from there as an offset, you see.
So there are a number of situations where legitimate criticism is offered, and I do not mean to impugn at all your criticism, but I do offer that they have made progress, and it should be noted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition down here? Mr. Bereuter.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEREUTER. I would just like to use a part of my 5 minutes to make sure I understand what is happening here. I am reading the amendment, the amendment to the amendment, and I do not, in looking at the bill, they do not make any sense to me. I am sure they are drafted well, but the gentleman, the Subcommittee chairman, for example, yield to me and tell me we are not talking about the African Development Bank, we are talking about the African Development Foundation, and the critique that you mentioned is of the foundation.
Mr. ROYCE. The Foundation.
Mr. BEREUTER. And this proposal of Mr. Houghton would do what, and I understand what Mr. Campbell's amendment would do to Houghton, but what would Houghton do?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Would you like——
Mr. BEREUTER. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HOUGHTON. There were—first of all, let me talk about the African Development Foundation.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman use his microphone please?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes. There were problems with the African Development Foundation as pointed out by the GAO in the 1980's, but it is my understanding, and I do not have definitive proof, but I am pretty sure that this has been worked out.
But the point is here that we are talking about the African Development Foundation, not the fund, and what would happen is that I would suggest that the word should be ''may'' transfer money from the development assistance account into this particular foundation, and that will be up to USAID.
Mr. BEREUTER. If the gentleman would yield then, your thinking is that if, in fact, the criticisms have been met satisfactorily, the Administration would have the authority, but to eliminate the mandate. Is that——
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HOUGHTON. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. BEREUTER. And the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce supported him of making a discretion.
Mr. ROYCE. And I am supported of exactly that point. That is why I support the Houghton amendment, but do not support the Campbell amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. I understand. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HOUGHTON. And furthermore——
Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HOUGHTON. If I could incorporate your time, let me just say here it is rather complicated that those who support my amendment which is the amendment now on the floor would oppose Mr. Campbell's amendment, and then if the Campbell amendment passes, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Administration would oppose my amendment.
However, if Campbell fails, I hope they will support the unamended amendment which I suggest.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman. Now I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina whose State I did not affect.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Menendez who has an amendment concerning Latin America, since the money we are speaking about is fungible and we have already given Africa another $100 million, and here is $2.5 million more, does this affect your amendment that you are asking for aid to Central and South America? Do you know?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would yield to the gentleman if he wants to respond.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to respond. It will affect it, although I support this provision and I would hope that the Committee would support the proportionality language that we will offer for Latin America.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. If there are no further comments.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield.
Chairman GILMAN. The Campbell amendment is now before the Committee. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is defeated.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, on that I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote has been requested. Do we have a second? How many people are favoring a recorded vote? A sufficient number for a recorded vote.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman GILMAN. Pass.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman passes.
Mr. Goodling?
[No response.]
Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo?
Mr. MANZULLO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King?
[No response.]
Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Mr. Sanford?
[No response.]
Mr. Salmon?
[No response.]
Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Mr. Fox?
Mr. FOX. Pass.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox passes.
Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Mr. Graham?
[No response.]
Mr. Blunt?
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
Mr. Moran?
[No response.]
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
Mr. Gejdenson?
[No response.]
Mr. Lantos?
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Mr. Martinez?
[No response.]
Mr. Payne?
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Andrews?
[No response.]
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney?
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
Ms. Danner?
Ms. DANNER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Capps?
Mr. CAPPS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler?
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes no.
Mr. Rothman?
Mr. ROTHMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.
Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
Mr. Luther?
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Would the clerk call the absentees?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Chairman GILMAN. Would the clerk—Mr. Sanford?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford?
Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
Mr. Salmon?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman GILMAN. Would the clerk indicate how I voted?
Ms. BLOOMER. You voted present.
Chairman GILMAN. I am changing the vote to no.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Fox?
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. FOX. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez?
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
[No response.]
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman GILMAN. Will the clerk indicate how Mr. Payne is recorded?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne is recorded as voting no.
Mr. PAYNE. Change to yes.
[Pause.]
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 15 ayes and 19 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is defeated. The question is now on the Houghton amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed? The Houghton amendment is carried. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, is recognized for his amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Lantos. On page 57, section 503. Assistance for Egypt. Line 19. Add the following new subsection: ''(c) Findings—The Congress finds that:——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the further reading of the amendment is dispensed and without objection, the time for consideration of the amendment by Mr. Lantos shall be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the sponsor of the amendment, and a Member in opposition.
[The amendment of Mr. Lantos appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Lantos is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Committee will come to order. Please give your attention to the gentleman who has the floor, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, one of the milestone events of our bipartisan search for peace in the Middle East in the last quarter century was the achievement at Camp David which brought peace between Egypt and Israel. Next year we will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of this significant event.
I have supported during the course of the last 20 years our policy of providing aid on a significant scale to Egypt. This aid is currently running at a rate of $2.3-billion, and on the whole, I believe it has been an intelligent investment in stability, peace and progress in the region.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
In recent times, we have had a number of disturbing events with respect to Egypt's relationship to our national interests in the region. On numerous occasions, the Egyptian Government has pursued policies directly contrary to our interests. The Egyptian approach in the last 2 years has been unsteady, uncertain, at times outright unhelpful.
There is an almost incessant vitriolic attack of an anti-Israel character in the Egyptian media, both the opposition media and the government-owned and controlled media.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, during Mubarak's last visit to our committee, I had occasion to discuss this matter with him at our committee lunch with the President of Egypt. I think it is extremely important that we have three options with respect to aid to Egypt.
We can remain silent, consider the $2.3-billion aid package to Egypt as an unchangeable entitlement which will go on irrespective of Egyptian policies as they relate to U.S. national interests. We can physically reduce that aid by varying amounts, or we can take a middle course which my amendment does.
My amendment reduces aid to Egypt by not one dime, but it cautions Egypt that future funding levels will be determined largely on whether Egypt fulfills its obligation to develop normal relations with the State of Israel, to promote peace with Israel, and to help other critical U.S. interests both in Egypt and in the wider Arab world.
Egypt has not done this lately. Egypt has participated and encouraged the proposal for a new Arab boycott of Israel. Egypt has played a role which was helpful to the terrorist rogue state of Libya, all of these contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests.
What I am asking for, Mr. Chairman, is that we merely hoist the flag of caution, advising the government of Egypt that our $2.3 billion worth of annual aid package is predicated in great measure upon Egypt continuing to implement fully the Camp David Accords, and the Egyptian/Israeli peace treaty, and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr. Lantos consumed 4 1/2 minutes of his time. While I am not opposed to the amendment, I will take the time for the opposition, and I will yield that time to the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the Chairman for yielding, and I oppose the amendment. I recognize the popularity of it, and I want to say to Mr. Lantos who has, indeed, been a strong supporter of the peace process, and a strong supporter of aid to Egypt, that I fully understand why he is offering the amendment.
He and I have sat in on a good many meetings in the past few weeks where the conduct of the Egyptians with respect to the peace process has come under a cloud, and I am reasonably sure that is what prompts Mr. Lantos to act here, and he acts out of the very best of motives.
I do think the amendment is a kind of a shot across the bow with regard to Egypt as Mr. Lantos has properly described it. It does not, of course, cut off aid.
Now, having said all of that then, why do I come down on the side of thinking on balance that the amendment is not a good thing to do. It singles out one country in the peace process for criticism when it is very clear, I think, that all parties have contributed at least to putting the peace process in some danger. It is a very fragile process at the moment, and I do not think we should underestimate the impact this kind of an amendment would have on that process, and on Egypt itself.
I think Egypt will see it as a breach of faith, perhaps an attempt to bully Egypt. I believe that the Middle East peace process is hanging by a thread, and therefore I resist public efforts here or anywhere directed at key players in the process.
It seems to me that what is needed now is not to point the finger of blame. I just do not think that is going to get us anywhere, and I think it will make the task much more difficult for our negotiators.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I think what we have to do at this particular time in the peace process is to look forward, and to get these parties back to the table. We should not get into a situation indicating that any one party is more to blame than the other, but try to look forward and move the process forward.
I am going to ask the Administration here in a moment how they feel about this. I do not really know how they are going to respond to that, but my sense is after having talked to the key people here, that we have an enormous task in front of us just to get this peace process going again, to shore it up, and to reinvigorate it, and I am afraid that the amendment will make that a little more difficult.
May I have the Administration comment on the amendment please?
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Before we hear from Ms. Larkin, may I make an observation which I think might be relevant to her observation?
Chairman GILMAN. Yes.
Mr. LANTOS. I have the highest regard for my friend and colleague from Indiana, and there is really nothing that he said with which I do not agree, except one item. It seems to me that we must not confuse the current peace process which is a relatively new phenomenon, and the Camp David Accords.
Aid to Egypt on a large scale is the outgrowth of the Camp David Accords of 19 years ago, and over the course of the last almost 2 decades, aid to Egypt has been running at a very high level long before the peace process began. The peace process was not even a topic of discussion except in a very vague sense. The peace process presumably that we are talking about is the Oslo peace process. The Oslo peace process is of recent vintage.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Aid to Egypt on a large scale was precipitated by the Camp David Accords. My amendment deals with that issue. Egypt has not fully implemented the Camp David Accords. There were only two parties to the Camp David Accords, Mr. Chairman—Egypt and Israel.
Egypt did not fully implement the Camp David Accords. Israel has turned itself into a pretzel to try to implement it, to make peace between Egypt and Israel a full peace in all its ramifications.
I fully agree with my friend from Indiana, that there is plenty of blame to go around with respect to the current peace process, but the current peace process was not the genesis of large scale aid to Egypt. The large scale aid to Egypt started with Camp David. It was predicated on both parties fully living up to Camp David. Egypt has not. That is why we need to, in my judgment, use this very modest instrument of hoisting a flag of caution, saying $2.3 billion is predicated on full implementation of the Camp David Accords.
So what I would like the Administration to comment on is whether Egypt has fully implemented the Camp David Accords calling for, and I am quoting, ''for Egypt to establish with Israel 'relationships normal to States at peace with one another'.''
That clearly has not been the case, and that is why I think the focus of the amendment is Egypt's failure of not implementing Camp David fully. I fully agree with Mr. Hamilton that there is plenty of blame to go around with respect to the current peace process.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. The gentleman has consumed 8 minutes. Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. Thank you. Mr. Lantos, unfortunately I am not in a position to give the department's position on whether or not Egypt has fully complied. I do not know for sure what the position is. What I can say is that Egypt's support for the peace process is critical to the efforts that we are making to get the peace process back on track, and it is largely for that reason as well as many of the reasons stated by Mr. Hamilton in his presentation that we have to oppose your amendment.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Larkin. Anyone else seeking—Mr. King.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say at the outset that I do have the highest regard for President Mubarak. I think that Egypt has done an excellent job over the years, but the fact is over the recent months and over the past year, in fact, Egypt has been remiss in its obligations. For instance, it is urging the easing of sanctions against Libya. They have certainly been taking more of a pro-Iraq position. It has been involved in the Arab boycott of Israel, and as Mr. Lantos said, there has been a tremendous amount of anti-Semitism throughout the Egyptian media about the government media and other media.
Mr. Lantos and I, and Mr. Hamilton and others met with President Mubarak recently when he was here. I do not really doubt his intentions, but on the other hand, I think that he is allowed the situation to go in the wrong direction.
I would not vote to cut off any aid whatsoever to Egypt, but I do think a statement such as this is, in fact, a cautionary warning. It shows where the United States stands. It gives Egypt the opportunity to come back and play the positive role it should be playing in the peace process. I think the amendment is very appropriate and very timely, and I support the General from California's amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher. Thanks, Mr. King.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will be supporting Mr. Lantos' amendment as well, and I think that he has made some valid points about the conduct of Egypt and we also recognize the positive things that Egypt has done, but we want to call them to task for not living up to certain other agreements that we would hope that they would live up to in the spirit of those agreements.
However, let me say that while I will be supporting Mr. Lantos' amendment, I will also be supporting right afterwards, Mr. Campbell's amendment which moves to have a small reduction in aid for both Egypt and Israel, and I think that that would be a good message to both of these countries, that we expect them both to move forward in the spirit of Camp David which sometimes has been forgotten, and to try as best they can, and if they do not, both sides are not trying, we are not going to sit back and just give our money. We expect them to move forward aggressively to find peace with their neighbor.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I agree with Mr. Lantos, and as I say, I will be supporting Mr. Campbell for that exact reason.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in support of Mr. Lantos' amendment. I do want to comment briefly on what Mr. Rohrabacher says we are to look forward to in the future, but I will comment on that in the future.
But I think it is fair to say that when we give a country $2.3 billion, we have the right to demand that that country on the whole, not in every regard, but on the whole, that that country does the right thing with regard to issues that we feel are important, and to live up to obligations upon which, as Mr. Lantos said, that aid was initially predicated.
I think Mr. Lantos has gently and appropriately placed before the Egyptian leaders the fact that the American people and the Congress, in exchange for $2.3 billion, are going to hold Egypt to a higher standard, a standard which they have not met yet, despite their many contributions.
So I think it is a very modest and mild message sent to the Egyptian leadership, and the fact that we are continuing to send the $2.3 billion indicates that on the whole we are pleased with their support as an ally, but this message is the gentlest of messages that we are not satisfied entirely.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree and intend to support Mr. Lantos' amendment, because I think he is right on the issue, and also it is just nice to be on the same side of an issue once in a while, so thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that as we go through this bill, there are lots of places that we could give advice to governments. We probably want to give a little advice to our own government a few places maybe like China, and our policies, but I think clearly we should not forget, and I know my colleague, Mr. Lantos, has not forgotten, but we should not forget the critically important role that the Egyptians have played in the peace process, and while we always want to see the peace improve, and all parties need to participate in that improvement in the peace process, that without Egypt, there would be no peace.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
They have taken the largest risk historically in the Arab world, leading the effort there, and that while we, and everyone involved needs to double our efforts to build the peace process in the Middle East, I think in no way should we forget even for a moment the critical role that the Egyptian Government has played.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the points that Mr. Hamilton has made are very, very sound. We are at a very critical time when it comes to the peace talks in the Middle East. I thought we were making some rather substantial progress under Mr. Rabin and Mr. Perez, and then when Mr. Netanyahu came to power, naturally in my opinion, the peace talks were slowed down, no doubt, or derailed for a while.
But we are never going to have peace in the Middle East unless we have full cooperation from Egypt and Israel and the other countries particularly in that area. But Mr. Hamilton made it very clear a while ago, this is not the time to intervene in the process. We all heard, or some of us did anyway, when Mr. Mubarak was here at the luncheon, and I thought he was very forthright about his intentions to fulfill the commitments and agreements that had been made previously, and realizing also that he has a lot of forces at work that are very destructive at times in Egypt and outside Egypt.
But for these reasons, I would have to oppose the proposal by Mr. Lantos. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clement. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly want to say that I think this is inappropriate. I understand the spirit behind its draftsmanship, but assistance to Egypt is based on the fact that we need a friend in the Muslim world, and that is not here.
We are talking about Camp David and the Egyptian/Israeli peace treaty. Egypt has been invaluable to us. Their prior President was assassinated because he was so helpful to the West. In Afghanistan, in Desert Storm, it is imperative that we have an important friend, and that friend has to keep credibility with the rest of the Arab world, no easy task when you understand the fanaticism of what they have to deal with.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I think we just, in my judgment, we should not single out Egypt because they have not towed the line to the letter of the Camp David Accords, or the Egyptian/Israeli peace treaty, and look at the larger picture, our need, the cause of peace's need to have the largest Arab country pro-West, trying to help, and representations of their shortfalls should be made privately, it would seem to me, and not hold them up to ridicule which makes the job of Mubarak twice as tough, and he has got the toughest job in the world over there.
Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hyde. I myself would make some comment. I want to take this opportunity to support the amendment offered by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos. I know he has offered this amendment not out of a sense of retribution, but with a heavy heart, yet one who speaks of the growing disappointment, disenchantment, and disillusion among a number of our Members of Congress regarding Egypt's negative activities in a broadening spectrum of recent issues.
This sense of Congress amendment by Mr. Lantos finds that our assistance to Egypt is based upon its implementation of the Camp David Accords, notably establishing relationships with Israel that are normal to States at peace with each other, and finds Egypt's current lack of fulfillment of these obligations disappointing.
We have all held Egypt in great esteem and considered it a friend to the peace process. Accordingly the measure notes that future assistance will be determined on a fulfillment of these obligations and a promotion with Israel and other critical U.S. interests including providing for peace in the Middle East.
Although I support the gentleman's amendment, it is with a great deal of reluctance, knowing full well that he and I share the same outlook regarding the Egyptian/Israeli relationship, as well as our U.S./Egypt bilateral ties. We truly hope that our friends in Egypt, their leadership (and President Mubarak has been a good friend to our nation), will somberly reflect upon this sense of Congress language as a desire from the Congress to see a more dedicated commitment to peace with Israel and U.S. national security interests in that region.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Accordingly, I urge our committee to support the Lantos amendment.
Is there someone else seeking recognition?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Before I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Berman, I just would like to say to my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, that I fully agree with him that words of caution such as the ones in this amendment are more properly addressed in a private forum.
Let me assure him that I made it my duty repeatedly in private letters to the appropriate Egyptian authorities over a period of many months to make my concerns clear privately. They have been of no avail. This is why I am taking this route to gently remind our friends in Egypt of their obligations under the Camp David Accords.
I now would like to yield my remaining time to Congressman Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will try not to use too much of that. I support the amendment. I support it for two reasons. One, it is appropriate and objectively accurate. It cannot be argued that the commitments that were made by Egypt in the Camp David agreement have been fully complied with.
This is not something recent. This has been consistently through the past 16, 17, 18 years that in a whole variety of areas, that normalization, that full peace that was supposed to take place, has not happened.
I do not say this without recognizing Egypt's critical role in the continuation of the peace process, but when you look at their conduct of the nuclear proliferation extensions, the chemical weapons issue, the fact that Egypt is specifically blocking the continuation of the multi-lateral negotiations in a whole variety of frameworks, the recall of the Ambassador at the time of, over a dispute over Tabah that was resolved just the way it was supposed to under a treaty; there are a whole series of things that have been done, so that what Mr. Lantos is saying in this amendment is accurate.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The second thing is what is the alternative? There are people in this Congress who intend, on this bill at some point on the floor, to cut aid to Egypt, to wipe out aid to the Palestinians, to seek to draw definitive conclusions about the peace process, and eliminate a variety of the undertakings that are going on.
I find an accurate and truthful expression of the situation, the concerns, the disappointments that we have to be a far better alternative than amendments which were talked about, which may very well have gained the support of the majority of the Committee, or a majority of the floor, to unilaterally cut one of the Camp David parties' foreign assistance at this particular time.
Egypt did not align itself with the West as part of the Camp David money. That decision was made much earlier. It was primarily made based on a history of their dealings with the Soviet Union, and the disillusionment that came from that.
Their friendship is very important to us. Their role to play is very critical. I consider this an appropriate reminder that we have many areas of disappointment still, and a far better alternative than what might have otherwise come, so I urge adoption of the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any further Members seeking recognition?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes, I would like to yield whatever time we have left to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Mr. Lantos and Chairman Gilman and others, and just note for the record that so many of us who are speaking to this amendment have admired and championed the cause of appreciation of President Mubarak and his great leadership in this issue.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Not only that, most of us who have spoken on this side on this issue have also led the charge for funding for Egypt, and I do not think any of us is proposing diminishing that funding, but certainly over the past decade, very gentle reminders have been made to the Egyptians about their fulfillment of their obligations under the agreement, and that has not taken place to a large extent, and this is, as has been said before, a very gentle reminder to them, not a shot fired across their bow, but just a reminder note that they, too, have an obligation, and we would like to hold them to that.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. All times have expired. The Lantos amendment is now before the Committee. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is carried. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. At the end of chapter 1 of title V, add the following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):——
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Menendez appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. Menendez is recognized for 5 minutes.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief, and if I could have some order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Menendez has the floor.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, we passed the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992, and the Libertad Act last year. We envisioned programs that would provide support for democracy and civil society within Cuba, track two of the Cuban Democracy Act.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Menendez, if you will withhold, the Committee will come to order. Any conversations should be taken out to the anteroom.
Mr. MENENDEZ. OK.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Please proceed, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We envisioned support for democracy and civil society in track two of the Cuban Democracy Act and Section 109 of the Libertad Act which I helped write, however last year of the $2 million allocated from economic support funds for Cuba, the Administration reprogrammed half a million dollars.
And what I seek to do in this amendment is to ensure that these funds support the purpose we legislatively dictated in those pieces of legislation that are now law. These funds support initiatives like that of Freedom House, an internationally recognized human rights organization which has produced and distributed copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Cuba is ironically a signatory, and also our plan of assistance to oppose Castro's Cuba, and through these and other initiatives, Cubans learn of the basic human and civil rights we are trying to promote.
There are a large number of organizations seeking funding, non-governmental organizations, people-to-people programs through USAID which seek to make contacts and nurture civic society and solidarity in Cuba.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
This amendment does not speak to our traditional U.S. policy or to the embargo. In fact, it is probably the single element in our Cuba policy which we can agree on, which is assistance for the Cuban people, developing civil society, nurturing dissidents and human rights elements, much as we did with solidarity in Poland, as well as with other former Eastern European Communist bloc countries, and I ask the Committee Members to support the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Anyone seeking recognition on the Menendez amendment?
If no one is seeking recognition, all in favor of the Menendez amendment, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed? The Menendez amendment is carried. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. The amendment offered by Mr. Hastings. At the end of subchapter A of chapter 2 of title V add the following——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent for the reading of the amendment to be dispensed with. Mr. Hastings is recognized for 5 minutes.
[The amendment of Mr. Hastings appears in the appendix.]
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, could we have order in the Committee?
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Hastings has the floor. I will ask that any conversations be taken up in the anteroom.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, I have had high hopes for the Ukraine. I have met with Ukrainians and I have met with their ambassador. I have had a considerable amount of contact in the immigration arena with the Ukraine.
Some of these hopes have been met. A few have been exceeded, most have been dashed. The U.S. Congress must make clear to the government of the Ukraine that our largess and good will must not be taken for granted, and our business must not be abused.
Therefore I offer today this amendment which I intend, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw, to cut the aid to the Ukraine to one-third. I am withdrawing it for the reason that there is considerable controversy in the Committee, and I believe that our policy should be bipartisan.
I do not want anyone to think that there has not been progress in the Ukraine. Since 1991, the Ukraine held legislative and Presidential elections, removed all nuclear weapons from its territory, criticized the sale of Russian nuclear reactors to Iran, imposed technology transfer controls to comply with international non-proliferation restrictions, established the right to private property, introduced a new currency, privatized businesses and reduced inflation.
In my view, those are obviously significant achievements, but progress in the Ukraine comes in fits and starts. While President Kuchma implemented an IMF-supported economic reform program, and has received credits from the IMF and other financial institutions, the reform package has not been acted upon by the Parliament.
Also problematic are the various problems, and this is where I am really concerned, Mr. Chairman, encountered by American businesses operating in the Ukraine. There is a plethora of information in the media as recent as the last 2 days reflecting how American investors have met with death threats, physical harm, kidnappings, rampant corruption, frequent government rules changes, exorbitant licensing fees, and the illegal termination of contracts.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Rampant corruption is so pervasive that the American ambassador to the Ukraine spends a portion of each day trying to help American investors resolve their problems, and often to no avail.
I regret the need for the language that I am using, Mr. Chairman. I realize that those who do not support democratic reforms will use this as an excuse to buffer their assertion that democracy and a free market economy is not achievable, and I do not believe that.
I regret that the reform-minded persons in the Ukraine, several of whom I have met with, might doubt our appreciation of the steps that they have taken, or our dedication to their progress, but we cannot continue to allow the abuse of our foreign aid dollars, and the money of American investors to be stolen and wasted by illegalities and corruption.
We address it in any significant number of ways here in this committee. Our own resources obviously are too meager to allow one penny to be unwisely spent. In my view, it should not be a partisan issue. I will not offer the amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I thought that it was very needed that someone point out many of the significant problems that we are confronted with in the Ukraine, and my great hope is that they will be abated in the not too distant future.
At this time, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman withdraws his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman GILMAN. You are entitled to 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH. I thank you, and I will not take the full 5 minutes. I want to thank Mr. Hastings for withdrawing his amendment, and I do think, so the record is clear though, we need to take notice and be cognizant of the fact that the Ukraine has made tremendous strides in the area of democracy and human rights.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
As a matter of fact, their human rights record, including Minority rights, is one of the best in all of that part of the world. As a matter of fact, the OSC High Commissioner for national minorities has said that the Ukrainians minorities law can serve as a model for some Western European countries.
They have privatized some 50,000 of their enterprises, and I think this bears underscoring with a thousand lines, the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and you know, I think that serves the interests of peace, and I think we all breathed a sigh of relief when they did that.
The Ukraine has welcomed the eastern expansion of NATO. It is very active with the Partnership for Peace Program. It recently refrained from selling turbines to Russia, which were to be eventually sold to Iran. It responded to the potential end use of those turbines, and has been a very important part of our strategic efforts.
Let me also point out too, Mr. Chairman, and finish on this. There are a great number of humanitarian concerns about what is going on in the Ukraine. I chaired the Helsinki Commission. Last year we held a hearing and heard from the ambassador of the Ukraine on the continued fall-out from the Chernobyl debacle. As we all know, some 20,000 to 30,000 people died as a result of the nuclear accident and there are ongoing problems of contamination. The thyroid cancers call out for our continued humanitarian assistance and collaboration with the Ukraine on health issues.
So, I think, again, I want to commend my friend from Florida from withdrawing it, but remind everybody that Ukraine needs to be lifted up as an example of what is going right with that part of the world.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith, will you yield to Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield to my friend.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I would like to also commend Mr. Hastings, No. 1, for his withdrawing his amendment to save us some time, but also for providing leadership in this issue. And as Mr. Smith said, Ukraine or Ukraine, as they say there, is a vital country to the stability of all of Europe and Asia. It is a pivotal point. And your personal attention to something I am sure is going to yield a very positive result. And thank you very much.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you Mr. Rohrabacher.
We now have an amendment by Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. At the end of subchapter A of chapter 2 of title V, add the following—''
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Mr. Menendez is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Menendez appears in the appendix.]
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, this is the same language which in essence was included in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill last year. It creates no increase in authority or money. It is not an earmark, but simply put, it is a firewall to protect development assistance funds from being reprogrammed from an area which is crucial to the United States.
For the Committee's notice, the amendment has the support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that is very concerned with this part of the world. Since 1993, the Latin American/Caribbean Region has taken drastic funding cuts. Development assistance to the region was $356 million in fiscal 1993. In fiscal year 1996, it dropped to about half, a mere $183 million, a level which I hope does not reflect our commitment to the region, considering that over half the hemisphere's people are below the poverty level.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Simply put, because of its proximity, Latin America should be considered a priority for the United States. The political and economic problems of the region often manifest themselves in problems which affect our own country and our future; illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking.
As I listened yesterday to some of the Members of the committees speak about the impact of immigration and drugs on our country, I can not help but think that our efforts to combat some of the root causes are insufficient. With 50 percent of the people living below the poverty level, illegal immigration is always going to be a push factor, so long as the economic outlook to the south remains depressed.
And similarly, we need to get at some of the root causes through the planting of sustainable development crops and other forms, so we can eradicate those crops which we certainly do not want to see in the United States, such as coca. So we need to create alternatives.
And development assistance, in essence, creates the foundation so that we can avoid some of those issues that we are concerned about here in the United States on immigration, on narcotics, and at the same time, continue to foster the development of broadening markets.
And on the question of markets, let me just say, Mickey Kantor, our former trade representative, said that trade to Latin America at the end of 1995 equalled trade to the entire Pacific Rim, minus Japan. And I would venture to say, when we see 1996 figures, it is going to be very much along that road.
So this is a vitally important part of the world to us. When you think about it, the trade to Latin America equalled trade to the entire Pacific Rim, minus Japan. So what we seek to do is, in fact, support our own national interest, to try to stem the flow of illegal immigration, to try to stem the flow of narcotics, and at the same time, to create greater economic opportunity here at home, by creating the development assistance within the region.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Again, we do not increase the amounts, we do not increase the authority, but it is time to say enough is enough, when it comes to picking on Latin America as the only place from which we continuously draw funds in a very short-sided, narrow-minded focus.
I have supported the efforts on the Africa development funds. I have supported those provisions. I think Mr. Ballenger made a very poignant question to me during that whole process. It is time that we recognize that right here within our own hemisphere, the President will be going to Latin America in the next month or two and we need to send the right message.
Yes, trade is very important to us, and that is the focus of our policy. But when we have 50 percent of the people below the poverty level, we need to understand that development assistance, as limited as it is, must have a floor. And we have the floor being taken out from underneath us each and every year. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. I have an announcement to make. The Democratic Caucus has been changed to 4:30 p.m. Accordingly, we will complete our work for the day at 4:30, and continue on Tuesday at 1 p.m., and will work quite late on Monday to try to complete our work on this measure on Tuesday. I am going to urge my colleagues to try to be as expeditious as possible today, so that we will not have to work too late on Tuesday. Thank you for your cooperation.
Mr. BEREUTER. I speak in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. But I do so only after considering offering a perfecting amendment to the gentleman's amendment, which I may offer. It was not available in adequate numbers at the desk, and it is being reproduced right now. That would require proportionality of the AID budget for the Asian and Pacific Region, as well.
The Administration opposes the gentleman's amendment. If the proposed proportionality provisions were enacted, it would have a devastating impact on programs in the Asian and Pacific Region, which assists development in some of the poorest, most populous countries in the world.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I believe there are some materials or charts at the desk to be distributed. Is that correct?
The reason that our funding for Latin America and Asia and the Pacific Region are decreasing are for two reasons. AID funds have been decreased significantly in the last decade, generally. And, second, earmarks for other regions have, by default, forced disproportionate cuts in AID for Latin America and the Asia Pacific. So the gentleman's concerns are well taken. But that is the rationale for it.
And if the gentleman is successful in offering his amendment, it simply means that there is far less for the Asia Pacific Region. Let me give you some examples.
Of course, Asia is where 75 percent of the people in the globe live. Japan, for its own self-interests, has been out-spending us dramatically in the region. What they provide with economic benefits coming back and accruing to them dwarfs our budgets of aid for Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Mr. Menendez, is right in pointing out that by earmarking the entire AID budget except for Latin America and Asia and the Pacific, those two regions come out the big losers in our final AID allocations. But I can not support his amendment, and we should not, because of its impact on the only remaining, undesignated, unearmarked region in the world, if he succeeds.
A reduction of the magnitude that would be caused in the Asia Pacific Region would require terminating many high priority productive programs in the Asia Pacific Region. As a result, the Administration decided after discussion with the congressional staff to make a marginal adjustment in the Fiscal Year 1997 proportionality formula, in order to minimize the damage.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the Menendez Amendment at the desk, and I offer it at this time.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter. Page 1, line 2, after ''region'' insert ''and the Asia and the Pacific Region.'' Page 1, line 9——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent for the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
[The substitute amendment of Mr. Bereuter to the amendment offered by Mr. Menendez appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman——
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized——
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. For 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Mr. Menendez has made the argument why Latin America and the Caribbean needs to have some protection in this area, as we divide up a smaller and smaller pot of funds for AID for development assistance. And his arguments relate just as much to the Asia Pacific Region.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. Without this change, without the adoption of my amendment to his amendment, you put that region in a much more difficult position.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. May I ask the gentleman a question? If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, does he intend to support the amendment?
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. I do.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Then I have no opposition to his amendment, and I would support it.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman. I yield my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Who else is seeking? Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment. You know, Latin America is at a crucial juncture in the transition from military dictatorship to an authoritarian rule to democracy and economic reform.
I would like to commend my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for his leadership on this. And as the chairman of the Subcommittee, I wholeheartedly support and endorse this amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we see some great bipartisan movement here. I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey on his leadership and appropriate concern for this region of the world and that they not be shortchanged, as well as acknowledging Chairman Bereuter's concern for the part of the world under his jurisdiction.
They are both absolutely right, which usually is cause for a great fight here in the Committee. But in this instance, I think that this entire matter can be worked out without any region having an advantage over any other region. As long as this parity works, and both sides support it, Mr. Chairman, I think we can proceed to a vote.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to add to what everybody has said, in the fact that having been in Central America off and on for the last 10 years, all they say is, every time things work out wherever you all participate, as soon as things start looking good, you pull the string and leave us.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
And I would like to thank Mr. Menendez for giving some support to the fact that we should not run off and leave probably the poorest bunch of countries. The Pacific Rim is nice, you know what I mean. They are all a bunch of tigers there. They are eating us for breakfast. They have got economies that make us look pretty dumb in our right.
The Central American group are somewhat a long way off from that, and they need all the help they can get. And I would like to just speak out for, not only Central America—but everybody talks about—not everybody, but a statement was made that the poorest countries in the world are in the Pacific Rim. Anybody that thinks Haiti is not the poorest country in the world, just has not been around very much. And I would like to at least add that to the group that need the assistance.
Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes, sure.
Mr. BEREUTER. I certainly do not agree with your characterization of Haiti or some other countries in the region. But do not forget Bangladesh is not a tiger.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger. Is there anyone else seeking recognition?
If not, the question is now on the Bereuter Amendment. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Bereuter Amendment is carried. And now we are on the underlying amendment by Mr. Menendez. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Menendez Amendment is carried.
The next measure will be Mr. Campbell and Title V.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell. In section 511(a) of the bill—(1) redesignate the text as paragraph (1); and (2) add at the end the following: ''(2) Of the amounts made available under section 502(a)——
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Campbell appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. By unanimous consent, the amendment is considered as read. Mr. Campbell is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleagues, this deals with aid to the least developed and most-in-need countries of the world. The amendment itself refers to specific items, and the provisions in the amendment need to be explained.
The purpose of the amendment is to give $2.5 million more to the development assistance fund. This was premised upon our previous discussion of my good friend and colleague from California and me. We are $2.5 million short. But instead of giving it to the foundation that was in question, which caused my colleague some concern, I am suggesting that it go to the development assistance fund.
And it is coming from a proportionate reduction in aid to Israel and aid to Egypt. This is the fundamental vote of conscience that I believe I will cast, at least in this second half of this year.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The issue is, shall we reduce by about 12 hundredths of 1 percent the aid that we give for economic assistance to Israel, and about 12 hundredths of 1 percent of the aid we give for economic assistance to Egypt to give to the poorest of the poor, instead? It will go to development assistance, which is going to mean Sub-Saharan Africa, some assistance in Latin America, some assistance in India.
My friends and colleagues, let me just offer you the numbers. I begin by emphasizing, I am not touching military assistance. To those who have a very legitimate concern about military assistance to our ally and friend, Israel, and to Egypt, this is not the subject of this amendment. But economic assistance to an economy which is far above that of the poorest of the poor seems to be not the will of the majority of the American people.
Here are the numbers. Presently, the United States, on a per-capita basis in economic aid, gives $215 per person in Israel, $14 per person in Egypt, and $1.73 per person in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is wrong; it does not represent the priorities of our country—17 cents for every human in India, $1.20 for every human in Latin America and the Caribbean.
I repeat, I am speaking of economic aid only. There are military interests. There is necessity to support allies. I am not touching those.
Suppose we further talk about GNP. There are some countries that are very, very backward in the world, and there are some countries that are well along the path of development in the world. The GNP per capita in Israel is $15,920. The GNP per capita in Egypt is $790. The GNP per capita in Sub-Saharan Africa is $357. And we are giving $1.73 per capita to Sub-Saharan Africa, $36 per capita to Egypt, $215 per capita in economic aid to Israel.
The number that I am suggesting is $2.5 million. It is a very small number. But I have tried, as everyone here will note, to get more assistance to the poorest of the poor this year. I tried on the last amendment regarding Africa, and I tried every other source I could.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
It is clear to me, there will not be new money. There will not be an increase in funding. We are committed to not increasing the tax load on the American taxpayer, and I agree with that. So among the dollars that we have, let us allocate them according to the heart and the conscience of our people.
Mr. Chairman, that is my amendment. I suggest that we increase development assistance for the poorest of the poor by $2.5 million this year, and by $4 million the next year, for the purpose that development assistance for those most in need might be increased, and that the amount be reduced proportionately by 12 hundredths of 1 percent of economic assistance to Israel and 12 hundredths of 1 percent of economic assistance to Egypt. And I reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, surprises, surprises, I oppose the amendment.
But I do find it strange that in the context of looking at a foreign assistance bill that has been cut far too much over the last 10 years, that even in its present level, which was supported by large numbers of people in this room last year, it failed to meet many of the obligations.
And in an amendment authored by the most articulate exponent of creative scoring in the Congress—and dynamic scoring—in the Congress of the United States, the notion that we should not get into some anal retentive box of thinking of a constrained view of revenues and appropriations that the need to find the smallest of small offsets is more intended to make a statement, I think, then to find a source of revenue. There is no need to do this in the sense of looking for some other place to take the money.
And so I would suggest that it is the principle that—and it is perfectly fair to do so—it is the intention to establish the principle that these categories are not inviolate. That is more the motivation here than in the finding of the offset.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
And I would argue that this level of foreign assistance, which has an importance and a level of symbolism that goes beyond simply the amount of money that is involved for these countries is far more important than challenging the principle and viability of the Camp David earmarks that are being challenged by this amendment.
If we want to find this money, we are talking about such a small amount, that there are a thousand different ways to do it. I would argue very strongly that the principle of the Camp David Accords not be challenged in this way, and I would urge the——
Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I think some people may have gotten a sense I was not entirely enamored of the Egypt Amendment a little while ago. And I think for the very same reason, this is absolutely the wrong time to take actions that have far greater impacts on the psychology of the region and those participating in the peace process.
I think that there is no question that we need to do more in a number of areas. But at a time where the peace process is in such a delicate state, and frankly somewhat battered, it seems to be a mistake to raise this issue. This is an issue we are going to have to deal with in the broadest of contexts. But I would think that we should let the Administration try to get this peace process back on track and to some conclusion. Yielding back——
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to reclaim——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN [continuing]. my time, the last statement I wanted to make was simply that I think it would be far more effective for this committee to play a role in going to the leadership of this House to establish that the issues of adequate levels of development assistance and commitment to international relations funding, which I have to say you, in this bill, have tried to do far more than has been done in the past session of Congress—and I congratulate you for that—is a far more important principle to make. And to expend the energy not to find the way to redistribute within these constrained limits the most—small amount of money—infinitesimal—but rather to focus on enlarging the pie. This is the function of government that has been cut more than any other function of government since 1985. That is what is wrong. The commitment to development assistance, to sustainable development, to U.S. leadership, is a far bigger issue. And that is where I think we should be spending our energy.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time——
Mr. BERMAN. Am I controlling time for the opponents or something?
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Chairman GILMAN. Is that the way it is working?
Chairman GILMAN. No, we are operating under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. BERMAN. Oh, OK.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, reluctantly, talk against the Campbell Amendment. Reluctantly, because I think Mr. Campbell is quite courageous in trying to find new sources of money, and hit this issue head on. I guess the reason that I am not for it—well, there are several.
First of all, we have found $2.5 million for 1998 and $4 million for 1999 out of development assistance funds. Now, you can say that that will be taking from other areas. It probably will.
But it seems to me that it takes some areas which are understandably under the same set of umbrellas, rather than reaching out to something else. You really can not compare numbers. I mean, the amount of money we give to Botswana is far in excess of what we give to Malawi. And yet, Malawi needs it far more than Botswana, but we do that. And we do it for a variety of reasons. I would hate to tamper, at this particular time, with another part of the world that is a fulcrum part of the world for us. And, therefore, I reluctantly, again, oppose the amendment. I yield.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Houghton.
Mr. Rothman.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to acknowledge Mr. Campbell's good heart and consistent good intentions on a whole host of areas, but in particular, at least today, with regards to poor, hungry, suffering people. Having said that, I want to speak in opposition to his amendment for the following reasons.
Why did the United States first decide to give aid to Egypt and Israel? Presumably, it was a hard-headed, geo-political decision that this was a vital part of the world, vital to our national security. I do not think those facts have decreased in seriousness or importance to the United States, yet the level of funding has not changed for 10 years.
Look on the other hand at Europe and NATO, and the tens of billions of dollars we spend in NATO. In the Middle East, Israel is the only democracy, the only real military ally we have, where we can store our military supplies, where our soldiers and sailors can go to be healed when they are wounded in the Persian Gulf, where we can over-fly. We can not say that about any other country, virtually, in that region.
Yet, we spend tens of billions in NATO, and one can ask, do we still have the same interests that justify those expenditures? I think the answer is, no.
With regards to Mr. Campbell's point about comparing the amount of money we spend in Israel in economic aid versus some other country, what about a country like Iran? Those people are suffering. Iraq, those poor people are suffering. We spend nothing for them.
The point is not that we have an insensitivity to suffering and hungry people. But we have an obligation, in addition to helping poor people, in supporting those interests of the United States that keep our country free and strong and support our allies as well. The whole west, Japan and the United States have critical interests in the Middle East, and we give this aid because it is in the interests of the United States.
If there can be other places in the world, such as NATO, to look to, to get these dollars, I would be happy to consider that. But I think we get more than our money's worth from these levels of contributions, despite the fact that the level of contribution has not changed, not gone up, for 10 years.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Thanks very much.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Campbell Amendment. And this is exactly the right time that we, in this Congress, send a message to both sides in the Middle East, that we should not be taken for granted. And what Mr. Campbell is saying is that we will not continue forever to send our money at the same level forever and ever. What we see going on in the peace process justifies some skepticism on the part of those of us who are providing that money.
What we have is an attitude problem holding up peace in the Middle East. And it is not just on the part of one side or the other. You have some people who have not—let us say who have stepped away from the spirit of Camp David and stepped away from the positive attitudes which dominated a few years ago, and now we see other types of individuals or maybe those same individuals, who have been captured by a negative spirit actually not moving forward as they should.
And I think Mr. Campbell is right on target. This money is supposed to be a benevolent act on the part of the United States of America to promote peace. And if you got people who are throwing road blocks up on both sides of this situation in the Middle East and with Israel and with Egypt and the other Arab powers and the Palestinians, as well, let's give them a message. They are going to have to start working this out.
Otherwise, there are a lot of other people in the world, especially in Africa, where we see tens of thousands of human beings living in the most wretched of conditions. I mean, this is an emergency case in Africa, where these human beings' lives are at stake. And perhaps to send that money to them and to save some of their lives sends exactly the right kind of message in the Middle East right now. So I commend Mr. Campbell, and will support his amendment.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Fox.
Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Mr. Rothman. I think they are right on target. I think that my colleague and good friend, Mr. Campbell, certainly is attempting to assist those in need. And his forward thinking ideas, as always are appreciated.
However, I believe it is important to note that the United States does not, I do not think, believe—whether it be the State Department or this Congress—believe for a minute that Israel or Egypt has taken U.S. aid for granted; quite to the contrary. And I think we send the wrong signal by decreasing aid and saying we no longer believe that you are going to be moving forward, or that you are important to our country.
It is absolutely essential that we maintain plenty of traditional levels, that we work together, as Mr. Campbell has already been successful in the African development fund. But I believe that it is essential today that we vote to keep the aid as it has been for Israel and Egypt.
I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very difficult vote, because it pits one interest against another. Mr. Campbell is right, and not for the reasons that Mr. Rohrabacher has stated. Because I find no language in this amendment to support Mr. Rohrabacher's arguments.
First, in the Middle East, we have been supportive of a very difficult, fragile on-again, off-again process, which is in great peril right now. And I do not know that it advances the cause to discuss the reasons at this juncture. But, certainly, all will agree that that process is on the precipice. It is my view that reducing even by a very minuscule amount the funding of the nations involved in that process would not advance the cause of peace one bit.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
On the other hand, Mr. Campbell is right in his arguments that while we have invested much in the Middle East, we have invested not enough in Africa. And, certainly, the poorest of the poor deserves our attention as well, and the amount that he proposes, in and of itself, is also minuscule.
But what I think the amendment does, and I do not believe that those are the intentions, but certainly, the unintended consequences, is it puts us in the awkward position of being piranhas—piranhas. I collect fish.
[Laughter.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ballenger——
Mr. ACKERMAN. We should not—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. ACKERMAN. It was a long pause. It was a kibitz on the side.
[Laughter.]
Mr. ACKERMAN. We should not be devouring each other and setting one interest against the other. For this small amount of money, we should not look to diminish one process to advance another very important cause. And I think, Mr. Chairman, the thing that we should be doing in this particular case is to find the money. That money is not difficult to find in the dimension of the budget we have.
And Mr. Berman's suggestion that we are looking at this process so often in little boxes and we can not move out of them. Move out of the box. You can solve the problem. We have gone all over the lot for causes that are very important—Mr. Smith certainly was one of them—for large amounts of money.
For $2.5 million for what Mr. Campbell is suggesting, I would think that we can look elsewhere and come up with additional funding, somehow, to be able to meet his concerns. In the meantime, I think it would not be a good idea to take it from the source that he indicates.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ballenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to fall in line with Mr. Campbell and also Mr. Rohrabacher in the fact that I know Camp David was a wonderful accomplishment. It was 19 years ago. I do not know the commitment that was made in that agreement as to how long the financial assistance would go on. But I think the discussion we are having now would mean that possibly my grandchildren could come here and debate whether we should reduce this or not.
It is such a minuscule amount. And I agree with Mr. Berman. I think the basic idea is both Israel and Egypt ought to recognize that if nothing is done along the lines on their part, somewhere along the line, they ought to recognize this is not a continuous funding forever by the United States.
I mean, I do not know whether when we bought peace between Turkey and Greece with money, did this commit our whole history of mankind to continue the funding there. The same thing is true, I think, as far as the Camp David agreements. I am sure that when we made the Camp David agreements, nobody thought that we were going to continue to give billions of dollars year after year after year after year. And although this is a small amount of money, I agree, somehow with Mr. Berman, that it does show that somewhere in the future, this money should be reduced.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to join with those who are opposed to the Campbell Amendment. We have a $1.7-trillion budget. He seeks, out of a good heart and for good reasons, $2.5 million or $4 million for the poorest of poor countries.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
We ought to try to persuade the leadership of this House to increase the total amount we are going to spend on the 150 account by those small amounts, and I think by more than those small amounts. I know that there may very well be an amendment at the end of this markup, to increase to the President's numbers the total amount we will spend on development assistance. And that would do far more for the very poorest of the poor than to take these very small amounts and add it to our inadequate efforts on developmental assistance.
But in taking these small amounts from the aid we are providing to Israel and Egypt, we are in effect making violate that which has been inviolate. We are announcing that we are no longer dedicated to the Camp David Accords and the aid provided there. And I think that that would be a mistake. We would do very little to help the poorest of the poor, and we would do a lot to undermine our position in the Middle East.
And it is true that Israel is not the poorest of the poor. Even Egypt is richer than many of the countries that we provide aid to. But Camp David and the aid that we provide pursuant to Camp David is not just an effort to help the poorest countries. It is an attempt to try to bring peace to one of the most troubled regions of the world.
And it is not true that we have not cut aid. We have cut aid every year by the amount of U.S. inflation. And we could argue in another policy area whether we are computing the CPI correctly or not. But, in fact, every year we do cut by a percentage, and that percentage is the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar.
So it is difficult for all of us to vote against additional development aid for the poorest countries in the world. But the way to help those very poor countries is not to take a slap at the Camp David peace process, but rather to work toward peace and to hope that there will be a time when aid to the Middle East does not need special augmentation and can be evaluated solely on the basis of economic need.
But as long as there are the forces bent on Israel's destruction, we have got to give aid to that region of the world that focuses on strategic need, as well as development need.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to speak for 1 minute in support of the Campbell Amendment. I think that we have to be very careful about judging intent. And I think we have come to the conclusion that his intent is right, and the question is, is it good or is it bad for Israel?
I would like us to separate very clearly in our minds, military aid from economic aid. Because I think we are all rock-hard supporters of Israel. And nobody is calling in question of military support of Israel. The issue here is economic aid, which I think is very different in terms of peace process, than military aid.
And out of the $1.2 billion in economic aid that goes there, some people, even the Prime Minister himself, have called in to question, ''is it or isn't it good for Israel.'' I mean, Prime Minister Netanyahu was the one that suggested, as a candidate, that Israel should phase out accepting foreign aid from the United States over the next 4 years (by the year 2000).
I will yield in one moment. I can see you.
Maybe we should look at phasing out economic aid over 4 years. Because, basically, 50 percent of Israel's GDP is tied to government, and about 43 percent of an Israel citizen's personal income goes toward taxes, and if you look at the development that is taking place around the world, for instance, in the Tiger countries, I mean, certainly the intellectual capital is in place in Israel to be a Tiger country with Tiger-like growth. Some argue that the thing that is slowing it down is, in fact, economic aid from the United States that, in essence, Israel allows for a welfare state that hurts Israel.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I say this as a supporter of Israel. I would like to say that I think it is simply tied to the issue of fairness. Again, $2 million bucks in one direction or the other, I do not think, changes the peace process. But I think it is something that is fair. I yield back. Oh no, excuse me, I yield to Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I do not think that there is a decisive difference between military and economic aid. Israel would not need, and I would not support economic aid for Israel if it did not face the security concerns.
There will come a time when we have long-term peace in the Middle East, and at that point, I would like to see Israel providing economic aid to poor countries, but in fact, money is fungible, and the economic aid that we provide to Israel does not provide for a welfare state.
In fact, Israel has moved dramatically in the direction of successful free market economics. The money that we provide to Israel for economic aid helps support a government which has the heaviest defense burden per capita, per GNP—measure it as you will—of any country on the planet.
And until we have long-term peace in the Middle East, we have to support the Israeli Government, and we also have to support those poor countries in the Arab world that have made peace with Israel, as imperfect as that peace may be. This is security aid. We may label it as economic aid, but it is security aid, nevertheless.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a great admiration for my colleague from California's commitment to Africa, and he continuously demonstrates it. I share that with him as the Ranking Member on the Africa Subcommittee. We have cast our votes today in that regard, but I cannot share with him this specific effort.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
You know, we are all tempted to look for pots of money in a very difficult situation. You know, maybe we would be better suited if we were willing to support, as I am, and I believe others are, a rising tide in the types of monies to take the name of the show of the Republicans that the former chairman, Haley Barbour, used to have, rising tide.
Well, you know, in this respect, if we had a rising tide on the numbers here, which I think is eminent sense for our national interests—security, national interests, national economic interests in terms of what Madeleine Albright has said, you cannot have foreign policy on the cheap.
In this specific attempt, however, we get into the process of that temptation which I might seek to do for Latin America, or others may do for Asia. We begin a cannibalism that I think is very dangerous, particularly in a part of the world in which we have a national interest, and a national security interest, a major trading partner with the United States, a geostrategic interest, as well as a significant security interest for the United States.
And the messages we send to this part of the world at this particular time are crucial, and I think this is a very dangerous message, so I would like to have the Administration come forth and please tell me what is your position on this proposition.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez, I thought you would never ask. Our position is virtually identical to yours, and you have made, all of you here on the debates on the previous two amendments, as well as that one, many of the same points that the Secretary of State and the Administration would make, which is the real problem is there are not enough resources devoted to this portion of the budget.
On Mr. Campbell's amendment, we oppose very strongly cutting aid to Israel and Egypt at this delicate time in the peace process for reasons that have been stated here. However, we support your transfer to development assistance. This bill is right now in excess of $400 million below the President's request, and we are talking here about——
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin, if you would hold up one moment. The Committee will come to order. Ms. Larkin has the floor.
Ms. LARKIN. Thank you. I just wanted to strongly associate the Administration with the remarks made here, on both sides of the aisle, about the extremely limited resources that we have to devote to these critical needs. That fact was evident in the debate relating to proportionality in terms of what is spent in Latin America and in Asia, and the earlier debates on Africa.
We need more money in this account, and I would appreciate your efforts to help us get it there. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had not intended to start my comments this way, but in light of what Ms. Larkin had said, I am reminded that Mr. Hamilton and I sent a letter to the Administration last year asking that it increase the funding $1 billion for the 150 account because of some of the concerns that you have here, even though that is not a very popular position in the Congress, or among my colleagues.
But I did not expect that the Administration would be proposing to spend as much as it is on the United Nations, and paying for arrearages which this Congress has specifically repudiated, arrearages which are not arrearages as far as we are concerned, since the 103d Congress reiterated, and the 104th Congress.
So I am unhappy with the way that you have proposed to expand the larger amount of money that you are asking this Congress to support. We ought to be defending our national interests by adequately supporting our consulates, and embassies abroad. We ought to be putting more money into development assistance and child survival.
I was here my first year when the Camp David accord signing was on the North Lawn of the White House, quite a dramatic event, but that has been nearly 19 years ago, my colleagues, and I am afraid that what has happened is that Israel and Egypt, to some extent, and people in this country, have come to think of the aid for these two countries as entitlements.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I am very reluctant to oppose what the Administration is suggesting, what Mr. Menendez has just said. I do not like the idea of cutting a small amount for symbolic reasons right now, but I do think we need to add to this discussion, as painful as it is, and I am very much encouraged by what Prime Minister Netanyahu said last year when he said that they would be coming to this Congress shortly and asking for a reduction, even if it is a relatively small reduction in aid provided.
I would hope that President Mubarak would join him in that request, and that next year at this time, we would not only have these two leaders, or whoever might be the leaders of those countries, coming to us with at least symbolic requests for reductions. I would hope that the American groups that lobby in support of aid to Egypt and Israel would also be supportive of those changes.
There has been a lack of good will and effort on the part of some people in both countries. There are terrorists and people who are not interested in constructive peacekeeping on both sides, and some accommodation has to be made.
You know perfectly well that many of our constituents believe that we are spending too much money on Egypt and Israel. We hear about it in our letters. We believe that they understand, I understand it is frustrating year after year, to see a lack of progress in peace in that region. It is not easy, and I try to explain to them the difficulties involved.
But when peace is close at hand, we have seen too much timidity, and we have seen too much delay in implementing it when it is at hand, and so it is not only time to get on with peacekeeping in an active role by both parties, or in many cases, more than two parties, but I think we need to expect and send a message to the Prime Minister and to the President that next year, we expect to see some reductions in the amount requested from this government.
Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman—I will recognize him just shortly—was right in suggesting that inflation is causing a reduction of those amounts, but it is nothing compared to the reduction in the amounts that we have available for the other important foreign policy and security reasons of this country.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I want to associate myself with virtually everything you said. I just want to make one point though, which is that to demand that there be peace when both sides to the process are not equally committed, and I am not just talking about Israel and the Palestinians. I am talking about Israel in a neighborhood where there are Arab countries, for example, perpetually at war with other Arab countries, and to demand that, for example, that either Israel or Egypt solve those problems and create peace in the Middle East amongst those Arab countries who are not interested, perhaps, certainly not ready to make peace amongst themselves, is not a fair judgment for the American people to understand.
Mr. BEREUTER. I am reclaiming my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly.
Mr. BEREUTER. I understand the gentleman's point. I agree with it. There has been unequal effort on the part, and there are complicating factors, and there will always be complicating factors.
The point I wanted to make is when peace is there and at hand, and there are possibilities to advance it, we need to expect a rapid reaction and a positive reaction from all the parties that are officially involved, and I yield up my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. King.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I am sorry, Mr. Hastings is next.
Mr. KING. OK.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will not take very much time. Mr. Chairman, pretty obviously, this is a discussion that needs to be had. I have talked with my good friend, and he is my good friend from California, as well as my good friend from New York, and our efforts are to try to do what was right by Africa, and both of them are to be commended by all of us on this committee, and in this Congress and nation for their commitment and continuing efforts in that regard.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Specifically, Mr. Houghton assisted by going out and with assistance of the fine young staff, of finding the necessary monies to do what we had set out to do in a very limited way, which was not enough.
We find ourselves now in the position of pitting one against the other, and I, as one person, have said to Mr. Campbell, that while I cannot support his position, I do feel very strongly that it is a discussion that we must have both in this committee, and in this Congress, and that we should proceed.
I would urge my chairman of the Asian Committee and others that quoted the luncheon statement of Mr. Netanyahu to be reminded that by evening's end, some portions of that statement had changed. There may be those who wish to be delicate would not say that the Prime Minister was riding the high of having been elected at that moment, and may have, as typical of Presidents, including our own, misspoken for just a moment.
That said, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Congressman from New York, my real good friend, Mr. Ackerman, by saying that this is going to be a very, very difficult vote. I want to alert my colleagues, while I cannot support Mr. Campbell, and I have expressed this to him, if he does request a vote, I do believe that it is something that should be voted on, and I for one, if no other person did, or saw fit not to, would second the vote, and then vote against it.
I do not think it is right for us to pit one against the other, but that is what we have been doing here in this Congress more times than not, and what we should be doing is finding among our resources, as meager as they may be, the sufficient money to proceed with the necessary foreign assistance.
One final comment, Doug Bereuter could not have been more correct, and I offer this to the Administration in the bipartisan spirit that I am sure that he meant it. We need to find ways to spend our money in an appropriate manner, and by not supporting our consulates, and by not supporting the foreign services offices around this nation, we are doing this nation a terrible, terrible disservice.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position, and again, I would just like to commend Mr. Campbell for his courageous stand. Thanks.
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. King.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just intend to make several very brief points. First of all, at this point in time when there is such a critical juncture in the peace process, there is no meaningful distinction between economic and military aid.
The fact is that any reduction at all to Israel and Egypt would be perceived as a change in the American position, and it would destabilize what I feel is a very, very precarious situation anyway right now. We cannot be sending destabilizing messages at this time.
Mr. Campbell is operating from the purest of intentions. I fully understand where he is coming from, but the fact is that it is so sensitive right now in the Middle East that any action by us would be perceived by the forces over there as a backing away of the American commitment. I feel it would be dangerous, and therefore I am constrained to vote no.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of comments. The very first thing is I think that it is obvious the position of the Administration is where we ought to be. We need additional funds in this category. Unfortunately, they are not there.
I do recall about 3 years ago we reduced the aid to Africa by $200 million, I believe, and we simultaneously raised some other areas, and I believe the area of funds to Israel and Egypt were the benefactor, perhaps with some other countries.
Mr. Campbell, you are right on track here. I agree with you. We have got to put the money where it is needed. Thank you.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition? If not, we are about ready to vote on this measure. I would just like to remind my colleagues that while I am respectful of the motivation of Mr. Campbell, I do strongly oppose this amendment.
We are increasing development money as a result of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Houghton's efforts, and we are prepared to try to go even further, providing we can find some funding in other areas, but let's not take it out of an issue that is so sensitive at this time as we are trying to bring the parties back to the peace table.
Accordingly, I move to defeat the Campbell amendment. I ask my colleagues to defeat the Campbell amendment, and the Campbell amendment is now before the Committee. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The noes appear to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, on that I ask for a recorded vote please.
Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote has been requested. Is there a second?
[Aye.]
Chairman GILMAN. Is there a sufficient second for a recorded vote? The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling?
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
Mr. HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton?
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Manzullo?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim?
Mr. KIM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Sanford?
Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
Mr. Salmon?
Mr. SALMON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton?
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. Campbell?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Fox?
Mr. FOX. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
Mr. McHugh?
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Mr. Graham?
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
Mr. Blunt?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran?
Mr. MORAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes no.
Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
Mr. Lantos?
[No Response.]
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman?
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez?
Mr. MARTINEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes no.
Mr. Payne?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney?
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no.
Ms. Danner?
Ms. DANNER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
Mr. Hilliard?
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Capps?
Mr. CAPPS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes no.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes no.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr Leach.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
Mr. Lantos.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Andrews.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 9 ayes and 32 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to. We now turn back to the Sherman amendment. Pursuant to the order of the Committee, we will now proceed with the Sherman amendment. Pending is a Burton substitute amendment. Who is seeking recognition? Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have put together an amendment to Mr. Burton's substitute which combines his text and my text.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman has an amendment at the desk. Would the clerk report the amendment? Would the clerk distribute the amendment?
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman. Insert in lieu of the section and title, the following text, and re-letter sections accordingly,——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
[The Sherman amendment to the Burton substitute appears in the appendix.]
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, as amended by my amendment to his substitute, this text leaves in my subsection A and B, leaves in Mr. Burton's text, but addresses Mr. Rohrabacher's concerns by inserting the words of all ethnic groups within the regions so as to make it clear that our aid in Nagorno-Karabagh or any other place within the Caucusus is to be distributed to those of all ethnic groups. My hope is that Mr. Burton will agree to this amendment to his substitute and we can all save a substantial amount of Committee time. We have been trying to reach Mr. Burton prior to this discussion. But, I would yield to Mr. Burton if it is for the purpose of embracing my amendment to his substitute.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Now, wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You will yield to me if I embrace your substitute, is that correct?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. Otherwise, I will wax eloquently for the remainder of my 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON. Then I think you should wax eloquently.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman would please continue.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think we all agree that some small portion of our development aid to the former Soviet Union should go to the embattled and blockaded peoples of Nagorno-Karabagh. The question is are we going to do this in a way that scrupulously avoids taking a position on whether Nagorno-Karabagh is an independent country as it claims, or whether in order to get this aid, the people of Nagorno-Karabagh will have to see enshrined in our statutes the Azerbaijani political view?
There are three ways that we can write this section. We can do so in a way that implies that there is no independent Nagorno-Karabagh, that there are only two governments in the area.
We can do so, and I could have written this amendment, and I could have the whole ANC out there as a cheering section if I had written this amendment, so as to refer to Nagorno-Karabagh as the republic of Nagorno-Karabagh and I did not do that either.
With the language as we have it here, we recognize the status of Nagorno-Karabagh is unsettled and we provide aid to needy people. The other advantage of including my language along with that of Mr. Burton's is that his language provides only a sense of Congress.
The language that I provide in addition to the language that is already in his substitute to my amendment provides a clear authorization to the State Department and our aid officials to provide aid in the region and eliminates any question that we could not provide aid to Nagorno-Karabagh because the Azerbaijani Government might not want aid to go to that area.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I have done all I possibly can to make this a neutral amendment, a humanitarian amendment. I have taken into consideration those who had questions about my original amendment and I hope that we would have a positive vote on my amendment to Mr. Burton's substitute. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I will.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it the intent of your legislation as you have written it to permit American aid to be given to refugees of any ethnic background in that region which will include the territory of Azerbaijan?
Mr. SHERMAN. I believe that it makes it clear that wherever the aid is provided, whether it is within the territory controlled by the Azerbaijani Government, in the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabagh or in Armenia. Any of those three areas that our aid would be to all and any ethnic group and the aid would go to those who are needy regardless of their ethnicity.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, earlier we heard that there was some kind of restriction. Is there some kind of legal restriction on aid to Azerbaijan? And does your legislation then supersede that restriction on aid to Azerbaijan? Can we have a ruling for that from the State Department?
Ms. LARKIN. I am sorry, Mr. Rohrabacher, I could not hear all of your question.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Earlier, were we not told that a restriction of aid to Azerbaijan——
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, if I could clarify. My amendment deals with aid to and through non-governmental organizations. It would not affect the continuing restrictions that we have on not giving aid directly to the Azerbaijani Government. Likewise, it does not authorize aid to the government, disputed government, of Nagorno-Karabagh. So in those two regions our aid would all be non-governmental.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
One thing I would like to do is clarify for the record at this point that when we use the term non-governmental organization in this code section, that includes the International Red Cross which sometimes is not thought of as an NGO but for purposes of the section in our report will be.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Burton of Indiana.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Young fellow with grey hair.
Chairman GILMAN. Blond hair.
Mr. BURTON. What was that?
Chairman GILMAN. Young fellow with blond hair.
Mr. BURTON. Would the State Department, Ms. Larkin, tell us if they are in sympathy with the amendment to my amendment?
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. No, Mr. Burton, the State Department cannot support this amendment for two reasons. One is that it does not give us any authority that we do not already have. We may already provide humanitarian assistance to this region. We may not provide government-to-government assistance, but we may do it through the entities that are described here. We currently do it through the ICRC. And the second issue is the political problem that we discussed earlier which has not been remedied by Mr. Sherman's modifications to his amendment.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Ms. Larkin. Mr. Chairman, I still oppose this or I do oppose this amendment to my substitute because it still implies a separate entity. It takes sides. It does not help to address what I see as the underlying problems in the original amendment. It simply reintroduces them. And so that I would urge a no vote on the amendment to the substitute I propose.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman, do you have a unanimous request?
Mr. SHERMAN. I have a unanimous consent request at the beginning of my amendment to Mr. Burton's substitute, that the words read, and this is text I think drawn up by your staff, ''in lieu of the section and title add the following:'' And ''insert the following at the commencement of the Burton substitute, and renumber the sections accordingly.''
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to. We are now on the Sherman amendment to the Burton substitute. All in favor of the Sherman amendment to the Burton substitute, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The noes have it. The noes appear to have it.
Mr. SHERMAN. I would call for a recorded vote
Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote is requested. Is there a second for the recorded vote?
[Aye.]
Chairman GILMAN. Sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. This is on the Sherman amendment to the Burton substitute.
[Pause.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling.
[No Response.]
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes no.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King.
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim.
Mr. KIM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no.
Mr. Salmon.
Mr. SALMON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no.
Mr. Fox.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Mr. Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
Mr. Blunt.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes no.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes no.
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes no.
Mr. Payne.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes no.
Ms. McKinney.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no.
Ms. Danner.
Ms. DANNER. No.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no.
Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Does the gentlelady have a point of order? The gentlelady wants to know how she was recorded.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. You are recorded as not voting.
Ms. MCKINNEY. I vote aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. Would you call the absentees, please?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox.
Mr. FOX. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
Mr. Blunt.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Lantos.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
[No Response.]
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. Am I recorded?
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will advise Mr. Manzullo how he has been recorded.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo is recorded as not voting.
Mr. MANZULLO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition? The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 14 ayes and 23 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is defeated. Now we will consider the original Burton amendment. Mr. Burton, did you want to speak on your original amendment?
Mr. BURTON. I think the issue has been covered sufficiently, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to call for a vote.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The vote is now on the Burton amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed.
[No.]
Chairman GILMAN. The ayes appear to have it. The Burton amendment is agreed to. We now turn to the Sherman amendment. The Sherman amendment as amended.
Mr. SHERMAN. I would ask for an aye vote.
Chairman GILMAN. All in favor of the Sherman amendment as amended signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed.
[No.]
Chairman GILMAN. The ayes seem to have it. The Sherman amendment is agreed to. Mr. Berman is recognized for this amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the Berman amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Berman. After chapter 6 of title IV insert the following: ''Chapter 7——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Berman appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This goes back to Title IV which by unanimous consent, the Committee gave me the privilege of doing and this is the amendment I had on that subject. It is called the Indonesian Military Assistance Accountability Act. It is an amendment that is similar, but not identical to recently introduced legislation which the Chairman as well as others on the Committee including Mr. Smith and Mr. Lantos have co-sponsored. We have made some revisions in this bill to clarify the intent and to update certain of its findings.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The bill requires a certification before certain by the President——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman, will you withhold a moment? The Committee will please come to order. Mr. Berman has the floor. He is entitled to be heard. If there are any conversations, please take them to the anteroom. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Yes. Essentially, this bill focuses on what is happening in Indonesia, particularly in the area of human rights. It requires a certification before certain kinds of military assistance directly related to human rights treatment are handled. It also prohibits the regular, but not the expanded IMET program from continuing without that certification. It provides a national interest waiver. The language has been worked out in such a way that I believe the opposition to it is much modified. At the same time, I think it is a very important principle that would be established if it were adopted which is that we look at the conduct of human rights in relationship to the kind of military equipment that we transfer and we establish a nexus between those two through the certification process. I would urge the Committee's adoption.
Mr. HAMILTON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. HAMILTON. I just want to commend the gentleman from California. He has done some good work on this amendment. He balances our interests here. On the one hand the amendment recognizes the need for a cooperative relationship with Indonesia. On the other hand, the amendment recognizes that the human rights problems are very serious. You have handled it very skillfully. It is a good amendment and I urge the Committee to vote for it.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very, very much. Shall I yield back the balance of my time?
Chairman GILMAN. Anyone else seeking recognition on the Sherman amendment?
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the gentleman for his constructive effort on this major amendment and I appreciate the accommodation he has given me on several points.
I am not enthused about the amendment, but I am appreciative of the gentleman's effort. And I think it will be a very important effort that I can be supportive of if it ends up being an alternative to amendments that might have been offered by Mr. Wolf or Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Frank. I think we should be very, very careful to do what is right, to do what is important to advance human rights, to advance our concerns about democracy and pluralism and human rights in Indonesia.
But also to remember that some people come at us outside this Congress perhaps having some impact within the Congress from an ethnic or parochial vantage point. And if you take a look at the districts where Mr. Frank and Mr. Kennedy come from, you will understand that ethnic issue.
And you will understand that Portugal has not been a good colonial power in turning over East Timor in extraordinarily bad condition. And today it would appear that at least there is some validity in the fact that Portugal is unwilling to sit down with Indonesia and try to work out some solutions in what happens in East Timor.
And I think my colleagues also will want to be concerned with what is happening in Iranjawa and not just focus on East Timor. And so this language the gentleman has offered with some suggestions from me also goes to human rights problems in that area, as we come to the years when we are going to have President Suharto no longer in office because of his age, and since Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world in population today. Yes, that is right. Fourth. Larger than Russia today. The largest country, of course, in the world and a secular one, a country that has been very constructive in many regional fora in the area.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
I think we need to take into account those areas of positive contributions, but never be deterred from insisting that the military and other elements in their society not engage in human rights abuses, as clearly as has been the case on a number of occasions. I do think the Indonesians have made a good effort in establishing a human rights commission which is independent.
It should be more generously funded than it is, but it now has an office in East Timor. I would encourage them to open one in Iranjawa if they have not. But I think the gentleman gives us an alternative that is much more constructive than one we may face on the floor. And I urge my colleagues to resist those amendments when they come on the floor. I think the gentleman has found the right balance and I commend him for finding it. I thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Berman for offering his amendment. I rise and ask for a yes vote on the amendment which would prohibit most military assistance and arms transfers to the government of Indonesia until that government complies with a few basic human rights benchmarks.
For over 20 years, international human rights advocates have been calling attention to abuses by the Indonesian Government and its occupation of East Timor. There is evidence that the U.S. military assistance has helped to further the atrocities in East Timor.
As Members know, Indonesia's armed forces invaded East Timor in 1975 only weeks after East Timor had attained independence from Portugal. Since then, the Indonesian Army has carried out a campaign of what amounts to ethnic cleansing against the Timorese through a program of forced migration. Persecution has been particularly harsh against the Christian majority.
More than 200,000 Timorese out of a total population of 700,000—have been killed directly or by starvation in forced migrations from their villages since the Indonesian invasion. There are recent reports of a renewed campaign of repression against Catholics in East Timor. These reports include atrocities such as the smashing of statues of the Virgin Mary.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The campaign has also been directed personally against the Catholic Bishop of Dili, Bishop Belo, who was a 1996 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. His phones are tapped. His fax machine is monitored. His visitors are watched and his freedom of movement is restricted. But Bishop Belo persists in his courageous efforts to defend justice, peace and the preservation of the dignity of his people. Recently, he set up a church commission to monitor human rights abuses and a radio station to disseminate information and news.
Mr. Chairman, the people of East Timor comprise a sovereign nation. They differ from most Indonesians in language, religion, ethnicity, history, and culture. They are entitled to independence and freedom. And in the meantime, they are entitled to fundamental human rights including the freedom of religion.
The amendment would also ban IMET, Mr. Chairman, as you know, International Military Education and Training, for the Indonesian military with the important exception of what is called expanded IMET (E-IMET). Frankly, I am disappointed that the amendment does not also prohibit E-IMET.
Supporters of E-IMET for Indonesia argue that since one of the purposes of such aid is to educate the military about human rights and civilian control of the military, we should provide such aid no matter what they do. This presumes a willingness on the part of the government to change its dismal record. In the absence of such willingness, the only real effect of IMET is to send a signal to the world that our disapproval of the Indonesian military which we expressed after the 1991 massacre by cutting off all IMET has softened.
Contrary to the general impression that E-IMET is mostly about human rights, in fact the only kind of E-IMET actually used by the Indonesian military is something called resource management, which is not about human rights. And by signing up for E-IMET, the repressive Indonesian military also receives regular military training which in the case of the Indonesian Army means that we may actually be aiding and abetting human rights violations at 30 percent of its costs to other governments. So the U.S. taxpayer pays two-thirds of the bill.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
IMET of any kind for Indonesia I believe is wrong. It sends a wrong signal at the wrong time. We must not put our stamp of approval on a regime that massacres children in churchyards and then remains defiant.
I do urge a yes vote on this amendment. And again, I want to thank my friend from California for offering——
Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH. Happy to yield.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman brought up a number of points and I appreciate him graciously yielding to them. I do have to take exception to two points.
E-IMET is specifically provided to enhance the kind of training going personnel, both military and defense civilian personnel, receive about human rights. It is a positive contribution. It is in our national interest. It is not a gift to the Indonesians. It differs from IMET in that respect.
The second area I would have to take exception to, the Island of Timor was simply divided between the Dutch and the Portuguese. These are the same people. The Portuguese precipitously pulled out having neglected the island to an extraordinary extent, more than any other Portuguese colony over the years with perhaps only one person in the entire portion of the island that had, for example, a college education. They left them in absolute chaos and deprivation.
And the U.S. Government has never had, from Administrations of either party, the position that this park should be independent, that it should be a sovereign people.
We have at times had people speaking in favor of a referendum for the people of East Timor to consider what course they might want to take in the world and that is something that we certainly should consider. But this is not a sovereign nation. It is not a sovereign people. There is no legitimacy at this point to sovereignty. And it has never been recognized as an independent country or a sovereign country. We have never encouraged independence by Administrations of either party. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. SMITH. Just to reclaim my time briefly, it is interesting to note and I think the record should reflect that Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Belo thinks in terms of sovereignty for his people, especially since the result of being included in Indonesia is incredible repression against that people, which he serves so diligently and has paid such an enormous price for.
Perhaps the Administration would want to answer this question in terms of E-IMET. Is there any aspect of E-IMET that does not include human rights? Or is it absolutely and completely focused on human rights and only human rights?
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. But, Ms. Larkin, will you respond to the question?
Ms. LARKIN. It is not completely and exclusively focused on human rights, but there is a human rights aspect to every program run under E-IMET.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Anyone else seeking recognition? If not, the question is on the Berman amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Those opposed.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The ayes have it.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. May I speak only before you go to the next motion, amendment rather?
Chairman GILMAN. Which measure do you want to——
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. All right. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HILLIARD. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in speaking on this matter that was just voted on, but another matter.
Chairman GILMAN. Can the gentleman wait until the other matter is brought before us?
Mr. HILLIARD. No. In fact, Mr. Chairman, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I might be allowed to reserve the right to offer an amendment to this section at a later time. I am not prepared to offer an amendment at this time. Something urgently——
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's reservation is heard and without objection, we will allow you to present the amendment to Title V. If you would make certain that the Committee staff have copies of your proposed amendment.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you, very much.
Chairman GILMAN. If there is any objection, if not the gentleman's reservation is agreed to, by unanimous consent.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will circulate the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Mr. Ackerman, I think they want some clarification on which amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. The IAF amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman. In section 511(a) of the bill——
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent for the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The amendment of Mr. Ackerman appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, before you proceed, we accept your amendment on this side. Accordingly, I would hope you would be brief. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, with great gratitude, I thank you for accepting my amendment and yield back the balance of my time, ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. All in favor of the Ackerman amendment, signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed? The Ackerman amendment is carried. Pursuant to yesterday's unanimous consent agreement, I now offer an amendment en bloc. The clerk will report the amendment. Let us start the amendment, please.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman with the concurrence of Mr. Hamilton.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The clerk will please distribute the amendment.
My colleagues, the amendment en bloc consists of the following amendments. An amendment by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen regarding trade with and aid to Cuba, an amendment by Mr. Manzullo regarding international exchanges, and an amendment by Mr. Menendez regarding the provision of nuclear fuel to Cuba. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept your amendment.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
[The en bloc amendment of Mr. Gilman with concurrence of Mr. Hamilton appears in the appendix.]
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for 5 minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, this simply repeats what our committee had done last year and as we know the bill was not successful. But it is a means of safeguarding U.S. interests. It is a non-controversial concrete tool for preventing U.S. foreign assistance from being manipulated in any way by recipient countries.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, do you have any further comments?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No, sir.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Is anyone else seeking recognition on the Ros-Lehtinen measure on the en bloc amendment? Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just seek unanimous consent to enter my statement in the record and support the en bloc amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for his position. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that you made our amendment a part of your en bloc amendments. What we are attempting to do here is to try to bring together the 50 Federal agencies and departments which are running their own exchange and training programs at a cost of in excess of $2 billion a year. This amendment strengthens and focuses Section 1406 of the bill by requiring the working group on U.S. Government-sponsored international exchanges and training to draw up a specific plan for consolidating the numerous government exchange programs, then reporting back to the U.S. Congress for the provision on how to consolidate, improve and then reduce overall expenditures by 10 percent. So this amendment has the possibility of saving in excess of $200 million a year on all these programs and I am delighted that you have included it as part of your en bloc.
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Manzullo and I appreciate your efforts in trying to provide those kinds of savings. Is anyone else seeking recognition on the en bloc offered by Mr. Gilman? If not, all in favor of the en bloc amendment signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed. The en bloc amendment is carried. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will circulate the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. In section 513(a) of the bill, strike ''Subject to subsection (b)''——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent for the reading of the amendment to be dispensed with. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Rohrabacher appears in the appendix.]
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a rather significant amendment. So I would call the attention of my colleagues to this amendment because it is fairly important. What I am calling for——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, if you will withhold a moment. The Committee is not in order. Mr. Rohrabacher has the floor. He is entitled to be heard. If there are any conversations, please take them out to the anteroom. Mr. Rohrabacher, please proceed.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, very much. The Congressional Research Services reported that in the Soviet Union a new rocket missile type system is being developed that is an anti-ship cruise missile called the SSN–22. The Sunburn anti-ship cruise missile. It is reported in the Congressional Research Service that this missile is being developed in Russia, but will be given and is being developed to sell to the Chinese. The Chinese will then put it on their ships which will then be used to threaten American vessels in the Pacific.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
The fact is this cruise missile, this anti-ship cruise ship missile, the SSN–22 Sunburn, is designed specifically to take out AEGIS cruisers which are, of course, at the heart of America's defense in the Pacific. And this is an extremely important event. If these missiles are transferred to the Chinese, our sailors who go out in defense of our country will be vulnerable.
And let us remember that just 1 year ago, our sailors went to confront an act of aggression by the Red Chinese Navy in the Taiwan straits and the Red Chinese naval vessels were actually shooting rockets off, trying to frighten the people of Taiwan who were in the midst of a free election.
My amendment basically articulates the fact that we consider this unacceptable to the United States and that if the Russians persist and they move forward on arming Chinese naval ships with this type of anti-American weapon, a weapon that will as I say threaten the lives and security of our naval ships and our naval personnel, that we will eliminate the foreign aid which we are providing them in this bill.
So that is just how significant this step is. It is something that we should all take seriously. I hope my colleagues think about the ramifications of this. We are saying that this is the threshold. We want Russia to develop independently. We want them to be friends with the United States.
We want to provide them some assistance, but this is our threshold. If they are going to produce weapons and provide it to people who are engaged with activities that are adversarial to the United States and indeed threatening to our national security and threatening to the lives of our own naval personnel then we will not be providing the aid that we have told them we will provide. That is the purpose of my amendment. As I say, it is a significant amendment. I hope my colleagues would support it.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Hyde.
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Rohrabacher has a very good amendment here. It is one that you certainly can support the spirit of it. But I am always concerned unless there is some waiver provision for exceptional circumstances that may arise that do affect our national security and our national interest.
There are things that are difficult to talk in an unclassified way about that go on between China and the United States and even Russia. And I wonder if I could tear the Administration away from Mr. Berman, who is obviously fascinating them, if not hypnotizing them. But I would like to hear from the Administration as to their position on the amendment of Mr. Rohrabacher.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin is recognized.
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Hyde. We are opposed to Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment. And the primary reason we are opposed to it, not that certainly we would condone sales of weapons or missiles by Russia to China. But because the assistance we give to Russia we view as in our national security interest. And helping Russia denuclearize and get rid of those weapons is beneficial to us.
Mr. HYDE. Some of the money we give to Russia is spent in their dismantling existing nuclear weapons that are aimed at us.
Ms. LARKIN. Precisely.
Mr. HYDE. Now, would you support the Rohrabacher amendment if there were a Presidential waiver, let us say, for 6 months? And then if the President wanted to for whatever reason waive the restriction that would be imposed by Mr. Rohrabacher, he would have to explain to us why and what the circumstances were.
Ms. LARKIN. Well, it would certainly be a large improvement. I am not certain that we could support the amendment even with that in it. But it would vastly improve the provision.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HYDE. Well, if such an amendment were ready, and I guess there is one ready, would the gentleman accept a Presidential waiver for those exigent circumstances as long as the President would have to tell us what he is going to do?
Mr. LUTHER. Well, you could tell me that the Dalai Lama had a dual key system and he had the second key and I still would not want these missiles going to the Red Chinese Navy to be aimed at our sailors.
Mr. HYDE. But there may be tradeoffs, Mr. Rohrabacher. There may be other things, other aspects to the interrelationship between Russia, China and the United States.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. But, Mr. Hyde, we do not even have an understanding that the Administration, even with this waiver will accept it.
Ms. LARKIN. We will accept it. We support the waiver, but we do not support the underlying amendment. But we will not oppose it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. You will accept the waiver, but even if we put the waiver in, they are not going to accept the underlying amendment.
Ms. LARKIN. No, I want to be precise. At the State Department, there is a distinction in these things. We do not support it, but we would not oppose it. We would accept it.
Chairman GILMAN. Will Mr. Hyde yield?
Mr. HYDE. Surely.
Chairman GILMAN. I want to take this opportunity to strongly support Mr. Hyde's attempt to modify the Rohrabacher measure. As you know, I have strongly opposed the Chinese military's aggressiveness and buildup. And I think that Mr. Hyde is certainly adding an important provision here. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. HYDE. Now, do I understand that the Administration will accept, they do not support, but they will accept the amendment if there is a Presidential waiver?
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Hyde.
Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to my colleague.
Mr. SMITH. I think both Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Hyde have made a very good case and I think this advances the ball to Rohrabacher and I would hope that with the waiver that you would accept it. Because otherwise, we get a nice sense of the Congress, but it does not proceed. It does not end up in the final version of the bill and we end up with a spiked very well intentioned and I think well crafted amendment. But I think the flexibility, this is the first a lot of us are hearing about this and I think you move the ball with the waiver. I want to thank Mr. Hyde for offering that.
Mr. HYDE. I would just say this. As the amber light fades into the distance, there are other things that our money can do that advance democracy and freedom. I would deplore shipping one of these weapons to China. I think that would be a disaster.
On the other hand, I think if they stopped dismantling existing nuclear weapons that are aimed at us, that would be a disaster too. So give the President a little wiggle room. As long as he reports to us as to what he is doing and the spirit of what you are saying and terms of what you are saying would be the——.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hyde, do you have an amendment to offer?
Mr. HYDE. I do have such an amendment. I believe it is at the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hyde has an amendment at the desk. Would the clerk please distribute the amendment? And would the clerk please read the amendment?
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde. Page 1, after line 8, add the following: ''(d) Exception.——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. Hyde has recommended——
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HYDE. I heard you the first time. I accept the recommendation.
[The amendment to Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment offered by Mr. Hyde appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HYDE. I am pleased to yield to Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Hyde, I do support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is an important step forward. It is in our national interest for a variety of reasons, only partly which we can explain here. But I urge my colleagues to support it.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Illinois for offering the amendment. I think it is an important addition to the Rohrabacher amendment which addresses a serious problem. I fully support the Hyde amendment. And if that is adopted, I will support the Rohrabacher amendment as amended.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. This would be to the Administration. My understanding, could you tell me what is the nature of the foreign assistance that goes to Russia under Chapter 11, part 1 thereof?
Chairman GILMAN. Who are you directing that question to?
Mr. MANZULLO. It would be to the Administration.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. Just a minute. I am trying to find out.
Mr. MANZULLO. While you are conferring, my understanding is that none of this money goes for dismantling the nuclear rockets.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. LARKIN. It is the Freedom Support Act.
Mr. MANZULLO. It is the what?
Ms. LARKIN. It is the Freedom Support Act. Freedom Support Act assistance.
Mr. MANZULLO. Well, what exactly does that fund?
Ms. LARKIN. It is largely technical assistance, private sector.
Mr. HYDE. If I may, if the gentleman will yield for just a second. Nuclear reactor safety is included in this. We are talking Chernobyl, crime fighting which is a major problem.
Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Hyde. There has been discussion here today, in fact coming from the Administration, that this money was used to dismantle their nuclear arsenal. Now, I want it made perfectly clear that Nunn-Lugar money does not come out of the 150 account here, is that correct?
Mr. HYDE. No, I will stipulate to that. I just learned that.
Mr. MANZULLO. So that argument, that should not be used in this.
Mr. HYDE. You are right.
Mr. MANZULLO. The type of assistance we are talking about is training their police force?
Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Manzullo, this is actually assistance to democratic forces in Russia. A lot of it is private sector assistance.
Mr. MANZULLO. Get specific on that. What does that mean?
Ms. LARKIN. Science centers, democratization funding, microenterprise funding. It is to support the development of a free and democratic society. There are a number of programs in it. You are correct. It does not include Nunn-Lugar funding. It is largely not government-to-government assistance.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Hyde said that this includes something for a safety device, the nuclear reactors that were left in Russia, is that correct?
Ms. LARKIN. Nuclear reactor safety devices, yes sir.
Mr. MANZULLO. That is, in part, right on this?
Ms. LARKIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. MANZULLO. Are you sure of that?
Ms. LARKIN. Yes. That is reading from the statute, Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I would oppose Mr. Hyde's amendment. You know, I have been here 8 years and every time we try to take a tough stand, we end up saying except for this and except for that and we put so many waivers in our way that we do not really take the tough stands that we need to get something done. But this is a threshold issue.
If Mr. Hyde's waiver goes into this law what it means is that once these rockets and missiles developed to kill go to the Red Chinese Navy, then our administration will come to us with excuses and say why it happened and be able to explain it away. The fact is we need to tell the leaders in Russia that it is unacceptable for them to provide weapon systems that were designed to kill Americans to America's worst enemies. That is a threshold. Cynthia McKinney and I tried to say we do not want American weapons going to dictators. Well, we do not want Russia while it is receiving all sorts of aid from us to provide weapons for the worst dictatorship in the world that basically is on the road to be in confrontation with us. We need to send that message unambiguously. This is a threshold event and a waiver does nothing but muck up the issue. It gives those people on the other side a lack of understanding of how important it is to us that they not act in this way. So I would oppose Mr. Hyde's waiver. Obviously, if a majority of our colleagues here vote for it, it will be in their bill. I will not like it.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I believe I still have the time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Well, I just want to close this debate. I appreciate what Mr. Rohrabacher says. Things are not always that simple in my humble opinion. Nuclear reactor safety can affect the whole globe. A few more Chernobyls are not in the interest of all of Europe and all of the world. We are taking money away for that purpose. Fighting crime. The fact is that a form of the mafia practically runs Russia now. And international cooperation is necessary to fight this scourge.
We are not saying go ahead and do it. We are not saying to Russia go ahead and sell this weapon to China. We are saying, Mr. President, weigh in the balance all of the considerations at this particular time and find in our national interest what we should do. But if you think just cutting off this type of aid to Russia is the way to go, well, then defeat my amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Administration has some additional comments. I would like to yield to Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. I now, Mr. Manzullo, have a copy of the Freedom Support Act. And I would emphasize the point Mr. Hyde was making, the cutting off assistance and freedom support would harm exactly the people we do not want to harm. The money that is available is for protecting and caring for refugees and displaced persons. It is for drug interdiction and education, transportation, and telecommunications, environmental programs, democracy building and trade and investment opportunities.
Mr. LANTOS. I am reclaiming my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos has the time.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Mr. Rohrabacher for his basic intent to prevent China from building up a horrendous military capability and I hope he will be persuasive in this debate when we debate MFN for China because I know you and I will be on the same side of that issue. And I hope that the majority of your colleagues will follow your very proper instincts on that issue.
But I want to speak in support of Mr. Hyde's amendment. I think Mr. Hyde's amendment recognizes that our relationship with Russia is a many splendored thing. We have a tremendous range of issues with Russia and to provide the executive with an opportunity of weighing all of the considerations in reaching this determination is the proper thing to do. And I urge all of my colleagues to support the Hyde amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was going to suggest could we vote on this, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. We have just a few more speakers. Mr. King.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Mr. Rohrabacher for the amendment, but I feel that Mr. Hyde's amendment should be supported because it combines both the toughness and the maneuverability we need if there is to be an effective foreign policy. The complexities of the relationships between the United States, China and Russia boggle the mind. Obviously, no one wants China to have a missile such as this. But on the other hand, we have to allow the President to carry out an effective foreign policy.
When the Republicans were in the White House, we complained about 535 Secretaries of State. I think the principle remains the same today. As much as we would oppose this missile, as strongly as we have to go on record against it, the fact is we have to allow the President to make the ultimate decision, give him the right to a waiver if he feels it is necessary.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Hyde's amendment, I think, goes right to the question of making it clear we oppose the sale of this weapon, but on the other hand, giving the President the maneuverability he needs if he is going to be an effective Commander in Chief. We are talking about money which is going to assist in combating organized crime in Russia. We are talking about money which is going to build up the very democratic forces that we want to emerge in Russia. To me, that is something which has to be weighed very, very strongly. So therefore, I strongly support the amendment of Mr. Hyde.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. I too rise in support of Mr. Hyde's amendment and respectfully ask of my colleague from California, my good friend, to give consideration to it in a more positive vein.
I feel very strongly that we are in constant delicate negotiations around the world. My colleague from California's intentions could not be questioned by any of us. And all of us would be supportive of avoidance of not only an SSN–22 missile which obviously is designed to do exactly what Mr. Rohrabacher has said could be done with it, but any missile or any bullet for that matter. And you have expressed yourself along with our colleague, Ms. McKinney, in that regard.
But at the very same time, Mr. Hyde makes the point that there are other tradeoffs that have to be considered. For example, there was a major Sino-Soviet agreement just entered into and yet another to be entered into. And it almost went ignored by many of the persons here that our policymakers are not being mindful of just how serious these kinds of agreements are.
Now, with reference to China, on a trip with the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the Asia Subcommittee and most of the Republican leadership, repeatedly, we say that perhaps we should not exaggerate China's military capabilities. They are no match for us. That is no excuse, however, for Russia selling them a missile.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
But it is also no excuse for us not being mindful of our responsibilities in trade, our responsibilities with reference to humanitarian assistance, our responsibilities with reference to the democracy advancement and any number of other things. We do not want to return to the chill of the cold war, and the likelihood of this kind of example setting by way of policy might very well cause that to occur.
Please give consideration to the Hyde amendment which simply asks that we give the President a rightful waiver to take into consideration those things with reference to national security and now national interest that might be needed. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, thank you very much. Let me just note that when you are talking about these wonderful things that my bill would eliminate in Russia, the development of private television is one of the things that might be threatened, and these democratic reforms and things that I agree with that we should be trying to do there. My bill would not do that. The only thing that would result in that is if the Russian Government sells a missile that was designed to sink American AEGIS cruisers and aircraft carriers to an adversary who seems to be headed toward a confrontation with the United States.
We would not be making the decision to end these wonderful programs in our help with Chernobyl and others. It would be those leaders in Russia, and they need to know how concerned we really are about this type of situation where they are providing a potential enemy of the United States with the ability to sink our ships and kill our sailors.
There is a potential for a conflict in the Pacific, the next time it is possible that we might come to loggerheads with the Red Chinese and need to be able to deter them from actions that threaten our national security interest. We will be thinking twice or three times or we may just rule it out altogether if the Red Chinese Navy has these very sophisticated weapons that we right now are debating whether or not to take a stand on whether they should get those weapons.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
This will limit our diplomatic options. In the future, if we do not act now, our diplomatic options in the middle of a crisis will be severely limited because they will have the ability to sink our ships and to neuter our ability to exercise a military option. What is that going to do for the potential of conflict in the Pacific? We need to take a stand. We need to send an unambiguous message when our national interests are being threatened.
This waiver I am afraid sends, adds a note of ambiguity to what should be a strong message to the people who make decisions in Russia and I would hope that my colleagues would take this seriously. I know you all are. And I yield to Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. I have a question for the State Department. Under what circumstances could the President justify the sale of a missile like this to China and then come back and ask for a national security waiver on the part of the United States? Could you answer that question?
Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Manzullo, I cannot answer under what circumstance. I can say that we completely agree on the point of the missile sales and strongly oppose them. What we are concerned about is the remedy or the sanction for doing that.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, do you conclude?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time and I would thank Mr. Hyde. Ms. McKinney would like me to yield my time. Actually, I will yield back my time and I know you will recognize Ms. McKinney.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you. I have such enormous regard for Mr. Hyde, Chairman of another committee I sit on. And I am in awe of his experience and wisdom in so many areas. And I acknowledge the wisdom of his comments about the complexity of our relationship with Russia and priority of having them dismantle their very, very threatening nuclear arsenal.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
But I must respectively support Mr. Rohrabacher's initial amendment. My view is that I cannot under any circumstances imaging defending the sale of this kind of a weapon. I say that with enormous hesitation and reluctance, Mr. Chairman, out of my regard for you. But I simply cannot figure out any set of circumstances that would permit that. And frankly, I do think we need to send a message. I am all four square behind supporting the democratization in Russia and in the priority of funding, the dismantling of their nuclear ability. But I do want to support Mr. Rohrabacher on this.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should preface this by saying I am in awe of Mr. Hyde's leadership and wisdom as well on most issues. However, in this particular instance. I mean, the bottom line to me is are the Russians less likely to make these deals with the Chinese if we make it very clear what is going to happen if they do so? And I think it is. I mean, if the Russians know if they give this missile to the Chinese, they are not going to get this money, I think they are less likely to give the missile to them.
Now, if we give them all kinds of wiggle room, give the Administration wiggle room to say, well, what is in our best interest and what is in the national interest, then I think they are not going to take it quite as seriously. I want to make it real clear to them. You give them the missile, you do not get the money. Period. And that is why I support Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. We are going to have two more speakers and then we will take a vote. Ms. McKinney.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to lend my voice of support for the Rohrabacher amendment against the Hyde amendment. And I would just like to ask the Administration two questions please. First of all, I want to know if it is in our national interest for Russia to transfer this missile to China.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. LARKIN. Of course not.
Ms. MCKINNEY. And then, second, which commitment is more important, our commitment to Russia or our commitment to ourselves?
Ms. LARKIN. Ms. McKinney, I think the assistance that we are giving to Russia under the Freedom Support Act which is what would be withheld is important to us. It is not a favor to Russia. It is considered to be in our national interest to encourage the democratic forces there. So I do not think it is a choice between Russia and ourselves. I think both choices are for ourselves.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I speak at this time to support the Hyde amendment and I think everybody clearly understands that the proliferation of weapons, particularly to China that has been so troublesome, is something we want to oppose. The question here is what is the right response from the Administration and whether or not the Administration would seek to use this particular tool.
It seems to me that sitting here today, putting down in law a remedy to a problem that may have lots of other remedies that are far better is not the right approach. I think what Mr. Rohrabacher adds to the discussion here is a clear message to the Russians how the Congress feels about this. At the end of the day, however, we have a President of the United States and Secretary of State that are engaged in this foreign policy activity on a daily basis and that there may be alternative actions that the State Department and the President can take that are far more effective if the sale goes through.
So I would think that if the Members of this committee are concerned about this as we ought to be, and I think Mr. Rohrabacher and I agree strongly on the danger that China puts forth in the region and globally today and to its own people. There is no debate about that. The question is what is the right thing to do in trying to deal with a very complex situation in Russia and it seems to me that what we give them is about $98 million in aid. I guess at some point they could decide to go into the arms business completely and give up the aid. They might make more money that way if that is the only game in town.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
So I think Mr. Hyde does the right thing. He says, listen. Rohrabacher is out there and that is a very high likelihood of what will happen. If that does not happen, the President has got to come here and tell us why he did something else. So I would hope we would vote with Mr. Hyde. I understand it is politically difficult, but it is the right vote.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that we all support the intentions of Mr. Rohrabacher. I do not know that anybody could disagree with what he said. But I think that what Mr. Hyde does is he comes on and adds an additional dimension which is of critical importance. He gives the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Forces an option, a trump card. I do not think we should be taking away options, not from our side. I would like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Lantos.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you for yielding. I would like to offer a different perspective on this issue. The Rohrabacher amendment deals with the transfers of SSN–22 missile systems to China. In order to make this amendment truly meaningful, should we not be dealing with the transfer of dangerous weapon systems to rogue states like Iran, Libya, Iraq, and all weapons systems to China? I mean, this is a very particular little mechanism to deal with an enormously broad issue.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is the first step.
Mr. LANTOS. Since the Russian economy, with the exception of raw materials, is incapable of exporting anything other than weaponry and caviar, it is important to realize that the Russians really will weigh the dollar amount of the weapon sales and the aid they get from us. And since the dollar amount of the weapon sales is much larger, they would choose to forego the aid.
I think the importance of maintaining flexibility for the Commander in Chief is absolutely essential in this instance and I urge all my colleagues to support the Hyde amendment.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Rohrabacher amendment and oppose the additional language of Hyde. I think this sends a much-needed message to both Russia and China. And I think the reason for this is due, in large part, to the Administration's very erratic policy in China.
When we give the President a waiver, then in every case in which we attempt to stand up to the Chinese, the Administration always finds an excuse to back off, satisfied with a minor concession that means nothing. Therefore, I think the underlying amendment is important. As I said, I think it does send a strong message both to China and to Russia. It is the right thing to do, and I think we should pass the Rohrabacher amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Well, I just think the purpose of my amendment is being misconstrued. I do not think these weapons should be sold to China. And I do not think they will. I am just suggesting the President be given the flexibility to weigh in the balance other considerations.
Use your imagination. This is entirely fictitious, but suppose there is a sensitive intelligence relationship between the Chinese and the United States. Suppose a mortal enemy of the United States in the diplomatic pouch brings in anthrax into the United Nations and can poison the New York water supply and wipe out the city. And supposing the Chinese know about it and they tell us?
Now, I am just saying use your Tom Clancy imagination. Those things are not off the wall. There may be other considerations and give the President an opportunity to exercise his judgment in an ambiguous situation that is not quite as clearcut.
I am not for any missiles ever going to the Chinese or the Iranians or the Libyans, but I am for the President having to weigh in and take into the accounting many nuances which are not available under this black and white amendment. So I would call for the vote.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. ACKERMAN. Personal privilege, Mr. Chairman. I just want to assure everybody of the viability and sanctity of the New York water supply and underscore that was only a make believe.
Chairman GILMAN. It is questionable. We are about to move on the Hyde amendment. Before we do that, that will be the last issue before Mr. Smith has some comments to make. But I would like to tell my colleagues that after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, we have agreed to reconvene at 5 p.m. on Tuesday when you all return for the first vote on Tuesday and continue that evening until we can conclude this measure.
We have already passed a number of amendments. We are down to 16 remaining amendments. And it is my belief that we can wind up at an early hour providing we refrain from lengthy discourses during the debate. The question is now on the Hyde amendment. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Hyde amendment is carried.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote has been requested. Is there a second?
[Aye.]
[Pause.]
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman GILMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. Goodling.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes yes.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Mr. Gallegly.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. MANZULLO. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. King.
Mr. KING. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes yes.
Mr. Kim.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no.
Mr. Salmon.
Mr. SALMON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Mr. Campbell.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no.
Mr. Fox.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman.
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.
Mr. Andrews.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes no.
Ms. McKinney.
Ms. MCKINNEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes no.
Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
Ms. Danner.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes.
Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Will you please call the absentees?
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox.
Mr. FOX. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes yes.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
Mr. Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no.
Mr. Blunt.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes.
Mr. Andrews.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
[No Response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler.
[No Response.]
Chairman GILMAN. Before the clerk reports the vote, I would just like to advise Members we have just two short items of business. Mr. Smith will be recognized for a few moments. And then there will be a unanimous consent request governing further consideration with regard to the remaining amendments. Members please remain in the room until we complete the unanimous consent request. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes no.
On this vote, there were 22 ayes and 14 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now on the Rohrabacher amendment as amended. All in favor signify in the usual manner.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman GILMAN. Opposed? The Rohrabacher amendment, as amended, is agreed to. Mr. Smith.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to inform Members I will be offering the Mexico City amendment on the floor rather than today in Committee to expedite matters on the pending business. And to encourage Members—and I hope it is a very spirited debate on the floor—to realize that there were many of us who, I think, look to increase the development assistance account including population funds, provided pro life safeguards are in effect. And I think that as more people take a look at what it is that we are asking—Mr. Chairman, may I have order? Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentlemen withhold? Mr. Smith is entitled to be heard. If there are any conversations, please take them out into the other room. The Committee will be in order. Mr. Smith, please continue.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say, and I think those who know me know that I strive for consistency on human rights, on child survival. And it seems to me that the unborn children are the orphans of the child survival revolution. There are whole blocks of very good people who I happen to believe are missing the boat on this one who see birth as something other than an event that happens to all of us, that those children prior to birth are somehow less than human and alive.
And my hope is that as we move to the floor and people look carefully as to what the Mexico City policy actually entails, they will see that it is not anti-family planning. It says that who we give to really matters. It matters if they have a crusade to bring down the right-to-life laws of various countries in the close to 100 countries around the world that protect their unborn children from abortion on demand. Most of Central and South America, many of the countries in Africa, the Philippines, places like Ireland, they protect their unborn children as a matter of human rights.
And I think our efforts ought to be maternal health care, providing basic needs to these children, born and unborn. Do not single out the unborn and say it is OK to inject them with chemical poisons. It is OK to dismember those kids by way of abortion. That will be the debate when we get to the floor to expedite consideration of 1486. We will not have it today, but we will have it, I think, in earnest on the floor.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
And I appeal to the Administration to look at this language. I mean, we are talking about ending the consensus breaker which is giving to organizations that are crusading to bring down right-to-life laws around the country. The Administration says over and over again they are not trying to promote abortion abroad. I take you at your word. Then do not give it to groups that are surrogates for that, that are trying to bring down the pro life laws.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation's 1992 ''Vision 2000'' statement is an abortion manifesto, for want of any other description, aimed at bringing down the pro life laws. IPPF has come down four square on the side of the abortion promoters.
There are people at IPPF who do not agree with that, but they are being brought along unfortunately because that now is their manifesto and their marching orders.
I cannot say this with strong enough emphasis. We will have more development assistance. There are many of us on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle who would love to increase the amount and would work night and day to do so. This is the consensus breaker and because of it there is less money for care. There is less money for a lot of the other organizations. And I think it is a tragedy because we do not want to aid and abet, however unwittingly, those who would take the lives of innocent unborn children.
So we will have that debate on the floor. And I would hope to see life protected at the end of the day, whether it be on the appropriations bill or in this authorization bill, because I can assure you I will die in the last ditch on this one. I am not going to see one more country like Poland or South Africa see their laws that protect unborn children vitiated and nullified because of a group of these NGO's. There are good NGO's out there that will provide family planning. Let us empower them, not the abortionists. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. And we appreciate your cooperation. I now ask unanimous consent that all Members be given until 7 p.m. this evening to file with the clerk of the Committee first-degree amendments to the titles of the bill remaining open to amendment and that with the exception of Mr. Hilliard's possible amendment to Title V, and an amendment that the Chairman with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member may offer, no further first-degree amendments shall be in order beyond those that have been filed with the clerk by 7 p.m. this evening.
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
It is the understanding of the chair that the following amendments are currently on file with the clerk and will be protected under this unanimous consent agreement. I am going to ask the clerk to read the amendments that are still before the Committee.
Ms. BLOOMER. An amendment by Mr. Hamilton, an amendment relating to the requirement that private organizations raise at least 20 percent of their funds for non-governmental sources, amendment by Mr. Hamilton relating to transfer authorities, an amendment by Mr. Hamilton relating to notification provisions and section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act, amendment by Mr. Campbell relating to minority recruiting provisions.
Chairman GILMAN. He withdrew that.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell is not going to offer that amendment. An amendment by Mr. Capps relating to rewards for the apprehension of criminals trafficking in women. An amendment by Mr. Ackerman——
Chairman GILMAN. That is withdrawn. Indicate that.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps is not going to offer his amendment. An amendment by Mr. Ackerman relating to Burma and the UNDP. An amendment by Mr. Bereuter relating to operating accounts. An amendment by Mr. Capps relating to Vietnam. An amendment by Mr. Ackerman relating to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia. An amendment by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen or Mr. Rothman relating to Israel in the Western European and others group. An amendment by Mr. Campbell relating to the U.N. fund for population activities. An amendment by Mr. Hamilton relating to budget adjustments. An amendment by Mr. Hamilton relating to the Department of State Inspector General. An amendment by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen relating to reports on visas and the Helms-Burton Act. An amendment by Mr. Sanford relating to accounts in the bill and reducing their levels.
Mr. HAMILTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton is recognized on his reservation.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. I do not intend to object. I want to thank the Chairman for working with us on this unanimous consent. I simply want to make very clear to the Democrats, I have not had a chance to discuss it with them, what this unanimous consent does. Unless your amendment is on the list the Chairman will read in a moment, you are cut off from offering an amendment unless you submit it by 7 p.m. tonight. And I want that very, very clear as to what is happening here.
Now, I support this unanimous consent request, but I wanted to make that observation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. I want to thank you for your cooperation in trying to move this bill along. I would also like to note that by identifying these amendments, Members are not required to offer their amendments, but their right to do so is protected. And again, I urge our Members to please consider en blocing your amendments so that we can save time and get out at an early hour on Tuesday evening.
A unanimous consent request has been read. Without objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to. The clerk will designate the next title. Title VI and VII. The clerk will designate.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title VI. Trade and Development Agency.
Chairman GILMAN. The next title will be title VI. Are there any amendments to Title VI? If not, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title VII, Special Authorities and Other Provisions.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to Title VII? If not, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Division B, Foreign Relations Authorizations Act, Title X, General Provisions.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee now stands in recess until 5 p.m. on Tuesday.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m. the Committee was recessed, to reconvene at 5 p.m., Tuesday, May 6, 1997.]
Next Hearing Segment(3)