Segment 3 Of 3 Previous Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
FOREIGN POLICY REFORM ACT: MARKUP OF H.R. 1486
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:45 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.
Members, please take their seats. We regret the delay. We were in conference trying to iron out some of the final details of this bill so that we could try to wind this up in an orderly manner.
When the Committee recessed on Thursday, the clerk had read up to the beginning of division B and we had begun the amending process with respect to Title X of the bill.
At this point, I will offer an en bloc amendment under the previous order of the Committee. This en bloc amendment is offered with the concurrence of the gentleman from Indiana, the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Hamilton. The clerk will report the amendment en bloc.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment en bloc offered by Mr. Gilman of New York with the concurrence of Mr. Hamilton.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, further reading of the amendment en bloc is dispensed with.
[The en bloc amendment of Mr. Gilman with the concurrence of Mr. Hamilton appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. The clerks will please circulate the en bloc amendment.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Who is seeking recognition with regard to the en bloc amendment?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In this en bloc amendment, there is an amendment that Mr. Rothman and I have included which reflects bipartisan support for Israel's full membership in the United Nations.
This is an issue that has been under consideration for years but remains unresolved. The fundamental principle of the U.N. charter is the sovereign equality of States, yet Israel remains in a state of inequality at the United Nations, although it has been a member since 1949.
Despite repeated requests, Israel has been denied entry into any of the regional groups, which is a situation that has undermined and weakened Israel's ability to function effectively within the United Nations and, in turn, within the international community in general.
Just today, I received a letter from the U.S. Department of State that says the United States strongly supports Israel's efforts to join a regional grouping at the United Nations. We believe that Israel, like all other members of the United Nations, should have the right to belong to a regional grouping which enables members to participate fully in all activities of the United Nations.
Our efforts have focused on what we hope Israel will be in, which is the Western European and Others Group. And we believe Israel would be a natural fit. And this is from Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
So this dovetails with Congressman Rothman's and my amendment, which is part of the en bloc.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Anyone else seeking recognition? Mr. Rothman. This is on the en bloc amendment, Bereuter-Burton-Gilman-Gilman-Menendez-Ros-Lehtinen-Smith-Capps-Smith.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say how proud and privileged I am to be coauthoring this piece of legislation, this amendment, with my friend, the gentlelady from Florida, who has been working on this issue for years, and I am delighted to be a part of it.
As the Members of this Committee may well know, but it is important to remind them, in order for a member of the United Nations to serve, for example, on the Security Council, one must be a member of a regional bloc. So despite the fact that the State of Israel has been a member of the United Nations since 1949, it has been precluded and prevented from serving on the Security Council because it has not been a part of a regional bloc. It has been prevented from being a part of a regional bloc because its natural geographical regional bloc, the Asia group, will not permit it to join that regional bloc.
So there are only two choices: Either to accept this injustice, where a long-standing member of the United Nations and one of our strongest allies, is precluded from membership on the Security Council by this means, or to do as other non-Western European countries have done, which is what Israel wants to do, which is to receive temporary admission to the Western European and Others Group, which would then allow Israel to serve as a full member of the United Nations and be a member of the Security Council when its turn came up.
In case anybody wanted to know, Mr. Chairman, there are other non-Western European nations in the Western European and Others Group; specifically, Canada and Australia. So there is no inconsistency in Israel becoming a member of the Western European and Others Group.
So the amendment is very gently worded to encourage this process to begin by having our Secretary of State report back to us in Congress about the efforts of the Secretary General and others to accomplish this. And I would be grateful if the Committee gave this its full consideration and support.
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rothman.
Any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to embrace the comments just made on this and say that when we take up U.N. funding, we ought to take a look at what progress has been made on this issue.
Chairman GILMAN. Any other Member seek recognition? Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an amendment to section 1217 on Vietnam. We have——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Capps, we are now working on the en bloc amendments.
Mr. CAPPS. But it is included in that. I wanted to make a comment. I would like to offer my support for it and thank Mr. Smith for his cooperation. I think this is a very important issue. I have been studying Vietnam, the Vietnam War for a long time. I am pleased with the way this situation turned out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Capps.
Any other Member seeking recognition?
If there are no other Members——
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.
I just, too, want to express my gratitude to the Administration. We have worked with them over the last several days, including our ambassador, Pete Peterson, who is on his way to Vietnam, to work out some of the remaining problems that exist on the POW issue, the orderly departure program, and the concern that many of us have about people who are of high humanitarian concern to the United States.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
We are concerned for the children and the widows of people who fought side by side with the United States during the Vietnam War. As I indicated, the POW/MIA issue is always at the very forefront of all of our concerns.
What we did in this amendment was to change some very strong operative language that I was ready to go to the floor with, and fight hard for, in terms of expansion of our consular services and Embassy physical plant in Vietnam, making it contingent on progress in these many areas.
The Administration, and again our ambassador and others that we have negotiated with, have given very, very strong assurances that each of these issues will be at the forefront of their efforts, and I am persuaded that they mean what they say, and I look forward to working with them. And the report that we receive back, I am sure, will be helpful as well, in chronicling and hopefully keeping track, giving an accounting on these important issues.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
If there are no additional Members seeking recognition, the Chair will put the question on the en bloc amendments. As many as are in favor of the en bloc amendments, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendments are agreed to.
Mr. Smith is recognized to introduce division B of the bill.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say it has been very good to work with you and the Ranking Member, Mr. Hamilton, and also especially my good friend and colleague, Mr. Tom Lantos, the Ranking Member on our subcommittee. We held five hearings in preparation of what originally was H.R. 1253 and is now division B, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I believe this bill is a solid, thoughtful product, the result of bipartisan cooperation. We fund most programs at or near the Administration's budget request. For instance, three principal State Department accounts are funded at $2.284 billion in fiscal year 1998. This is 7.5 percent higher than actual spending on these items in fiscal year 1995 and is 99 percent of the level requested by the Administration.
On a few items of compelling importance, such as refugee protection, the world food program, assistance to torture victims and combating international child labor, the bill provides a modest increase above the Administration's request.
Like the Subcommittee that produced it, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act is not only about international operations, it is also about human rights. Every structural and fiscal decision has been taken with an eye toward preserving core humanitarian programs, saving lives, and promoting the just interests of the American people.
While providing adequate funding for foreign relations programs, the bill also attempts to improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability in these programs. It puts the largest State Department fee accounts on budget, an important reform suggested by the Administration, which will require further legislation by the Budget Committee, as well as other provisions of this bill, so that funding will reflect workload.
It also restores the power of the Secretary of State to terminate the employment of convicted felons, a power that had been inexplicably curtailed by an administrative grievance board.
Other provisions we had hoped to include will have to wait for consideration by the full House when the bill gets there. Particularly, we had hoped to provide a comprehensive U.N. reform package as part of a settlement of the arrearages question. We have not yet been able to secure agreement on this provision among the Administration and Republican and Democratic Members of both Houses of the Congress.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act as introduced, H.R. 1253, did provide $100 million in arrearage agreements for fiscal year 1998 in anticipation of an agreement on the reform package. Because this reform package has not yet been agreed upon, we have withheld this $100 million in the bill that is now before the Committee.
If a reform agreement is reached and if it addresses the real concerns of the American people, not only with respect to financial and institutional integrity but also with respect to national sovereignty and the alarming increase in international social engineering by U.N. affiliated organizations and conferences, then I believe that this installment can be restored, perhaps along with another, for fiscal year 1999.
Without real U.N. reform, any arrearages packages would be dead on arrival on the House floor.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend this package to the Full Committee and hope that it will act favorably, and as we work to shape it with additional amendments, as well as amendments that we would anticipate on the floor, at the end of the day we will have, I think, a truly bipartisan package.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. And I want to thank Mr. Smith for his cooperation and his hard work in bringing this division B to the floor at this time.
I ask unanimous consent that consideration of the amendment by Mr. Ackerman, which is about to be introduced, be limited to 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member.
Mr. Ackerman is recognized. Would the clerk report the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Yes, on the objection?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I am just waiting on Mr. Smith to see if he wanted to—because we had originally agreed to 15 minutes.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith has agreed to 20 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. And the time of the Administration not to come out of our time, running a separate clock on the Administration's views?
Chairman GILMAN. The Administration views will be included in the 20 minutes. We are trying to wind up at a reasonable hour. Everyone is concerned about a late hour tonight, and that is why we are trying to move ahead.
Mr. ACKERMAN. But, Mr. Chairman, if the Administration has a few minutes' worth of views, and we are limited to 10 minutes a side and they take 5 minutes, I am not sure that the Majority side is going to solicit the Republican views, which means that our side is limited to 5 minutes.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, we will try to limit the Administration's views to just briefly, and Ms. Larkin is indicating she will be brief.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will not object as long as the Administration's few minutes do not go into our time.
Chairman GILMAN. All right. Will the clerk report the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman. ''Strike section 1102(g) (relating to limitations on the United States——.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
Has the amendment been distributed? Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Ackerman appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would change the proposed restrictions on U.S. participation in the U.N. Development Program in Burma and would restore to the U.S. Government the authority to decide how and where the United States will participate in international organizations.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I want to say at the outset that I agree with Mr. Smith's goal, the goal of the bill, and I think the goal of all of us, and that is that the United States should not support the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or SLORC, in any way.
But the way the provisions of the bill are currently drafted, the President must certify that UNDP is not supporting organizations that benefit the SLORC, and that is fine; and that this determination in the language of the bill is then conditioned on the approval of each of two separately named Burmese exile organizations.
This language puts U.S. foreign policy under the control of two foreign groups. Why on earth would we want foreign interests to control and have veto power over American foreign policy?
In addition, the money that would be cut off without the certification of these what I am sure to be genuinely fine groups—otherwise Mr. Smith would not be supporting them—is not just cutting off the money for UNDP programs in Burma, the country from which they are exiled, but their veto would then prohibit any contributions to UNDP worldwide that the President may want to make over the $76 million cap in the bill.
I believe that cedes too much authority and surrenders our rightful authority to those exiled groups. My amendment restores to the President the authority to decide how the United States participates in international organizations, and requires the President to certify to Congress that our money is not supporting the SLORC. And my amendment doesn't deal these exiled groups out of the action. We include them in.
The differences are that my amendment requires the President to consult with those very same Burmese exiled groups that are cited by Mr. Smith, rather than allowing them to have a veto over how the United States will participate. This consultation, I am told, already occurs.
In addition, if the President does not provide certification vis-a-vis Burma, under my amendment only money for the programs in Burma will be at risk and not those UNDP programs worldwide.
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I hope those Members who are concerned about how much authority the United States loses when it participates in international organizations will realize that the unintended consequences of the existing language is a full-scale surrender of our foreign affairs sovereignty, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that they will support my amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. Did you want to yield to anyone else in this time?
Mr. ACKERMAN. We will reserve the balance of our time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask my colleagues to vote this amendment down. The bill in its present form is a modified version of the language crafted by Mr. Berman in 1994. The original Berman language was a reaction to the UNDP's unfortunate practice of conducting projects in Burma which had the effect of strengthening the international prestige and the domestic power of the illegal military government of Burma, the SLORC, the State Law and Order Restoration Council.
The Berman provision, which became law as part of the Fiscal Year 1994–1995 Foreign Relations Act, essentially required the UNDP conduct no new programs and spend no new money on old programs in Burma as a condition of U.S. funding. What happened next was the UNDP took the money and then violated its agreement by conducting new programs with the full cooperation of the SLORC.
In the 1995–1996 bill, which was vetoed by the President for unrelated reasons, Congress imposed a compromise version of the Berman language. UNDP could conduct programs in Burma, but only if they were designed to help the people of Burma themselves, rather than the SLORC regime.
A four-part certification was required to ensure that this condition was being carried out. The most important part of the certification is that any UNDP projects in Burma have the approval of the National League for Democracy and the National Coalition of the Union of Burma. These are the democratic forces led by Aung Sung Suu Kyi. These are the people who won Burma's one and only free election back in 1990, which was illegally canceled by the SLORC. They, and not the SLORC, are the best judges of what will be helpful and harmful to the people of Burma.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The bill before us imposes these same modifications and conditions, with the additional concession that the UNDP—let me remind everybody, this is out of the voluntary contribution. This is not assessed. This is voluntary—the UNDP can receive the full amount it received in 1997, fiscal year, over $76 million, even if its Burma programs do not meet the conditions.
What we are talking about is bringing it up to $100 million, and that is where the conditions set in. If UNDP does honor those pro-freedom, pro-democracy conditions, they can receive the full $100 million.
The Ackerman amendment attempts to fix a provision that is not broken. First, it cuts out the most important certification, that Aung Sung Suu Kyi's representatives have approved the programs that are genuinely helpful to the people of Burma and not the SLORC. Second, it guts the spending limitation. It provides, in essence, that UNDP will get $100 million, again a voluntary contribution, no matter what they do in Burma.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very modest language in this bill. It is bipartisan. It was crafted, again, working with Mr. Berman, who used to chair this subcommittee, and I do ask Members, if they can, to vote in favor of this. If not, we will have this fight on the floor.
I reserve the balance of the time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my good friend Mr. Smith, with whom I agree entirely on the basic principle that he is trying to do, and he does such wonderful work in so many areas, cannot say enough bad things about the SLORC to get me to disagree. There aren't words bad enough for the actions of that horrible government. At the same time, he cannot say enough good things about Aung Sung Suu Kyi, a Nobel Prize laureate. We are in total agreement.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Where we are in disagreement is that Mr. Smith then places in the hands of two independent governments or groups in exile, that are probably wonderful groups, I am willing to concede that, but he puts veto power and gives them the final authorization over and above that of the President of the United States of America; not just consultation, which we agree there should be, but gives them the right to pull the trigger as to whether or not funds should go to Burma.
We don't want any of this money going to the SLORC. We want it to help the people. But you can't do that by denying worldwide the entire U.S. participation in the UNDP. That is a billion-dollar U.N. program. Our participation, the percentage of our money that is going into Burma, is maybe $15,000. And to put it in the hands of foreigners, of foreign entities, recognized by nobody but themselves except for the good work that they do, which we certainly appreciate, applaud and want to encourage, they should not be controlling the exercise to veto our President, our Congress and our participation in an international organization solely on their own hook. Let us support them in the things that they do, but let us not cede our sovereignty to them.
Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be delighted.
Mr. MANZULLO. Two things. No. 1, I don't know if this is constitutional. This appears to be a contingent delegation of congressional power over authority of how this money is to be spent, and I have very serious problems.
The second thing is we had something similar to this in the last Congress where we very mistakenly voted not to use any drug eradication money in Burma because of the Burmese violation of human rights. So I don't quite know where we are going to go from here, but I think if anybody——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Reclaiming my time.
The gentleman is absolutely right on both counts, and if we want to do something to punish them, let's punish the Government of Burma. Let's not cut off our worldwide funds on the say-so of a group that has nothing to do with Americans or the United States.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would you care to seek the opinion of the Administration on this issue?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I think we would be delighted to hear the Administration's views.
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Larkin.
Ms. LARKIN. I will be brief.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Good judgment.
Ms. LARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Administration strongly supports Mr. Ackerman's modification to Mr. Smith's amendment. I would just make three brief points, all of which have been made by Mr. Ackerman. One is that it is very important that full funding of the President's request for UNDP be passed out of this Committee so that we can maintain our influence over that organization.
Second, UNDP has done a very good job, it is our assessment, of assuring that the aid it gives in Burma gets to the truly needy. This is basic human needs, humanitarian assistance, that is going there.
And third, the certification that would be required under Mr. Ackerman's modification is completely consistent with current Administration policy.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will yield in a moment to Mr. Rohrabacher.
I just would remind Members that last year we provided $76 million to the UNDP. We are providing $76 million to UNDP, no matter what. We are talking about the additional money that gets us up to $100 million. That is the President's request.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
But again, this is a voluntary organization, a voluntary contribution being made by the U.S. Government. And it seems to me, when you have a de facto military dictatorship ruling, that has nullified what was duly won at the ballot box, and these people, the two organizations that I referred to earlier, both organizations are made up of people who care deeply about the people of Burma, and if they are going to give thumbs up to a UNDP program, you know it will benefit the people.
I trust them. I don't trust the SLORC. And I think we really need to get this language into effect so that the SLORC is not advanced the way they were being advanced before.
I yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee declares a recess for the vote. Please, I urge the Members to come back as quickly as possible so that we can wind up our work at an early hour.
[Brief recess.]
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. The Committee will come to order. Members will take their seats.
When we recessed, we were on the Ackerman amendment. Mr. Ackerman has consumed 6 1/2 minutes of his time. Mr. Smith has consumed 4 1/4 minutes.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Do you want to wait until we get a few people back?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let's wait until more Members come back. Mr. Chairman, we should wait until Mr. Ackerman gets back.
Chairman GILMAN. While we are waiting, I will give my statement.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment. All governments around the world have the right to permit and deny the right U.N. programs or access to their nations. The democratically elected Government of Burma, headed by Nobel Prize winner Aung Sung Suu Kyi and her National League of Democracy, has the very same right.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Let me add that UNDP and the State Department ignored section 431 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994–1995 that cut funding for UNDP by the amount that it spends in Burma unless a democratically elected government in Burma has agreed to such programs.
May we have some order, please?
Mr. ACKERMAN. Could we close those doors, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. Could I have some order, please? Would you close the door to the outer hall, please?
Let me add that the UNDP and the State Department ignored section 431 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994–1995 that cut funding to UNDP by the amount that it spends in Burma unless a democratically elected government in Burma has agreed to such programs.
The gentleman's amendment would have the effect of adding insult to injury to the democratically elected Government of Burma, to this Committee and to this branch of government.
I also point out that there are many examples of our government working closely with governments in exile. When Aristide fled Haiti, we always consulted his ambassador here before we acted, and we continued to recognize his authority. We also consulted with the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian representatives here in Washington during the cold war.
President Clinton recently imposed economic sanctions against SLORC, the drug-dealing military junta that rules Burma. Over 60 percent of the heroin that reaches our area in New York comes from Burma. The staggering associated costs of human tragedy is something we must not ignore.
There are also reports the UNDP is supporting a project in Burma called the new Kalewa Valley project. It is reported that that project uses political prisoners and villagers as forced laborers.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I am a strong supporter of UNDP. The language in this bill considerably increases our funding from the fiscal year 1994–1995 levels, but we must make certain that that organization does the right thing.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, please be assured that I intend neither to insult nor injure the democratically elected government of Aung Sung Suu Kyi or any other prodemocratic forces. We must do all we can to help encourage and support them, which is indeed what we are doing.
But the language of this bill does away with our constitutional authority and places in the hands of those folks that we seek to help what is our obligation, and that is to determine U.S. foreign policy without them having the ability to veto or have final approval over that which we do.
Mr. Chairman, you yourself just pointed out that during times of crisis, our government consulted with the democratic forces in Latvia, Lithuania, and I am not sure if I heard you say Estonia or something else. But that is exactly the point.
My amendment says the President and the Administration must consult with these forces, democratic forces, in Burma; we must consult. But there is a difference between—as you point out, we consulted historically with other democratic forces worldwide, and what this seems to do—I say we must consult; that is my amendment. I agree with you, or you agree with me.
But the language in the bill gives away the right to consult and exchanges it for putting in their hands the ability to veto not just the money that affects their country but all of the UNDP money worldwide. And that, besides being unconstitutional, is unprecedented, Mr. Chairman.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
If you believe in our Constitution, if you believe in American sovereignty, if you believe that we have the right to make the final determination of our foreign policy, even with the language that I put in, that we must consult with them, then you have to vote for the amendment. Otherwise, this is a giveaway.
How can we criticize subsuming our interests to international organizations and the United Nations, as we hear so often from the other side, when, in a case like this, we are going to give it away? I don't care how good the group is or how bad the government is that they oppose. This is our foreign policy, and it should be the Americans, the American Congress and the President of the United States—in consultation, if we wish—but our final determination and not some foreign organization's as to whether or not we participate in worldwide projects.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman—you have 3 minutes remaining. And Mr. Smith has 3 1/4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH. I yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Smith, thank you very much. And I commend your amendment. I wish it was stronger and I am just appalled by my friend from New York trying to weaken it even further than it is.
Eight years ago, after I was elected to Congress for the first time, I went to the border of Thailand and Burma—and went and received a lot of bad publicity, because they claimed I entered Burma illegally—but went into Burma and had meetings in the jungle with some of the most sincere and idealistic human beings I have ever met.
These were young university students who had been chased through the jungle by SLORC soldiers who were murdering them and raping them as they chased them through the jungle. And they were in these encampments, barely surviving, and what did I find but a picture of George Washington and a young man who said, Congressman-elect Rohrabacher, we want to be like America. We want to have freedom.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I can't tell you how that touched my heart to see these people who had nothing to be grateful for believing in the United States of America and believing in the principles of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
These are the people that we want to consult with, people who have since then, I might add, been elected to a Parliament that was then dissolved by the military dictatorship.
What we are talking about here is not giving away our constitutional authority. I don't know how you can come up with that kind of rhetoric. We are putting limitations on this money so that any money that is spent is being spent for people who believe in democracy rather than being spent to bolster the worst gangster regime in Asia and probably one of the worst gangster regimes on this planet.
Whose side are we on is the question. I am going to ask that question: Whose side are we on? The Ackerman amendment will put us squarely on the side of the SLORC regime because they are claiming that that is the legitimate authority.
Instead, Mr. Smith's amendment would say, we are bestowing some recognition that the rightful government, the people who derive their powers from the consent of the governed, do not have the guns and hold the power in Burma today.
This amendment goes just one little step. It doesn't go far enough. But to neuter it even more is not just an insult to those people and Aung Sung Suu Kyi; it is an insult to our Founding Fathers who fought for their freedom as well.
This goes to the heart of what American foreign policy should be about in the post-cold war world. We should be on the side of those who are struggling for freedom and against those despotic regimes that are represented by SLORC, but also exist in other parts of the planet.
Yes, let's put a little limitation on the money that is being spent, as Congressman Smith wants to do. Let's make sure that we take a small step in recognizing the freedom movement in Burma and people who are actually elected to office and not the SLORC regime that has usurped power.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. My friend, please don't do that. There is nobody here who abhors the regime of the SLORC more than do I. We are on the same side on this issue. Do not try to divide us. We are in complete agreement with anything bad you want to say about that regime. But let me tell you something. I believe our Founding Fathers, George Washington and whoever you want to cite, would be turning over in their graves if they were monitoring your sentiments about turning over what is our constitutional responsibility to a foreign entity to make a final determination over and above that of the President and this Congress as to what to do with U.N. foreign policy, and whether or not we should be participating in the UNDP or any other organization.
I have the utmost regard for Aung Sung Suu Kyi and her movement and the democratic forces in that country in particular—and we are in total agreement.
Where we disagree is who should determine U.S. foreign policy? If you want to slam them, you might find a lot of friends on this side. If you want to cut off relations with them, you might find some very, very strong allies over here. But this is not that. This is who controls our foreign dollars, and the money we put into international organizations.
And to cut that off worldwide, because a group of people, wonderful people, I admit, disagree——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Elected people.
Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. Disagree with the way it is being spent is unconscionable. This is an American job. It is American money, and it is our policy. Don't surrender your country to a bunch of foreigners, no matter how nice they might be. The test isn't how nice they are, but that they do not have this responsibility. That is our constitutional responsibility, and I think liberals and conservatives will agree on this issue.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I yield to my friend, Mr. Lantos.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. LANTOS. That is all I need, Mr. Chairman. As the founding Chairman of—Democratic Chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I want to say we are united in our opposition to the Burmese regime. We are united in our admiration of Aung Sung Suu Kyi and the democratic forces, but Mr. Ackerman's amendment is a rational amendment which retains within the purview of the U.S. Government our foreign aid program, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Ackerman amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. All time has expired.
The Chair will now put the question on the Ackerman amendment. As many as are——
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Could I just ask a question, because I am being told several different things?
Chairman GILMAN. What is the gentleman's question?
Mr. BERMAN. I would like to ask a question to the Chairman of the Subcommittee. My understanding of what the Subcommittee——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman, all time has expired, but we will allow a brief colloquy. Go ahead.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Just 2 minutes.
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. One minute.
Mr. BERMAN. One minute; 1 1/2 minutes.
My understanding of the original language that the Subcommittee had passed out several years ago was that we reduce the amount we give UNDP by the amount they spend in Burma. I am told that this language makes a much larger cut in UNDP than that, and that concerns me.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. This holds them to what they got last year, the UNDP, and the difference—is it $26 million? $24 million.
Mr. BERMAN. Well, if I just can reclaim the last few seconds of my time, in my conversation with you I thought we were tracking the approach of we are going to reduce our contribution to UNDP by the dollar amount that UNDP insists on putting into Burma under conditions that we are concerned have the unintended consequence of helping SLORC, and that that was going to be the cut.
I never understood this to be cutting a larger amount than that, and this sounds like it is cutting $25 million from that, and that is what concerns me.
Chairman GILMAN. All time has now expired.
Mr. BEREUTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to offer a substitute at this point? Am I within my rights to offer a substitute?
Chairman GILMAN. Second degree amendments are in order.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am sending an amendment to the desk.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter; substitute to the Ackerman amendment. Delete the words ''supported by'' on page 116, line 6, with the words ''carried out only after consultations with''.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I am going to ask unanimous consent that on this amendment, we will limit the time to 5 minutes.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If this is not acceptable to both parties, then I will quickly withdraw it. But what I am suggesting is that we totally substitute for everything in the Ackerman amendment just a slight word change on page 116, line 6. It says, ''are supported by the leadership of the National League for Democracy and the leadership of the national''——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Is that 115 or 116?
Mr. BEREUTER. 116.
Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman repeat his proposal? Mr. Bereuter, would you repeat your proposed amendment?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am working from the Committee print.
Mr. ACKERMAN. We have different versions of these pages, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BEREUTER. Then refer to page 115, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment refer to the proper page 115, line 3. And the only change is that instead of being ''are supported by the leadership'', it would simply read ''are carried out after consultation with''.
Chairman GILMAN. Does the gentleman accept the amendment?
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. Would that be acceptable to the two parties?
Mr. ACKERMAN. We are getting close, Mr. Chairman. Let me just check another section here.
Mr. SMITH. While you are doing that, we have consulted with the chairman of the Asia and Pacific Affairs, and I think it is a very good improvement, and we would accept it.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Does the gentleman——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith accepts the amendment. Mr. Ackerman, do you accept the amendment?
Mr. ACKERMAN. It would be acceptable if the gentleman did not exclude the worldwide money to UNDP and made it applicable only to Burma and applied his same language, which is a good compromise, I believe, to I think it is ''B'' on page 114.
Where are all the lawyers? They are gone. Good, we are lucky.
OK. On page 114, line 18, instead of ''deemed''—and put the same language in on line 22, ''consultation with the leadership.''
Chairman GILMAN. Does the gentleman accept that wording?
Mr. ACKERMAN. If the gentleman accepts what we are attempting to do.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, do you accept the amendment?
Mr. BEREUTER. We need 30 seconds here.
Mr. ACKERMAN. It is that, and the limitation, Doug, Chris.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Smith thinks that is appropriate, and I think it is appropriate. It is consistent with what is in the previous part of my amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. So the same language on page 115 at ''D'' would apply to approximately line 22, would be ''in consultation with'' rather than——
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. Rather than a requirement. The consultation must take place according to the——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Leave it a required consultation in both instances, and on 114 at the top, for the total amount of money, that it would affect only Burma, not the UNDP worldwide.
Mr. SMITH. That would gut the whole amendment, I mean, that second one.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Then we go back to where you and Mr. Berman had been in total agreement over.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith and Mr. Ackerman both accept the amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We haven't said that yet, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Well, our time is running.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I know, Mr. Chairman, but we are talking about U.S. foreign policy. We don't want to cut it short because of an artificial clock. Or do we?
Mr. BEREUTER. I would ask the gentleman, if I have the time yet, are you objecting to lines 6 through 11 on page 114?
Mr. BERMAN. Would you yield to me?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. I think the issue is how much—is cutting UNDP by the amount they are giving to programs in Burma, so we are not giving—it is not just a fungible thing. My guess is the amount is a little bit less than Mr. Smith is withholding, but I am told it is around $20 million.
So my preference would be we only withhold that amount, which is——
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Let me just say to the gentleman, and I thank him for yielding, that I think it would be wise if we took a few moments to work on this, Mr. Chairman, to figure out the exact amount that is being spent in Burma because we have got conflicting numbers. Perhaps the Administration can weigh in and give what they think the contribution to Burma from UNDP has been.
But we have, I think, $20 million, $21 million; we are not sure what it is. I would like to get to the bottom of that.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this be set aside temporarily and we move on to other business and have the staff work out appropriate language.
Mr. GILMAN. Without objection, it will be set aside for the gentlemen to work it out. Mr. Bereuter is recognized.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. I would like to address the subject of Tibet, and I had drafted an amendment. I thought we were going to take care of this in an en bloc amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEREUTER. I had hoped there was a way to extract the Committee from one of the more difficult problems we had in recent State Department authorization bills. Most of us are aware of the issue here, I think, that have been on this Committee before. There are Members of this Committee who strongly favor the creation of a special envoy for Tibet. I believe the Chairman does.
This Committee tried to mandate a special envoy in the 105th Congress, over my objection, and this was one of the items that ended up dooming our reorganization effort. Our effort to create a special envoy was one of the items most——
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. If you have any conversations, please retire to the anteroom.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
——was one of the items most frequently criticized by the Administration as unhelpful micromanaging. It opened up the Committee, in my judgment, to ridicule from leading conservatives like former Secretary of State Eagleburger and liberal voices like The New York Times and The Washington Post.
As a practical matter, the Chinese would never allow such an official to travel to Tibet or to play any role in negotiations. The Administration argues the special envoy language undermines our ongoing efforts to encourage negotiations on Tibet and preservation of the Tibetan culture.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order. You can't hear Mr. Bereuter.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct. If there are any conversations, please take them out to the anteroom. The gentleman has the floor. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
What I was going to do with the amendment was to try to avoid the situation we faced in recent years where a Tibetan envoy becomes something that endangers our ability to have this legislation signed into law.
Now, this year, in contrast to last year, the word ''should,'' ''should have a special envoy'' language, was adopted instead of ''shall,'' as we have had it in the past, which created all the problems.
Now, what will happen with the language in the bill is that appropriately the State Department will ignore it. I had proposed, and would be willing to go to a different approach, to accomplish more for those people that favor some sort of special attention to Tibet, and I would offer it on the floor, if we have agreement between now and then, because I think it would have more impact.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And what I would suggest that the State Department would have found acceptable, and that was a part of my proposed amendment, is instead of having the special envoy, which will never become in effect, we should simply see about the creation of a special coordinator for Tibetan issues within the State Department.
And this person, who would oversee all administrative actions on Tibet, could cross over State Department bureaus, reach across departmental lines, including other Cabinet officers, EPA, Energy. This person could present U.S. concerns and views to the international community without a perceived intrusion into the PRC's internal affairs.
So I think it would be a much better approach, one that would really mean something, if we had language which simply created this kind of special coordinator for Tibetan affairs in the State Department, as opposed to the special envoy with ambassadorial rank which will never come into being.
I am not going to push the point, but if those people that want to have special attention to Tibetan affairs want to really accomplish something, then they can either take my concept or another concept, or give me support when we reach the floor on this issue.
Having explained this, I am not going to present the amendment because the State Department doesn't find this to be veto bait since the word ''should'' is there versus ''shall.'' And I yield to anyone who wants the remainder of my evaporating time, or I will yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman accept a slight modification by calling this individual ''Director for Tibetan Affairs''?
Mr. BEREUTER. I don't think that is anything that is controversial. It sounds fine to me as opposed to a special coordinator.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate that.
Mr. BEREUTER. But I don't have the amendment. If the gentleman thinks it is appropriate, and especially the Chairman who has an interest in this, we could accomplish this on the floor and it might be a meaningful advance instead of a rhetorical one. I yield.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter is recognized for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that I might be able to offer my amendment to title XI at a later time because I believe that the negotiation regarding budget will preempt a part of my amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has made a unanimous consent request to reserve his opportunity to amend title XI. Without objection, the request is granted.
Are there further amendments to title XI?
If not, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title XII, Department of State Authorities and Activities.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to title XII?
If not, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title XIII, Organization of the Department of State, Department of State Personnel, the Foreign Service.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any——
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. I just ask unanimous consent here to return to title XIII for the Inspector General amendment, if necessary. I think we are very close to an agreement. We will either have an agreed-upon amendment or put it in the en bloc, but to protect my position I would like to have permission to return to the title.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. If there is no objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to.
The clerk will read the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title XIV, U.S. Public Diplomacy Authorities and Activities for U.S. Informational, Educational Cultural Programs.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to this title?
If there are no amendments to the title, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title XV, International Organizations, United Nations and Related Agencies.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to title XV?
If there are no amendments to title XV, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title XVI, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any amendments to title XVI?
If there are no amendments to title XVI, the clerk will designate the next title.
Ms. BLOOMER. Title XVII, Foreign Policy Provisions.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell has an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that consideration of the amendment by Mr. Campbell be limited to 20 minutes, evenly divided and controlled by Mr. Campbell.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if you could, I would ask that it be 30 minutes equally divided. And we may not take the time, depending on how many speakers we have.
Chairman GILMAN. Any objection to 30 minutes? There is no objection. I would hope that you could try to concentrate the time. We are now already into 7 and we have quite a few amendments.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Campbell is recognized for—just a moment. Mr. Campbell will be limited to 15 minutes and Mr. Smith will be limited to 15 minutes.
The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell. ''Strike section 1705 and insert the following (and amend the table of contents accordingly): Section 1705——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Campbell appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment deals with the issue of international family planning. It was an area of great discussion and debate in the last Congress and, thus, I suspect is well known to all Members of the Committee.
Let me draw your attention, please, to the provision in the Committee draft. It is at page 198, section 1705.
Mr. CAMPBELL. It is, in my judgment, an error to keep this section in as drafted. What we ought to do instead is use the same compromise that we had last year—so that is what this debate will concern. The same compromise as we had last year is what I am offering this year in place of what is in the bill.
The U.N. Population Fund right now does not have any programs in China. The bill says that all international family planning money is at jeopardy if the President cannot certify that the International Family Planning Fund has terminated activities in China. And that seems to me really very, very wrong because you are going way beyond just China. What you are saying is that all international family planning money is at risk, not just international family planning money conditioned for China, unless the President has independently certified that during the last year there have been no coerced abortions in China.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
This is a mistake because of the success of international family planning funds elsewhere in the world, India, Bangladesh, and other countries I will be speaking about at the close. Understand that what this provision does in section 1705 is to put at risk all international family planning money on the basis of one country's practices. On its own merits, whether you believe family planning is appropriate or not, that is an illogical premise.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield? ?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Not just yet. I appreciate my friend's interest, and I will yield to him in a moment.
The argument is that this is clearly not where we ought to be. The substitute that I offer is really not what I would have preferred on my own. I happen to think that family planning does a lot of good. But what the amendment does is to avoid controversy, hopefully, by picking up identical language to the compromise last year, and here is what that compromise was.
It says that no funds can go for family planning in China, so no American taxpayers' dollars go for family planning in China. Second it then says that half of the money that we are giving to international family planning, only half, can be committed as of March 1. And as to the other half, after March 1, if the U.N. Family Planning Agency gives money for China, then dollar for dollar we offset it from what we are giving to the International Family Planning Fund.
So, we can be sure that after that March 1st date, and as to at least half of all the funds that we are committing, there is a dollar-to-dollar offset if the United Nations on its own chooses to give funds to China. So this is the present compromise in present law.
I think it is highly preferable to an absolute ban on all use of family planning, which is what the bill provides if China is not behaving as it should.
And the last thing I wish to say in my opening remarks is this: There is a very good faith debate on abortion. I know that, and I surely respect the points of view of those who disagree with me. That is a question of conscience as to which none of us has a right to control another's thinking. It is one of the reasons that it is so important to separate family planning from abortion. This section of the bill deals with family planning. If we are interested in keeping the numbers of abortions in the world down, I very much hope that we can get countries to use family planning. And then those who are in a position to contemplate an abortion because they never knew about family planning and never had access to it, would instead not find themselves in that position.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
At that point, I will yield to my friend, Mr. Gejdenson, who had an inquiry. I want to yield time. How much time would you like?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Why don't we wait and let the other side——
Mr. CAMPBELL. Fine. I reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me say to my good friend from California, he spoke a moment ago, and it is section 1705 that all international family planning funds are at risk and would be lost if the coercion in China continues. Section 1705 deals only with the contribution to the U.N. Population Fund, not to the almost $400 million for international population control—$385 to be more exact—that is in the bill from last year and probably will be carried out in fiscal year 1998. So I think that should be made very, very clear. We are not talking about all family planning funds, only the U.N. Population Fund.
Mr. Chairman, every day forced abortion and forced sterilization devastates the lives of women and families in China while the U.N. Population Fund provides political cover and sustenance to those who practice these abuses. The Government of China compels women to abort their so-called unauthorized or illegal children. It starts with intense persuasion, using all of the economic, social and psychological tools a totalitarian State has at its disposal.
If these methods fail, women are taken physically to abortion mills. Forced abortions are often performed very, very late in pregnancy, even in the ninth month. Sometimes the baby's skull is crushed with forceps as the baby emerges from the birth canal. Other times the baby gets an injection with formaldehyde or some other poison into the baby's soft spot into the baby's cranium. The mass murderers euphemistically called ''family planning cadres'' are at it every day of the week killing babies and devastating women's lives.
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Forced abortion, Mr. Chairman, was properly construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. Today it is employed aggressively and with chilling effectiveness and unbearable pain upon women in the People's Republic of China. Women in China are required—and I find this so incredibly offensive—they are required to obtain a birth coupon before conceiving a child. Chinese women are hounded by the population control cadres, and even their menstrual cycles are publicly monitored as one means of ensuring compliance.
Mr. Chairman, in the mid-1990's the PRC issued a decree on eugenics which nationalized discrimination against the handicapped. In a move that is eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Communist Chinese Government is implementing forced abortion against handicapped children simply because they suffer some anomaly like Down's syndrome, and forced sterilization against parents who simply don't measure up in the eyes of the State.
Since 1979, the U.N. Population Fund has provided funds, materiel, people on the ground and what no money can buy, that sort of respectability that U.N. agency can convey by providing a shield against international criticism.
As a matter of fact, I think Members should be aware of this. The head of the UNFPA, the executive director Dr. Sadis has said, and I quote—and if this comports with your reality of China, then vote for the Campbell amendment. This is her statement: ''China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and in the control of its population growth. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.''
She also said the implementation of the policy and the acceptance of the policy is purely voluntary. There is no such thing as, you know, a license to have a birth and so on. Totally out of kilter with the truth.
She also said the UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the Government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a totally voluntary program.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Do you believe that? Do you believe that, Mr. Campbell? Totally voluntarily?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman yield?
I do not believe it is. And just let me finish my answer, if I might, but I would really be very, very interested in understanding why that should put at risk family planning money to Bangladesh and India.
Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to answer that. We provide money to Bangladesh and to India and others through other nongovernmental organizations, and that is the way you do it. But if an organization stays side by side with oppressors of women and babies, I think that is the time to draw the line and say you are disqualified from receiving our money.
And out amendment says: Get out of China. Let me remind Members last year when this similar amendment to what I am offering today or that is in the body of the bill, people were saying, accept it, they are getting out of China. Now all of a sudden we hear there are plans, and negotiations are taking place with officials in Beijing for a new series of programs in the PRC.
Mr. Chairman, just let me conclude. In July 1995, Mr. Hyde was there, and many other Members of our subcommittee were there, when we heard three women who had suffered the cruelty of the PRC come to the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, and they testified how they had been mistreated by the Government of the PRC. One of those witnesses, Li Bao Yu, told us how her trouble started in earnest when she removed an IUD that the population cadres forced her to accept and had been making her sick. She became pregnant. The family planning program officials who came to inspect every woman in the village several times a year discovered her pregnancy and threatened that if she did not have the abortion, her first child, her only child, would be denied education and health care, and that is some of part of the coercion they use. These are her own words: ''They threatened me that if I do not agree to have this abortion, that my first child will forever have no chance of being registered a normal citizen.''
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Another witness, Hu Shuye, told us about being forced to have an abortion 6 months into her pregnancy. She broke down crying at the witness table, and it took an hour before she regained her ability to tell her story. And she said, and I quote: ''I had no way out. They forced me. They dragged me to have this surgery done.''
Another Chinese woman, Chen Yun Fei, told our Committee that the cadres of the local government were trying to catch every woman every place, so you can hear the sound of crying everywhere. And they used the tractors to pull a big loudspeaker to tell people that if you are pregnant you ''must have an abortion''. She went on to say how she had found an abandoned child, took that child for herself, and this is after being forcibly aborted. She found this child, and there are many abandoned baby girls, as we all know, in the PRC. When she found it, the family planning cadres counted it against her, and she was forcibly sterilized so that would never happen again.
Mr. Chairman, the language in this bill says, get out of China. As I said earlier, it was construed to be a crime against humanity when Polish women were forcibly aborted. It is no less a crime against humanity today. Those who stand arm in arm with these oppressors should pay a price. And if the money doesn't go to the UNFPA, if it goes to some other NGO that does family planning, that is fine with me. But we should not, I repeat should not, allow this government and those who stand by and cheerlead and provide aid to these kinds of crimes to continue getting U.S. funds. If they get out of China, the $25 million that is anticipated in this bill is sent to New York headquarters, to the UNFPA, not another question asked.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman has utilized 8 minutes and 10 seconds of his time. Mr. Campbell has utilized 11 1/2 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. No, 4 1/2.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell has 11 1/2 remaining.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 4 minutes to my friend from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I thank my friend and colleague for yielding, and I strongly identify myself with his position. As my friend in New Jersey so well knows, we will be standing together when the issue of Most Favored Nation treatment for China will be coming up shortly, and there are few of us as strongly opposed to the dictatorial regime in China for a dozen reasons than he and I.
But this is a separate issue. We are not dealing here with forced abortions. We are dealing here with a critical issue of family planning, a global issue of utmost importance. And the amendment of the gentleman from California is measured, reasonable, common sense, and will advance U.S. national interests. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Campbell amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I had on my list that Mr. Gejdenson had asked for time. I would inquire if any other colleagues have a request for time. If not, I can conclude in less than a minute.
I yield to the gentleman, my colleague from California, Mr. Capps for 4 minutes.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. Only 1 minute. I know we all have interest of getting out of here at a reasonable hour, but I want to say how strongly I support the amendment of Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Capps.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
That concludes the inquiries on my time.
Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I would like to rise in support of the Campbell amendment. The U.N. Population Fund is the largest multilateral provider of family planning services. Many nations do not have bilateral U.S. family planning programs; therefore, UNFPA is the only way that our Nation supports family planning in those nations.
AID only supports family planning in 32 nations. UNFPA supports programs in over 140 nations. And the only way we can address the worldwide population growth problem, which pressures the environment and destabilizes our allies, is through UNFPA.
Current law prevents any of our funds from supporting a coercive family planning program. That is the Kemp-Kasten amendment. Current law also prevents our funds from being used to support the UNFPA China program, even though there is no UNFPA China program at the current time.
UNFPA's contact with China is minimal, only one office in Beijing, and that office's function is to manage UNFPA's program in Mongolia and North Korea. UNFPA does not have any China program. Accordingly, we need to support UNFPA because of its work in 140 nations in order to address global population growth. If we condition our contributions, we will be hurting all those other nations. Accordingly, I urge the support for the Campbell amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Before I yield further time, perhaps my colleague from New Jersey wants to yield time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. I yield to Mr. Chabot.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I will keep my remarks, in the interest of time, very brief.
I strongly would like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Smith and oppose Mr. Campbell's amendment and yield back to Mr. Smith.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in supporting the gentleman from California's amendment. It is very reasoned and balanced. It is clear that this actually reduces forced abortion and other methods that all of us find objectionable.
Frankly, if the Campbell amendment is not adopted, I would say that people who are antiabortion should actually be for the Campbell amendment because without it, the alternatives are the things that people like Mr. Smith and others object to, as we all object to many of the Chinese policies. This is actually supporting an alternative. It is a reasoned and balanced amendment and ought to be supported.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Campbell has remaining 7 minutes, and Mr. Smith has remaining 6 minutes.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. I yield to Mr. Hyde.
Mr. HYDE. I thank you for yielding, and I want to strongly support your amendment. I always thought it was ironic to refer to the Chinese coerced abortion program as prochoice. I mean, it is the antithesis of choice. If you have more than one baby, you get sterilized. Sitting right there at that table where Nancy is was a Chinese woman who was forcibly sterilized because she had picked up a thrown-away baby, a little girl, which people seem to think could be thrown away. She picked her up by the side of a road and was arrested and forcibly sterilized. She sat right there. I heard her testimony.
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I think it is important to note we are the largest single financial source of family planning money in the world. Over $385 million of our taxpayers' money goes to support family planning all over the world, and Mr. Smith simply wants to keep our tax dollars and U.N. presence out of China so long as they have a coerced abortion plan.
Now, Mr. Smith, I would like to ask you a question. Mr. Campbell indicated that Bangladesh and other countries that are evidently teeming with too many people need family planning, and your proposal cuts them off. Is that true?
Mr. SMITH. UNFPA probably does have a program in Bangladesh, but we provide money through other nongovernmental organizations that gets to Bangladesh and other countries, and as a matter of fact, if the gentleman would continue yielding——
Mr. HYDE. I do.
Mr. SMITH [continuing]. This gentleman, and a majority of the House, has continually believed—and will aggressively promote this on the floor of the House—that there are two issues involved here: Voluntarism, and with another policy, the Mexico City policy, separating abortion from family planning. I say to the Administration and I say to my friends on the other side of the issue on our side of the aisle as well as on the other side that there would be no limitation in terms of ceilings or metering or any of the other payout schemes that you find offensive if we could erect that wall of separation and truly mean it when we say that voluntarism matters.
It is a matter of human rights. China has an absolutely egregious policy that oppresses women. We have heard the cases over and over again. 60 Minutes broke this story, Steven Mosher broke it even before that in the early 1980's.
The United Nations looks at numbers, looks at bottom line, pays lip service against coercion, and then links arm in arm with the oppressors. We are saying: Be meaningful. No more lip service. The United Nations should get out of China. No more programs. And I would say to my Chairman, they are working, we understand, negotiating for new programs in the PRC. That is why this amendment is more necessary now, or this language in the bill, than ever.
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California, Mr. Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I don't like to debate these kinds of questions because you never get anywhere. People on one side are going to be there. People on the other side are going to be there. But just to give you a perspective here, I do not agree that the forced abortion program in China is right. I would agree with Mr. Smith that it is wrong.
But, Mr. Smith, let me give you a perspective on what happened before the Communists took over. I was in China for 2 1/2 years before the Communists took over in 1949, and the U.S. marines that I was stationed there with would go out on maneuvers and we would see different things in the field, and it was not uncommon to run across a baby's skeleton or even the remains of a baby not too long delivered.
The throwing away of babies at the time was indiscriminate because there was no nutrition there because China is and always has been a very poor country, and the peasants were very illiterate. The peasants only know one thing, survival, so they did what they had to do, and there was no plan to it. They were just doing it.
At least now there is a plan to try to encourage those people who would abide by the plan to adhere to a limitation on how many children they have. If you have over a billion people, you know, how do you control the population growth?
I recently had dinner at the house of a professor who is teaching at one of our universities here. I first met the gentleman when he came to work for me when he was an exchange student from Communist China. He was not a Communist member, and he did not buy many of the Communist policies. In fact, that is why after returning to China he made every effort to get back to the United States, and he is now a U.S. citizen.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And having dinner at his house, I asked him about that one particular aspect of China's policy, and his simple retort to me was, if you have over a billion people, and you don't have the resources to take care of them, what alternative do they have? And he is someone that has three children, two of them born in China, one born here, who does not find that much offense with the policy because of all the underlying conditions that exist there.
And I think that we here in this country, where we have a lot more freedoms, we have a lot more choice, we have a lot more ability to take care of our children and to do the right thing by them, should not be in a position of sitting as judge of other people and what they have to do in their countries, and I support Mr. Campbell's amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for pointing out that infanticide, which was a problem before the Communists, continues to be a problem, and even some of the Chinese media has reported on a growing incidence of infanticide, many of the victims being baby girls.
We are talking about a policy where it is one child per couple. One child. Brothers and sisters are illegal. Now, if the family decided voluntarily they want to use birth control, that is their business. But who is Big Brother sitting in Beijing telling people they can't have children when they want to have them? That is the issue here. It turns choice right on its head because now we are talking about this choice whether or not to conceive, and once they do, they will be forcibly aborted.
There was $385 million for family planning in last fiscal year's budget. The one before us today, although it is not delineated specifically, we are probably talking about roughly the same amount. That is not affected by this amendment. The amount at issue here is a voluntary contribution (——) that is the section of the bill that we are talking about of $25 million to the UNFPA. We are saying you can have your money providing you stop aiding and abetting a terrible human-rights-violating program in the People's Republic of China. It seems to be a very modest proposal.
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute to my friend from Florida, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank my friend from California for yielding, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks of all of my colleagues who have spoken in favor of Mr. Campbell's amendment. One of the things that we seek to do is to try to be reasonable, to try to be balanced, and to try to be fair. The Campbell amendment, in my opinion, meets all of those tests.
Three months ago, Mark Foley, a colleague of mine and yours, and I were in China in Chian, and we broke away from the crowd to try as best we could to just familiarize ourselves with the people. Mark and I took a picture with a young girl named Ya Ya. It was cold, 11 degrees on that day, and her face was beet red, but she and countless other children in that ancient city seemed reasonably happy, notwithstanding the enormous difficulties that they are confronted with in their day-to-day lives.
I have been here now 5 years, and each year my good friend from New Jersey in an impassioned and very correct manner has gone forward to try to avoid the consequences of forced abortion. And there is no one here that favors forced abortion anywhere in the world. But in the final analysis, the U.N. Population Fund and other family planning funds are the one way that we might be at least reasonable and fair in our approach to trying to deal with the serious consequences of an overpopulated world.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you.
I can wrap up by simply saying that there are a significant number of issues that suggest that my good friend, Mr. Martinez, is correct. That we need to tread very cautiously in our engagement practices with our countries, and whether we like it or not, China is here to stay. Let's at least give Mr. Campbell's very reasonable amendment a chance to prop up the U.N. Population Fund in a fair and equitable manner.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell has a minute and a half remaining and Mr. Smith has a minute and a half remaining. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think Members are well aware of what the issue is. I urge them to vote no on the Campbell amendment. This is an effort to be very sincere and aggressive about voluntarism. Voluntarism should matter. The U.N. Population Fund has covered itself with shame over these past several years. They were there right at the ground floor when the one-child-per-couple policy was crafted back in 1979. In 1983, the United Nations gave an award for excellence in population matters to the Chinese program during one of the high tides when women were being trussed and carried into abortion mills screaming and crying. Many women have been broken by this.
The New York Times reported on this not so long ago in an exposé about how a woman had been shattered emotionally by the forced abortion. I brought that case up in Beijing during one of the human rights trips there. I have often spoken to Peng Peiyun who is one of the chief architects of the program. They deny it outright and they say it doesn't happen despite ample evidence.
A vote for human rights and against the Campbell amendment is a vote in favor of voluntarism and for the women of China and for the babies and for voluntary family planning and for the underlying language in the bill.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Very briefly, I would like to associate myself with Mr. Campbell. To me, his amendment makes sense and I support it.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Campbell.
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, to use the remainder of my time I yield myself the remainder.
Two very important things: First of all, take a look at my amendment. I am reading from the first page, lines 8 through 11: ''The prohibition on use of funds in China: None of the funds made available under this section shall be made available for a country program in the People's Republic of China.''
My amendment does not fund abortion, it does not fund even family planning through the UNFPA in China. Please, we have heard so much about abortion. That is not what my amendment deals with. None of the money may go for China at all.
Second, note that the underlying bill puts at risk the U.N. population fund assistance in other countries totally innocent of whatever evil China is doing, and I am not prepared today to defend anything that China is doing. And the amount of money that is at risk is serious, as the Chairman pointed out to us, because many countries do not get money through the bilateral assistance program and hence only have family assistance money through the UNFPA.
Last, Mr. Chairman, a vote for my amendment is a vote against abortion because it is a vote for family planning. The alternative to abortion in many cases is family planning and people who are too poor and too ignorant to know that must be told, and the UNFPA is a way of doing so. I urge a yes vote on my amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The Chair will now put the question on the Campbell amendment. As many as are in favor of the amendment, say aye.
As many are opposed to the amendment, say no.
Chairman GILMAN. The ayes appear to have it.
Mr. SMITH. I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote has been requested.
Is there a second?
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
There is a sufficient second; the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes.
Mr. Goodling.
Mr. GOODLING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.
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.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
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.
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
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.
[No response.]
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
Mr. Fox.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no.
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. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes.
Mr. Berman.
[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. Yes.
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.
Ms. McKinney.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
Ms. Danner.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.
Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes yes.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Mr. Wexler.
Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. Aye.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
Mr. LEACH. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach votes yes.
Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox.
Mr. FOX. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
Mr. McHugh.
[No response.]
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.
Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes.
Ms. Danner.
[No response.]
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 23 ayes and 16 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen. Add at the end of title XVII the following: Section——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and I ask unanimous consent that consideration of the amendment by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen be limited to 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
[The amendment of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen appears in the appendix.]
Is there objection? If no objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is acknowledged for 5 minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment establishes reporting requirements on the Administration's implementation of the title IV provisions of the Libertad Act known as Helms-Burton, which requires the Secretary of State to exclude people who have been found to be trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro regime belonging to U.S. citizens.
The issue at hand, Mr. Chairman, is not the validity of the section nor the merits of the law. These issues were already debated at length during the last Congress and in the end the Libertad Act became U.S. law. The focus of this discussion and the purpose of this amendment is to ensure the faithful implementation of title IV, which is an extremely pertinent issue given the recent developments surrounding this law.
We have seen how other provisions of Helms-Burton have yet to be implemented and we have further witnessed in recent weeks how title IV has also entered into very precarious waters with the recent announcement of a compromise with the European Union where it was stated that Congress would be approached to discuss the possibility of a waiver for title IV as well. And we know that some European countries have conditioned their willingness to negotiate with the United States on there being no further determinations on title IV. So combining these with the slow implementation of this section of the law, you start to wonder whether Congress is being taken seriously or a mockery is being made of the laws being passed and certainly the threshold of confidence is low.
There are serious doubts about the commitment to implement title IV of the Libertad Act on the fullest extent of the law and this requires immediate action. That is why I am introducing this amendment to require quarterly reports from the State Department on the implementation of this section. And by doing so, we address many of the fears we currently have about this section of the law being carried out with diligence.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
This amendment in its current form is the product of consultations with the State Department, and in the spirit of cooperation we addressed the concerns that they raised with us and we incorporate many of the modifications made by the State Department.
I think that this amendment provides a viable solution to the issue of the proper implementation of title IV, and it is a solution that we can feel confident about.
Once again, this is merely a reporting amendment, and it is true that the Administration has provided periodic verbal briefings on the implementation to interested Members, and we appreciate their willingness to do this, but a written report is more thorough and will allow us to track the progress of the implementation over time.
The other written reports that we see is when unnamed State Department officials leak this information to the newspapers, and I think that Congress deserves at least that much. If this information is so sensitive that they cannot provide it to us in writing, why did we read about unnamed State Department officials confirms details in the newspaper, in our Miami Herald we get to track Helms-Burton, through newspaper reports? And to accommodate the Administration's concerns, this amendment that I have proposed asked them to put less detailed information in their reports to us than they are perfectly willing to confirm for newspaper reporters, and I think that we deserve at least that much.
I would like to believe that even those who might have opposed the law for whatever reason share a strong interest in seeing that our laws are at least enforced or at least reported to Congress about their progress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady's points. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to this amendment. It seems sometimes we have to focus the entire power of this government on a process that does us or the Cubans very little good.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I can only tell my colleague that a company in my district innocently trading in Japan, a company that sells hardwoods around the world, sold some hardwood to a Japanese trading company. It turned out somewhere in there there was a Cuban. The next thing, my small company had all their assets grabbed. The company was put in economic jeopardy because we believe somehow all this turning the tourniquet is going to have an impact on Castro and his government. It seems to me that we just complicate our own business activities here. We do very little, if anything, except to give Fidel Castro the best excuse in the world why his economy and policies are a failure inside Cuba. He can say, look, the biggest country in the world has got this massive economic embargo against us.
I think if you look at our experience with other countries, the policy against Cuba has been the least successful of every Communist country we have come in contact with. And maybe that ought to tell us something.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, I would like to ask my colleague and friend from Florida a question. I happen to have voted against this particular act last year, but that is not the issue. The issue is really compliance with it. And I just wonder whether this isn't really overdoing it in terms of the detail——
Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman use his mike.
Mr. HOUGHTON. In terms of the detail and the timing and the individuals and the entities, it would seem to be a Herculean task involved.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If the gentleman would yield, we know that the Administration, just like other administrations, Republican or Democrat, have always wanted to minimize the number of reports given to Congress and they have, in fact, asked this Committee to repeal many of the existing reports. This bill, in fact, repeals many of those reporting requirements. But I think that we have an important obligation to monitor how this is being implemented. And were it not for the information that they readily give reporters when it suits their interests, I think that Congress at least deserves some sort of specification about how this title is being implemented.
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And as I said, the Administration asked us for seven specific changes in the wording of the amendment. I think it was a good-faith effort to address their primary concerns. This is not to say that they approve it. Of course they do not. No administration would want to continue to do reporting to Congress. But this is, I think, a good faith effort to at least read about it before we pick up our morning paper.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Are there any other speakers on this side? Mr. Menendez?
Chairman GILMAN. Three and a half minutes.
Mr. HAMILTON. We have 3 1/2 minutes remaining, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Chairman.
I want to speak in favor of the gentlewoman's amendment. The fact of the matter is that wherever you stand on our policy, the law is law. We may be able to disagree with the law, but we are not in a position to disrespect it. And what I suggest simply is what this Committee has sought time and time again, to get information about how that law is being enforced, and that is all the gentlewoman is trying to do. Simply to get information on that part of the law in which there is some degree of skepticism in terms of its enforcement. Maybe that information will prove us to be wrong in our skepticism. Maybe it will prove us to be right, in which case the law is not being pursued by the executive branch. That is all we are saying, and I think the gentlewoman's amendment is well taken.
I don't want to get into with—my distinguished colleague from Connecticut—a policy debate on the underlying issue because that is not what is at stake here, and I would not want to confuse it. What is at stake is simply a reporting requirement. It is what we seek time and time again in different aspects of that law which has passed.
Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. MENENDEZ. Happy to yield.
Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman disagree with the notion that if you see a bad law, you would prefer it not be enforced?
Mr. MENENDEZ. John F. Kennedy said Americans are free to disagree with the law but they are not free to disobey it. And similarly I would suggest that our government as an example of that is not free to disobey a law even if it is one they disagree with.
Overwhelmingly this House and the Senate passed the law, which the President signed. It is the law of the land. If we start on that road of disobeying it, then I think we run down a slippery slope that none of us would want to see.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton has a minute and a half remaining.
Mr. HAMILTON. Any further requests for time? We yield back the balance of the time.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton yields back the balance of his time. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield back as well.
Chairman GILMAN. All time has expired. The Chair will put the question on the Ros-Lehtinen amendment. As many as are in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to my reservation on title XIII and the Inspector General issue at this time. I would like to ask unanimous consent to offer revised language on the issue of establishing some additional procedural guidance for the Office of the Inspector General.
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection? The unanimous consent request is agreed to. The clerks will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Hamilton. At the end of chapter 2 of title XIII, insert the following——
Mr. HAMILTON. I ask unanimous consent that the——
Chairman GILMAN. Further reading of the amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Hamilton appears in the appendix.] Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Hamilton has the time and the floor. Please pay attention. If you have any conversations, please go out to the anteroom.
Mr. HAMILTON. I think this amendment is now in shape so that everybody can support it. I appreciate very much the cooperation that I have had from you, from Chairman Smith and from Chairman Burton. Chairman Burton heads the Government Reform Committee which might have jurisdiction of part or all of this with respect to other Inspector Generals.
This amendment attempts to address several concerns about the Inspector General's Office at the State Department. Concerns have arisen about what some of us at least have seen as a lack of attention by that office to due process rights of individuals who are under investigation. There have been a lot of complaints, particularly by political appointees, both Republican and Democrat, about the procedures there.
The amendment is a simple one. It simply ensures that the IG make all best efforts to provide adequate notice to individuals under criminal investigation before a formal interview. It requires the IG to provide information to employees of their rights to counsel, provides guidelines to those individuals on IG policies and procedures with respect to such investigations with the exception of matters exempt from disclosure under the laws, and it requires the IG to submit to Congress a one-time report on its internal press guidance and on how that guidance was followed in specific individual cases in the previous year.
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I know of many problems I can speak to longer but I know the Chairman is interested in cutting time down here, but I would simply hope that this amendment is one that everyone can support at that moment. We have worked hard to get language that will achieve that end, and I urge its adoption.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I strongly support Mr. Hamilton's amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Is anyone else seeking recognition?
If not, the question is now on the Hamilton amendment.
As many as are in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed.
The ayes appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I was considering offering at this time which I will not be offering, but I would like to put you on notice and put the Members of this Committee on notice that I may offer this on the floor. And it deals with Taiwan and whether or not we should admit Communist China into the WTO before Taiwan. And my piece of legislation would require that Taiwan be admitted before the admission of Communist China but I will not be offering this amendment tonight out of consideration of time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Rohra-bacher withdraws his proposed amendment.
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Actually, I have two.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sanford, would you withhold for a moment? We will withdraw the Sanford amendment.
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Ackerman are you prepared to go ahead?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I am prepared if Mr. Smith is.
Mr. SMITH. The staff has been working on this and came to an agreement and it comports with what we were talking about earlier so I think it is an acceptable compromise.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman. In section 1102(g) (relating to limitations on United States Voluntary Contributions to United Nations——
Chairman GILMAN. By unanimous consent, further reading is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Ackerman appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take 5 minutes.
I just want to thank the staff of Mr. Smith, Mr. Berman, Mr. Bereuter, and mine for working to come up with this language that basically meets all of the needs and concerns that have been appropriately expressed here and allows U.S. foreign policy to remain—the United States in consultation with those Democratic forces that have been successful in winning elections in Burma. And also further things that we all agree should be done.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there anyone else seeking recognition?
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Chairman, I think this compromise again accomplishes what we set out to do originally in the language of the bill, working with you and your staff.
I also want to thank Mr. Bereuter because he, I think, helped broker what now is a compromise that puts everybody in solid opposition to SLORC in favor of humanitarian aid, provided it is provided in consultation with the democratic forces that won the election back in 1990.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
So I support the amendment and yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Are there any further Members seeking recognition?
If no further Members seek recognition, the question is now on the Ackerman amendment.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. Yes. Mr. Chairman, earlier on title V, I had a——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hilliard, we are still on the Ackerman amendment. We will come back to your request.
Mr. HILLIARD. All right.
Chairman GILMAN. As many in favor of the Ackerman amendment, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
The ayes appear to have it. The Ackerman amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, earlier, on title V, I had asked the Committee for a reservation so that I may return with the understanding that I would have an amendment for that section. However, I would not use my reservation, but I would like to have report language that reflects Committee concessions that the African-Hebrew-Israelite community continues to enjoy substantial congressional support, and that several Members of Congress have written letters of support this year and last year on behalf of Israel with regard to this issue. And after a difficulty again, the achievement of this community has been praised by the Human Rights Caucus, and I think it deserves our continuing support. And with that report language being included, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to move on without the amendment.
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
Mr. Sanford, I ask unanimous consent to consideration of each of the amendments—and I understand Mr. Sanford has two amendments—be limited to 10 minutes each, equally divided and controlled by Mr. Sanford and an opponent.
Without objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to. Mr. Sanford is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SANFORD. I thought it was 5 minutes, sir.
Chairman GILMAN. Five minutes on each.
Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call up the Sanford amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford. At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and Mr. Sanford is acknowledged for 5 minutes.
[The amendment of Mr. Sanford appears in the appendix.]
Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, sir. I have two amendments. This first one basically would just move the overall international—the funding back down to what we had proposed in the budget resolution of 1996. In essence, there is a $2.93-billion raise from what had been proposed back in 1996 during the budget resolution. I guess this comes down to a philosophical vote, because many people would have objection, based on international funding. But, for me, it comes back to the issue of generational accounting.
Lawrence Kotlicoff and others have done a study of generational accounting. What it says is that a child born in America today will pay an 84-percent tax rate if we stay on the course that we are on. All the budgets, as we know, are back-loaded, both Republican and Democratic alike. And, therefore, I think that it is fairly important that we look at staying at that earlier budget resolution, which, in this case, would shave not from any particular area, but shave in total $2.93 billion in terms of funding.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I would say that there are many in this room who know infinitely more than I do about the world of international relations—the Chairman, Lee Hamilton, others. But in addition to looking at this from a green-eyeshade standpoint, I think that there are a couple of other considerations that we ought to consider.
One is that the world is changing, and I think U.S. foreign aid should reflect that. If you look at the money that is being proposed in terms of spending on embassies or diplomatic programs or the United Nations or, for that matter, foreign aid, if we look at that in comparison to international threat, it should be cut radically given the events that took place back in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
There is no Soviet Union. There is no Warsaw Pact. There is no community of Soviet satellite States. I think the world has changed considerably and, therefore, our aid programs ought to reflect that. But instead of declining, they have actually been rising; and in fact, the State Department's budget is more than a quarter larger today than it was back in the 1980's.
Second, I would make the point that more aid is not necessarily good aid, especially government-to-government aid. We spent over $1 trillion in 1997 dollars in different pieces of Third World with, I think, minimal effect. I mean, we can look at different examples, whether it is in Rwanda or Zaire; everybody can come up with a different example wherein large amounts of international aid have been spent and large amounts of U.S. aid have been spent with, I think, questionable results. In fact, if you look at aid overall, only a handful of countries who started receiving aid from the United back in the 1950's and 60's have ever graduated from dependent status.
Finally, I make the point that it is economic policy that matters most, not aid. In fact, there is no clear correlation between aid and economic growth. In fact, Peter Boone of the London School of Economics did a study of 100 nations. He came up with a correlation of 17 different things. And what he found was that long-term aid is not a means to create growth. In fact, aid does not promote economic growth for two reasons.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
One is that poverty is not caused by capital shortages, and, two, it keeps politicians at times from making the hard choices that they ought to make. On this point, I would recommend probably the best study of economic policies overall, and that would be Economic Freedom of the World, 1975 to 1995, economists Courtney, Lawson and Block. It ranks economic freedom. It puts places like the United States or Hong Kong at the top of the pile. It puts a number of countries, let's say—in Africa or South America, let's say, at the bottom of the pile. And it emerges with, I think, two important lessons. One is that economic policies matter, as I have stated before. Countries that got an A or a B average real rates of return in terms of GDP growth of 2.4 percent from 1980 to 1994 and 2.6 percent since then. That is quite different from the 27 countries that got an F, all of which had negative GDP growth.
So I think the point of this amendment is that it is good for the United States and I think, in some cases, it can be very good for the countries in question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think there is one central point that he misses, that to a very large degree, our foreign assistance budget is part of our economic policy, and as a result of that, it opens up markets for American companies. It is not an accident that in the countries where the French are dominant with their foreign policy activities, or others, they take the lion's share of the market.
Now, I think Mr. Bereuter, if he was here, could talk to you about countries that in the past have been our main recipients of food assistance and in short order became the single largest consumers of American-grown grain products.
This is shortsighted policy that is a reflection, not simply of bad international foreign policy, but is bad domestic economic policy. There is a direct correlation between our foreign relations and foreign activities and the economic benefits to American working families.
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I now reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition? We are going to——
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Lantos is going to close for our side.
Chairman GILMAN. You are controlling the time?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Right. So we are reserving the last 2 1/2 minutes on our side.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sanford has only 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Do you have another speaker, Mr. Sanford?
Mr. SANFORD. Well, I yield back my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. How much time do we have left on our side, sir?
Chairman GILMAN. Three minutes remaining.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Three minutes then.
Let me give Mr. Payne a minute, and then following that, we will leave the final 2 minutes to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. PAYNE. I would just like to raise a strong opposition to this amendment. It certainly does not meet the realities of today's world when we look at what our policy has been.
First of all, today, we are 21st among the most developed nations, as related to our appropriations and our so-called gifts to developing countries. And so I think we have a record which is extremely poor. And for an amendment like this to come up at this time, I think it is inappropriate. It is at the wrong time. It just does not fit into an already very, very limited foreign assistance program and we have to talk about capping it. So I would strongly oppose this amendment.
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield the remainder of our 2 minutes to Mr. Lantos.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't question the sincerity of my colleague from North Carolina, but I profoundly question his judgment. In a few moments, he will have an opportunity to vote for a resolution I introduced with a lot of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, commending the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.
Let me point out to my colleague that, in today's dollar terms, the Marshall Plan represented $120 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money, which we gave to European countries and which resulted in the preservation and in the building of a democratic and prosperous Europe. Had the same counsel prevailed in 1947 and 1948 that you are now recommending, the whole of Europe would be under Communist control.
Mr. SANFORD. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. No, I will not now yield.
The whole of Europe today would be a Communist entity. The reason we succeeded in preserving democracy in Western Europe and are now succeeding in moving into Central and Eastern Europe is because we had enough visionaries on both sides of the aisle, ranging from Senator Vanderberg to Congressman Christian Herter of Massachusetts and others who have seen the wisdom and the imperative of providing countries which are desperate in their economic conditions an opportunity to move up somewhat on the economic scale.
I think it is singularly inappropriate to propose to a country such as ours, which is the devoting the lowest percentage of any industrial nation on the face of this planet to its foreign policy and to its foreign aid budget, that we further cut it.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Tiny countries like Denmark, Norway, Holland, New Zealand spend vastly more on their foreign policy and on their foreign aid programs on a per capita basis than we do. I personally believe that the President's request is all too modest; it is the very least we should support, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will have to request time from Mr. Gejdenson. The time has expired.
The question now is on the Sanford amendment. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
Chairman GILMAN. The noes appear to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman GILMAN. Recorded vote is requested. Do I see a second?
Mr. CHABOT. Second.
Chairman GILMAN. Is there a second for——
Mr. CHABOT. Second.
Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. Sufficient second for the recorded vote?
Mr. CHABOT. Second.
Chairman GILMAN. Amendments not agreed to. Only 1 person has requested a second.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Second.
Chairman GILMAN. Second. All right.
Recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Page 367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
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.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Page 368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King.
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
Mr. Salmon.
Mr. SALMON. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. HOUGHTON. No.
Page 369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes no.
Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.
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. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes yes.
Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes yes.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes yes.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
Page 370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no.
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.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Andrews.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Brown.
Page 371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes no.
Ms. McKinney.
Ms. MCKINNEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes no.
Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no.
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner.
Ms. DANNER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
Mr. Hilliard.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes no.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Wexler.
Mr. WEXLER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes no.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. ROTHMAN. No.
Page 372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no.
Mr. Clement.
Mr. CLEMENT. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes no.
Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes no.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
Mr. GOODLING. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes yes.
Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Page 373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes no.
Mr. Andrews.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 12 ayes and 29 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Sanford has another amendment?
Mr. SANFORD. Yes, sir.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sanford, is the amendment distributed? The clerk will read the Sanford amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford. At the end of the bill add the following——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Mr. Sanford is recognized for 5 minutes.
[The amendment of Mr. Sanford appears in the appendix.]
Mr. SANFORD. Thank you.
The old saying is, if you fail, then try, try and try again. This is another attempt, in essence, to do the same, but at a smaller level.
Rather than freezing the international affairs account at what the budget resolution had proposed back in 1996, which would have resulted in a $2.93-billion dollar decrease from current levels, this amendment would freeze the international affairs account at 1997 levels and, therefore, would result in a $220-million decrease.
Page 374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The reasons for the amendment are the same as the ones I outlined earlier. I would say, though, to my dear colleague from California, that many people have argued that the reason that the Marshall Plan was as successful as it was was because it was finite in nature, unlike some of the aid programs that we have in place wherein they are infinite in nature and extend 30 or 40 years.
I would yield the balance of my time to Mr. Chabot.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I won't take up all the time, because I think some of the other colleagues might like to speak. But not only do I not question the judgment my colleague from South Carolina on this, but I commend him for offering this amendment and the previous amendment.
We sat in this room a couple of years ago—and we came to Congress at the same time—and by vote of this Committee, we cut back substantially on the amount of tax dollars which would be going to foreign aid. Unfortunately, this bill, as it is currently written, goes in the opposite direction and adds many, many taxpayers—hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to our foreign aid budget. And I think that is the wrong direction for us to head.
I think many of the dollars that we have spent on foreign aid over the years have not only been wasted, but in many instances, has been counterproductive, propped up a number of countries around the globe that otherwise might have changed for the better.
And so I just think at a time when we are serious about balancing the budget, this particular bill, as it is currently funded, goes in the wrong direction relative to spending.
And I will, again, thank the gentleman from South Carolina and yield back to the gentleman and then he can yield.
Mr. SANFORD. I am yielding the remainder of my time to Congressman Graham.
Page 375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mark.
To the gentleman from California, I would gladly vote for his resolution commending U.S. involvement in the Marshall Plan. I think it is one of the highlights of our country's involvement in the world, of which we should rightfully be proud, and I will gladly vote for my colleague's amendment to go back to the 1996 amendment funding level.
I was stationed at Rhein-Main Air Base for 4 years, and there is a monument there to the Berlin airlift. I don't think you will find a more generous people in the world than the American people. If you add up all the money we have given to our enemies and allies since 1947, I doubt if Denmark comes close.
It is about time for us to bring fiscal reality to every branch of the government, and I think the foreign aid bill should not be off limits; I think it is a very wise move at a very critical time in American history. Thank you.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I would now like to yield to——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, for a minute.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sherman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SHERMAN. When it comes to intergenerational accounting, this amount of aid represents 3 one-millionths of our national debt. And I think we can turn to our children and grandchildren, and I doubt they will ask us about 3 one-millionths of our national debt.
But they may very well ask us about the population explosion and the effect that it has on our planet. They may ask about wars that could have been prevented, about democracies that could have been nurtured. And I think that spending less than 10 percent of what we spend on defense on avoiding the need for our Defense Department is an investment not only in our present generation, but in future generations. So I will vote against the amendment.
Page 376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield 1 minute to Mr. Bereuter.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will not take the full amount. I have already addressed this issue, late last fall when I suggested that the President submit to us a budget request of $1 billion over last year. I believe it is appropriate that the United States be equipped to implement its superpower status and reflect it.
We have been cutting our presence around the world. We are not representing the interest of the American people adequately. Time after time we see our State Department, our foreign service officers, our commercial officers, agriculture officers hampered by shortages in personnel, living in and operating out of very inadequate facilities. And, furthermore, I think the staffing is simply not able to represent us adequately in consulates.
A case, perhaps, could be made for freezing the foreign assistance appropriations. I don't accept that, but a case could be made. This, however, goes to the operational funds for the State Department. I think, therefore, it is entirely inappropriate, and I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
And I thank the gentleman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, I want to thank you. And I also want to thank Mrs. Bereuter for allowing you to be here during her birthday. Thank you.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I would like to yield a minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If every dollar in the President's budget proposal were authorized by this and the other committees that deal with the 150 function, we would still be significantly below the level of spending that we were in 1985. The history of the 150 account is, it has taken a massively disproportionate share of the cuts in the different functions of government. I urge that this amendment be defeated.
Page 377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield a minute to Mr. Houghton from New York.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, I thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
I applaud the efforts and the thinking of my friend from South Carolina, but I wonder specifically——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Houghton, would you use the mike, please.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I will. I am going to ask you a question.
Where, specifically, do you think we are overspending in our international relations budget?
Mr. SANFORD. I have got a long list here, actually if I can find it here. It will take me 2 seconds.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I mean, right off of the top of your head——
Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
Mr. HOUGHTON. I mean, are there important areas that you think we are——
Mr. SANFORD. If you look at the number of different aid—and I was trying to pull the aid numbers, aid programs throughout the country, again, we have spent over a trillion dollars in international aid to Third World countries, I think with surprisingly little effect.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. Could I yield?
Chairman GILMAN. You have 2 minutes remaining, Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. Two minutes—or 1 minute to my colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Page 378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I rise in support of the amendment of my friend from South Carolina. We have obligations as individuals to help people overseas, and it doesn't just happen through the government. And this debate about Mr. Sanford's amendments, we have heard time and time again how little America is giving compared to Denmark and other countries.
Let us just remind ourselves that the American people are the most generous people in the world, but you have to calculate, not just what government does, but what those thousands of benevolent organizations across the United States of America are doing on a voluntary basis. Whether they are religious organizations or whether they are just pure charitable organizations, we give more assistance to other countries and people in need than probably all the countries in the world if you are including personal benevolence. I think that is an important factor.
And when you let the government step forward saying, the important judgment that you have got to make in terms of what we are doing is based on an analysis of how much foreign aid we are giving rather than how much benevolence we have as people.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I would simply say that Mr. Sanford is right on target. Let's increase personal benevolence instead of government bureaucracy.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Sanford, you have 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SANFORD. I yield back.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield 1 minute to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. With all due respect to Mr. Rohrabacher, international figures show that, on a voluntary basis, advanced industrial countries provide more nongovernmental aid per capita than we do. So, in point of fact, you are wrong.
Page 379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Excuse me, what country are you——
Mr. LANTOS. Second—if I may continue, second——
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I just wanted to——
Mr. LANTOS.—I think it is important to deal with the intergenerational issue while the debate——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos has the time. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. What country was that, Mr. Lantos? I didn't hear you, I am sorry.
Mr. LANTOS. While the debate was going on, Mr. Sanford, I consulted with my 17 grandchildren, and they all favor providing the level of assistance recommended in the President's budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman GILMAN. All time has expired.
The question is now on the Sanford amendment. As many as in favor of the amendment, say aye.
Opposed?
The amendment is not agreed to.
We now——
Mr. SANFORD. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Mr. LANTOS. I second it.
Chairman GILMAN. Second has been—did I hear only 1 second to the request for a roll call?
Mr. LANTOS. I second.
Mr. SALMON. Second.
Mr. CHABOT. Second.
Page 380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Two, three. All right. By the Chair's count, that is sufficient. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.
Chairman GILMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.
Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
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. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes.
Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.
Page 381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes yes.
Mr. King.
Mr. KING. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.
Mr. Kim.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes.
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes.
Mr. Salmon.
Mr. SALMON. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
Page 382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
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. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes no.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.
Mr. Graham.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes yes.
Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes yes.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Moran votes yes.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes.
Mr. Hamilton.
Page 383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. GEJDENSON. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes no.
Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no.
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.
Mr. PAYNE. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes no.
Mr. Andrews.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez.
Page 384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. MENENDEZ. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes no.
Ms. McKinney.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order so that the clerk can hear the vote.
Ms. MCKINNEY. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes no.
Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no.
Ms. Danner.
Ms. DANNER. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes no.
Mr. Hilliard.
Mr. HILLIARD. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no.
Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Capps votes no.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Page 385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
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. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes no.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. No.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes no.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo.
Page 386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews.
[No response.]
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling.
Mr. GOODLING. Yes.
Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes yes.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 13 ayes and 28 noes.
Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is defeated.
An amendment relating to budget levels is being prepared. That is our final amendment.
In the interim, I am asking unanimous consent that we set aside the pending bill momentarily and take up other business that is not controversial. We have several resolutions before the Committee.
The first item of business is H. Con. Res. 73 relating to the death of former President of Israel, Chaim Herzog. The resolution was introduced earlier today by Mr. Burton of Indiana. The chair lays a measure before the Committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
Ms. BLOOMER. House Concurrent Resolution 73 concerning the death of Chaim Herzog.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the preamble and operative language.
Page 387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas Chaim Herzog, the sixth President of——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative text of the resolution is considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. The chair recognizes Mr. Burton to introduce the resolution. Mr. Burton is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to have introduced this resolution concerning the death of Chaim Herzog.
Mr. Chairman, could we have a little bit of order?
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Gentlemen, please withhold. Mr. Burton is recognized and has the floor. Will you please give him your attention. And if you have any comments that you wish to make, please go out to the anteroom while the measure is being debated.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, I am very proud to have introduced this resolution concerning the death of Chaim Herzog. I am very pleased that you are one of the cosponsors of this resolution, and I thank you very much for agreeing to mark it up so quickly.
All of us were saddened to learn recently about the death of Chaim Herzog at the age of 78. As a staunch friend of the State of Israel and the people of Israel, we share their grief and their sorrow.
Chaim Herzog was truly a hero of Israel and also a great friend of America. Like Yitzak Rabin, whose death we also mourned all too early——
Page 388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Burton will withhold.
The gentleman has the floor. It is an important resolution. If you have some comments to make or you wish to confer, please go to the anteroom.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, like Yitzak Rabin, whose death we also mourned all too early, Chaim Herzog lived a life that was a mirror of the drama of his country. Born in Ireland, he was the son of the Chief Rabbi of Ireland.
As a boy, he moved to the land of Israel, where his father became the Chief Rabbi there. Chaim Herzog fought in the British armed forces in World War II and participated in the liberation of the death camps, an experience that influenced the rest of his life.
During Israel's war of independence, Herzog played a critical role in the battle for Jerusalem. He then became chief of military intelligence. During the 6-day war, almost 30 years ago exactly, General Herzog's radio broadcast helped to lift the morale of the people of Israel.
In 1975, he was appointed Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, where he served with courage and defended his country with great eloquence. It was Herzog who stood up to defend Israel against the odious and false charge that Zionism that is a form of racism. This is what Herzog said in his brilliant speech on that indication: ''The vote of each delegation will record in history its country's stand on anti-Semitic racism and anti-Judaism. You yourselves bear the responsibility for your stand before history, for, as such, you will be viewed in history. For us, the Jewish people, this is but a passing episode in a rich and event-filled history. This resolution, based on hatred, falsehood, and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value.''
Mr. Chairman, to this day, the fact that the U.N. General Assembly passed that resolution stands as a severe indictment of the United Nations. I am very proud to have been a delegate to the United Nations in 1991 when that immoral resolution was finally repealed.
Page 389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Let me conclude by noting that Chaim Herzog kept his event-filled and achievement-filled life with his election as President of Israel in 1983. He served for 10 years and set a new standard for dignity, honor, and decency. And he also addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress in 1987.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can bring this resolution to the floor very quickly so that the Congress can express its sorrow over the death of Chaim Herzog, a great man and a true hero.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman.
Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON. I will be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, for offering this congressional resolution commemorating the life of former President of Israel, Chaim Herzog.
Mr. Herzog's life certainly mirrored the birth and early history for the State of Israel, and during his career, he served as a distinguished soldier, author, and diplomat. Many of us recall his service in the 1970's when President Herzog served at the Israeli Embassy in Washington and was later named Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. He will be remembered for many things, not the least of which was a dramatic response to the ''Zionism is Racism'' resolution at the United Nations, to his everlasting credit. Ambassador Herzog ripped up this offending resolution, which, thankfully, was repealed under the Bush Administration.
We extend to his family and the people of Israel our deepest condolences for the passing of a true gentleman who helped shape the history of Israel and always pursued peace. I once again thank Mr. Burton for offering the amendment.
Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
Mr. Lantos.
Page 390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Indiana for introducing this resolution. I want to associate myself both with his and your comments.
Chaim Herzog was one of the wittiest, most self-deprecating, brilliant, urbane political figures of our age. I strongly urge my colleagues to read his recently published autobiography, which is a delight to read. And I strongly urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much.
If no one else is seeking resolution, all in favor of the resolution, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The resolution is carried.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure on the Suspension Calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the motion is carried and agreed to.
The next item of business is H. Res. 103, expressing the sense of Congress relative to the need to maintain American troops in the Asia and Pacific region. The chair lays this resolution before the Committee. The clerk will record the title of the resolution.
Ms. BLOOMER. H. Res. 103, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should maintain approximately 100,000 United States military personnel in the Asia and Pacific region until such time as there is a peaceful and permanent resolution to the major security and political conflicts in the region.
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the preamble. The clerk will distribute the measure.
Page 391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas the stability of the Asia and Pacific——
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative text of the resolution is considered as having been read and open to amendment at any point.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. The chair recognizes the senior chairman on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, to introduce the resolution. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This resolution was introduced on March 20 by this Member and the chairman of the House National Security Committee, Mr. Spence. It expresses the sense of the House that maintaining the existing presence of about 100,000 U.S. troops in the Asia and Pacific region is critical to maintaining the peace and stability of this politically and economically dynamic area of the world.
The United States has vital stakes in the continued peace and stability of the region. If one travels in the region, one is constantly asked by friends in the region and by other countries: Is the United States here for the long term? Are you going to pull out? They are very concerned about our troop levels, they need constant reassurances, and this resolution, a sense of the House, will help give them that assurance.
The United States conducts more trade with Asia and Pacific countries than any other region in the world, accounting for almost $396 trillion in trade in 1996. This is greater than with all of Western Europe combined and greater than our trade with Canada and Mexico.
The region is also of vital national security importance to the United States. As Admiral Brewer of CINCPAC testified before the National Security Committee last March, eight of the world's nine largest armed forces are located in or operate in the region. Five of seven U.S. defense treaties are with nations in the region. Yet stability is not yet an inherent feature in the area. There are numerous historic animosities and ethnic and ideological differences that foster resentment and mistrust among Asian and Pacific nations. Of these, the situation on the Korean peninsula is the most explosive.
Page 392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
It is the commitment of the United States embodied by approximately 100,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in the region that underlies and cements stability in this vibrant region. As Secretary of Defense Cohen recently noted, any reduction of American forces could disrupt the East Asian military balance and trigger a dangerous arms race.
I could give my colleagues statements by key people in both the Bush and the Clinton Administrations which support maintaining our troops and other military forces at approximately this level in the region. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are stationed in the region because it is in our vital national interest to have them there.
Three times in the last half century, American forces have been called upon to combat aggression in Asia. The basing of a credible military force in Asia and the Pacific dramatically reduces the likelihood that future conflicts might arise so long as the States of the region perceive that the commitment of the United States to the region is firm and unassailable.
I recognize that there may be some unease, all of the considerations being equal, with fixing upon a specific number of troops as a measure of U.S. capability. To this end, I will offer an amendment suggested by the National Security Committee and its chairman to the resolution that recognizes that the United States must consider the overall capabilities of its forces in its decision to deploy troops.
However, this amendment also recognizes that in the Asia and Pacific region, all considerations are not equal. It is a fact that maintaining approximately 100,000 U.S. troops in the region is an important political as well as military measure by which all of the States in the region gauge U.S. commitment.
I urge the Members of the Committee to favorably report H. Res. 103, as amended, shortly, to the floor of the House for consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
Page 393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the resolution and commend the gentleman from Nebraska and the chairman of the National Security Committee Mr. Spence. It is a very worthwhile initiative.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the resolution. I commend the gentleman.
I merely want to note that just within the last year or so, developments on the island of Taiwan and the continuing tenuous situation between the two Koreas underscore the importance of maintaining the level of forces we have in the Asia and Pacific region. We are an Asia and Pacific power, and we must maintain our military presence. I strongly urge support of this resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
I wanted to speak on behalf of the amendment and support the gentleman's amendment. The peace and prosperity of the Asia and Pacific region is crucial to the security and well being of our Nation. Tonight 100,000 American sailors, soldiers, marines, and airmen are out there ensuring the continuance of this unprecedented period of tranquility in the Pacific.
Arguably, no region of the world is more vital to the future of our Nation than Asia. And over the past 50 years, Asia has become a significant center of international economic and military power. No other region in the world presents U.S. policymakers with such diverse economic security and diplomatic challenge as Asia.
Our Nation must continue to assert leadership and protect our vital national interest in the Asia and Pacific region. Our ability to do that is principally predicated on our strong military presence, which has decreased from 135,000 troops in 1990 down to some 100,000 troops today. A reduction in troop levels below 100,000 would significantly diminish our influence in the region, call in to question our commitment to leadership, alter the balance of power, and could increase the likelihood of conflict. Accordingly, it is essential that we continue our security presence at the current levels.
Page 394 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I commend Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Spence for their initiatives, and I urge our colleagues to support the measure.
Is anyone else seeking recognition?
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I may be in a lonely minority here, but, unfortunately, I cannot support this resolution.
I think all of the speakers have indicated how important it is that we maintain an active role in Asia and the Pacific, and I agree with the resolution as far as it goes. But there is a hole in this resolution just as there is a hole in the pockets of American taxpayers, and it relates to the burden-sharing issue that is not addressed in this resolution.
Yes, our Asian friends are very concerned, concerned that American taxpayers won't fully fund the level of security that they would like to enjoy.
There is a misnomer or misleading belief that Japan contributes sufficiently by paying a small portion of the billeting costs or even all of the billeting costs of our soldiers within the Japanese islands. In fact, the cost of defending Asia and the Pacific, of defending a region where Japan has an interest at least as great as our own, includes not only the cost of billeting soldiers in Japan, but all of the costs of maintaining the Army and Navy in northern Asia and the Pacific and, I would venture to say, a very large percentage of the support troops and troops ready for deployment that are here in the United States.
Our military defense efforts in Asia are arguably a third of what we—of the total power of the United States can be projected there, and yet Japanese contributions to this massive security effort are tiny.
I would support this resolution if there was going to be a new focus on turning to the rich citizens of Japan, whose per capita GNP exceeds our own, and insist that a country that has greater security threats to it because it happens to be in a dangerous neighborhood spend as much on defense, and the best way perhaps for them to spend on defense is to contribute a very substantial portion of the U.S. defense budget.
Page 395 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I realize that these words are out of context in current international affairs and it will be a long time before this kind of talk becomes accepted, but we must allocate the costs of American defense among all the countries that it benefits.
Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. His comments are thoughtful.
I would make three points. One, I think the expenditures of the United States are very good expenditures in terms of dollars avoided for future conflicts, very good in terms of blood not shed.
Second, I point out to the gentleman that the expenditures of Japan, even though a relatively small percentage of their GNP, make the second or third largest defense expenditure in the world currently.
And third, I would say to the gentleman that the Japanese pay a larger share of basing costs than any other nation on the globe, about 75 percent. In fact, the best housed American servicemen and the best facilities to American service in the world are in Japan because they pay the costs. And I think actually——
Mr. SHERMAN. If I can contribute the model——
Mr. BEREUTER. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think that to have a huge portion of the U.S. defense budget and power directed at the security of the northern Pacific and to say you are doing enough because you pay for the room and board of those soldiers that are on the cutting edge and happen to be billeted in Japan, with no contribution to those billeted in South Korea, is, unfortunately, as the gentleman points out, a larger contribution than that made by other countries that ought to be sharing the burden but still a very inadequate contribution.
Page 396 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And I will agree with the gentleman that it is indeed in our interest to spend these dollars and to avoid the costs of disruption and even war, but where there is a security need and a security benefit that is enjoyed by both countries, both countries should pay, and pay equally, instead of a situation where we are called upon to pay to the full extent that we derive benefit. And no one——
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Asks the Japanese taxpayer and asks what is the benefit to the Japanese taxpayer of peace on the Korean peninsula——
Mr. LANTOS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Which I will indicate—I will yield in a second—which I would venture to say is even more important than peace on the Korean peninsula benefits to the United States, although it is an enormous benefit to people around the world and people around the country.
Yes, I will yield to Mr. Lantos.
Mr. LANTOS. I think the gentleman from California raises an excellent point in terms of burden sharing. The Japanese have not shared the burden properly and adequately for a long, long time. I think we are all indebted to you for again raising the issue.
I do not believe, however, that reducing our military presence would automatically increase Japanese military expenditures for the common defense and the U.S. national interest demands that we maintain our present level of military presence in the Asia Pacific area.
So I believe that Mr. Bereuter's resolution, recognizing the validity of your point, nevertheless should pass.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes Mr. Bereuter for an amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask it to be distributed and I might be recognized to explain it.
Page 397 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter. In the 17th clause of the preamble, insert after ''Whereas'' the following: ''Recognizing that''——
Chairman GILMAN. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, to help my colleagues, the 17th amendment is the top ''whereas'' clause on page 4. And this amendment, suggested, I think appropriately, by Mr. Spence in behalf of the National Security Committee, does insert a clause which recognizes the capabilities of a modernized force. And so it moves us even a little further away from an absolute hard and fast nothing but numbers counts kind of arrangement.
I think it is an appropriate amendment, and I offer it for your consideration. And I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Hamilton for their supporting comments earlier.
I yield.
Chairman GILMAN. Are there any comments on the Bereuter amendment?
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to indicate that I do not believe necessarily that we should cut our troops in the Asia area, simply that a resolution that makes our Asian friends lose their deep concern that was referred to earlier and makes them feel that a continuation of American policy and a continuation of their own refusal to bear the burden will continue forever.
So I am not suggesting that our interests in Asia are lesser or that we could make do with fewer troops, just that the effect of this resolution might be to reduce deep concern where there ought to be concern.
Page 398 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment.
Chairman GILMAN. The Bereuter amendment is moved. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The Bereuter amendment is carried. Mr. Bereuter's amendment——
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, on the Bereuter amendment. The Bereuter amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. I want to speak in favor of Mr. Bereuter's resolution. I think that it is——
Chairman GILMAN. No, Mr. Ackerman; it has been agreed to.
Mr. ACKERMAN. No; the amendment to the resolution has been agreed to, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to indicate my very, very strong support. While acknowledging the important concerns of my good friend and thoughtful comments of Mr. Sherman, it is important for us to understand that tremendous progress has been made in the area of burden sharing over the years.
I would just like to note that at present we are talking about troops ranked—cited in the Bereuter resolution of maintaining a troop strength of about 100,000.
Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, there are about 48,000 U.S. troops in Japan for which the Japanese Government pays approximately $5 billion. It is very important that they participate. But we also have to understand that the Japanese Constitution that was written under our tutelage, so to speak, requires them to spend very little for their own defense, and therefore we have an obligation to maintain and promote a sense of security in the region. And I think it is important that we conclude our obligation to do that.
Page 399 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
An additional 37,000 troops approximately are stationed in South Korea pretty close to the DMZ, and that is still one of the trip-wire regions of the world. And people there, Mr. Bereuter is absolutely right in reporting—and it is not anecdotal—everybody in that region is very concerned that we maintain our commitment there, because the whole psychological stability of the region and the relationship between the north and the south and the psychological war is very, very much involved with whether or not the United States is committed to remaining there.
I am not sure of the exact number, but if memory serves me correctly, the participation of the South Koreans toward the maintenance of U.S. troops has increased over the past 5 years from $150 million to $300 million, and while the cost of billeting is very expensive, Mr. Chairman, it would be much more expensive to pay for bulleting.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I advance my motion to approve the resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. As amended?
Mr. BEREUTER. As amended.
Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the Bereuter amendment and the resolution, as amended. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The Bereuter amendment is carried.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The Bereuter resolution is carried.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman——
Chairman GILMAN. We will now return to the underlying bill, H.R. 1486—Mr. Bereuter.
Page 400 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the chairman be requested to seek consideration of this measure, as amended, on the Suspension Calendar.
Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the motion is carried.
We will now return to H.R. 1486. I recognize myself and will call up one final amendment en bloc pursuant to the order of the Committee, with the consent of our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Hamilton.
It is still a bit unclear what effect the recent budget agreement will have on spending under the international affairs function 150 account. We are still awaiting a report by the Budget Committee. I think all of us agree that this Committee should not spend above the amount provided by the Budget Committee.
I have conferred with Mr. Hamilton, and I believe Mr. Hamilton agrees on this. We have heard that the budget agreement may include the approval of the full Administration request for this account. If that be so, then the Members can be assured that spending in the bill is still part of a comprehensive plan to balance the budget by 2002.
I have said repeatedly in the past that if the Budget Committee does not approve the full request, then we will have to conform this bill to Chairman Kasich's direction. I trust that this cutting effort will be done in the same bipartisan way that this bill is now being approved.
Mr. Hamilton, do you have any comments?
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I join you in support of this amendment. I think that the total amount authorized in this bill now, as I understand it, is at the level of the President's request for the accounts that we have responsibility for, $16.4 billion.
While I have this opportunity, and before you conclude the amendment, I do want to make a comment, and that is to commend you for the manner in which the markup has been conducted. You have been very fair to both sides. Your staff has worked with our staff to resolve as many of the issues as possible. I think the debate in the Committee throughout has been constructive and very civil. We have had a good airing of differences. It is not a perfect bill from my standpoint and, I suspect, from any one Member's standpoint, but I think the Committee has conducted itself very well, and we appreciate and commend your leadership.
Page 401 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I strongly support this. I think the bill that we are producing here is an improvement over the measures introduced at the beginning of the markup. It is an improvement over the bill we passed 2 years ago, and I think it contains a large number of very useful provisions.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote aye on this amendment and then to vote aye on the final passage from this Committee on the bill.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
I want to thank you for your cooperation in trying to work out the problems in this bill. I also want to thank Ms. Larkin for her cooperation in trying to resolve some of the problems that we have encountered along the way.
In the expectation that the Administration is right, that the budgeteers approve the full 150 request, and even if they are not, in order not to prejudge their outcome, I will be offering an amendment raising the spending authorized in the bill to the Administration's request minus $100 million in new and arrears to be considered as part of the leadership reform package.
We will then confer with the Budget Committee in the days before consideration on the floor to see if that report is correct. If so, I intend to move this bill to the floor, as reported. If not, we will have some confirming to do up the road.
I now call up the Gilman amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman. Page 107, line 24, strike ''$1,280,300,000——
Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the reading of the amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Gilman appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Now permit me to describe the amendment. This adds to the diplomatic and consular programs account $11,677,000 up to the fiscal year 1998 Administration request of $1,291,977,000. This measure adds to the salaries and expenses account, $11,213,000 up to the fiscal year 1998 Administration request of $363,513,000 and straight-lines this for fiscal year 1999.
Page 402 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
This measure adds to the capital investment account $8,600,000, up to the fiscal year 1998 Administration request of $64,600,000 and straight-lines this for fiscal year 1999.
This amendment strikes a limitation on the payment of the administrative expenses from the salaries and expense account, freeing up $12 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
This amendment adds to the development assistance account $100 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to the level of $1,203,000,000, combined with the child survival authorization of $500 million in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. This would fund development assistance $5 million above the fiscal year 1998 request.
This amendment provides an additional $116,878,000 to the President in fiscal year 1998 to be allocated to any account in the act in addition to amounts authorized that were authorized below the President's request.
These funds would be subject to reprogramming notification.
In summary, the amendment authorizes the appropriations to within $100 million of the President's fiscal year 1998 requests. The Committee intends to include another $100 million for payment of arrearages to the United Nations and other international organizations as part of a comprehensive bipartisan leadership U.N. reform message.
Are there any comments or any questions?
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if I could be recognized, I wanted to ask first of all——
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter is recognized.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask whether, in fact, this amendment will cause the legislation before us overall to conform to the so-called Kasich budget agreement and it would be at or below that level.
Page 403 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter, we intend to conform to the Kasich Budget Committee recommendation once we know what the numbers are.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend you and the Ranking Member and all the Members who, with our staff, have worked to find a compromise at this stage, given the somewhat uncertain information we have about the budget agreement that will affect the authorization we are about to act upon.
This Member has been active in trying to increase the amount of funds by several methods for the diplomatic and consular affairs section, and I would like to establish a little legislative intent, at least from this Member, by saying to the State Department that the increases in the diplomatic and consular affairs account to the President's request should be utilized to maintain a strong U.S. presence abroad, including funding for U.S. personnel and the safety and security needs of our personnel and overseas U.S. facilities.
In contrast, this Member strongly believes that the fund should not be utilized for nebulous environmental programs or talk shops or international conferences where little seems to be accomplished.
I want this to go for real people, doing real jobs for our country. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's comments are duly noted.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, just two quick comments. The Administration supports this amendment, I believe; and, second, I just want to confirm what you said, Mr. Chairman, a moment ago, that we do expect to support any conformation that is necessary with the Kasich or the House Budget Committee action.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Page 404 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The Gilman amendment is now before us. All in favor, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
The Gilman amendment is carried.
We now have only remaining several resolutions; and if our Members will be patient, we can move through those very quickly.
We will now proceed with the final passage of the bill before we go to the resolutions. Are there any further amendments or Members seeking recognition?
If not, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska for a motion.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I waive my reservation on Title 11. It is obviated now.
I move that the Committee report the bill, H.R. 1486, to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended be passed.
Chairman GILMAN. Questions on the motion?
In favor, signify in the usual manner.
Opposed?
Motion is agreed to.
Pursuant to the order of the Committee, the Committee is deemed to have ordered reported the bill, H.R. 1486, as amended by an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the bill as earlier amended by the Committee, with the recommendation that the bill, as amended by that substitute, does pass.
Without objection, the Committee staff director is authorized to make conforming, grammatical and technical changes to the bill.
Without objection, the Chairman is deemed to have been authorized to make motions under Rule 20 of the Rules of the House with respect to going to conference on this bill or a counterpart bill from the Senate.
Page 405 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The Committee is not in order.
It is the intention of the Committee to file its report at an early date. The gentleman from Indiana's rights to file will be protected.
The Chair thanks all of our Members and staff for their cooperation. Without objection, we will meet tomorrow. Members will be notified to meet in H–139 to wind up just these several resolutions that are before us.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."