ican farmers, it has seemingly increased that pain by slashing food aid by over a half-billion dollars. Here are the facts. For Fiscal Year 1993 to Fiscal Year 1999, Title I, Public Law 480, decreased 50 percent; Public Law 480, Title II, emergency donated food aid, a very major decrease there. It is constant, but if you take a look at the adjustments for inflation, it is a real decrease. Public Law 480, Title III, incredibly slashed from $312 million down to $25 million, a 92 percent cut. Yet, over the past year, we have increased microenterprise, child survival and population assistance. While I certainly do not oppose those programs—in fact, I am an original cosponsor of things like the child survival ones-I do not support increasing them at the expense of food aid. We simply can no longer go about increasing these programs by taking away funding from the Public Law 480 program which harms the American farmer and harms hungry people around the world. Now, the gentleman is not forcing us to do that. But, in fact, when he is proposing additional authorizations, over $90 million in authorization-$94.5 million exactly-in the next 2 years, it has an effect upon other Federal accounts. I think that East and West Coast Members need to remember that it is Members of America's heartland agriculture district that provides the needed votes to pass the foreign assistance legislation, typically. Without our votes, there would be no child survival funding, no population assistance, no sex trafficking task force. Yet, we look at these programs that are a direct benefit not only to hungry people around the world-they are a direct benefit to our constituents. We say the cuts continue from the authorization; we add new authorizations, we don't add new money. I want to bring this to my colleagues' attention, hoping that they will be more sympathetic to efforts to stop the reduction in Public Law 480 funding. To the Administration, I ask the question, how can you justify these huge cuts, the one-half billion dollars in Public Law 480? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Ms. McKinney-who has laryngitis-do you want to submit a statement for the record? Ms. MCKINNEY. Yes. Chairman GILMAN. The statement will be submitted and made a part of the record. [The information referred to was not available at time of print.] Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will read the amendment. [The information referred to appears in the appendix.] Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Smith on page 6, line 25, immediately following section— Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, this is a Chairman GILMAN. I recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes on his amendment. Mr. SMITH. I entered it with the Minority and I think they were in full accord. This just adds as one of the original findings that one of the founding doctrines of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of all people and talks about how the United States outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude in 1865, and recognized them as evil institutions that must be abolished. Since this is a bill that concerns itself with slavery and those kinds of abominations, it would be fitting to have this in the findings clauses. Chairman GILMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition on the amendment? If not, all those in favor of the amendment signify in the usual Any further amendments on this measure? If no further amendments Mr. SMITH. May I make a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. SMITH. Sir, I have been advised that in order to report the bill, we need a quorum-so we would require a recorded vote on this. Is that true or untrue? Chairman GILMAN. That is correct. We will set it aside until such time as we have a quorum present. We are calling now for quorum. We will now proceed to the next measure. Without objection, the bill will be set aside temporarily. Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed to H.Con. Res. 165 relating to American policy toward the Slovak Republic. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. [The information referred to appears in the appendix.] Ms. BLOOMER. H.Con. Res. 165, a resolution expressing United States policy toward the Slovak Republic. Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative language of the resolution will read in that order for amendment. The clerk will read. Ms. BLOOMER. Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, Section 1. Findings. The Congress finds Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and it is open to amendment any point. The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full Committee. I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume. I support this resolution. I was pleased to join Congressman Mica of Florida in introducing it in July of this year. Slovakia is a very important country in the region of Central and Eastern Europe, and for that reason, our Nation, our allies in the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union have sought to build relationship with it. rong The collapse of communism is, however, a mere 10 years behind us, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 was just the start of a very difficult process for Slovakia and many other countries in that region. Even the most prosperous of those nations, new democracies like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, continue to face difficult issues and challenges to reforms. But Slovakians have an added challenge; it has not really existed as an independent state for hundreds of years. After becoming independent in 1993, the newly independent State of Slovakia then experienced a political struggle that ensued between those who want to integrate Slovakia in the Pan-American and transatlantic institutions by carrying out real reforms, and those who are calling for such integration actually made such reforms difficult to achieve. The parliamentary elections of September 1998 brought to power a new coalition government that appears to be working toward implementing genuine reform and ensuring that the rights of all citizens of Slovakia are respected, regardless of ethnic background. I believe that this resolution is a timely expression of our support for the new government in Slovakia and for the process of economic and political reforms in that country. It also makes it clear that the United States supports Slovakia's eventual integration and the ban of European and transatlantic community of democratic states. Accordingly, I support the passage of this resolution and I urge my colleagues to support it. Are there any other Members seeking recognition? Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman. Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. GEJDENSON. We are going to lose all of our Members in a little bit, and we want to vote on the sex trafficking bill. I am just going to be very brief. I agree with everything you said. We need to make sure that Slovakia and all the countries of the region get our support. There have been negative effects as a result of the actions in Kosovo on their economies. I hope we limit ourselves to maybe one or two speakers unless there is controversy on each amendment, or we will lose the sex trafficking bill because we won't have the quorum we need to pass that bill. As I understand it, we will be out of business on the floor pretty soon. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Bereuter. Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I rise in support of the resolution. I think that when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Warsaw Pact collapsed, we all remember that there was something called the visigrad Four-the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. It was a disappointment to many people to see Slovakia take a turn away from democracy for some period of time, so that unanimously all 16 countries of NATO felt they were not ready for NATO membership with the other three. But Slovakia has moved back and taken very positive steps, and the items in the whereas clauses point out the appropriate kinds of action, highly commendable actions, that the Slovakian Government has taken. They deserve a pat on the back for their change in course which will undoubtedly help them be integrated in the European Union and, eventually, in NATO. I think it is appropriate to pass the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. Are any other Members seeking recognition? If there is no other Member seeking recognition, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion. Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution on the suspension calendar. Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many as are in favor, signify in the usual manner. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Further proceedings on this measure are postponed. Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter. Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am waiting for a handout, a revised handout to be brought. I wondered if we might skip temporarily over the next measure and go to the fourth, and then back to the third? Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, we will now move to H.Con. Res. 206, a concurrent resolution expressing grave concern regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation. The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. [The information referred to appears in the appendix.] Ms. BLOOMER. H.Con. Res. 206, a resolution expressing grave concern regarding armed conflict in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation, which has resulted in civilian casualties and internally displaced persons, and urging all sides to pursue dialogue for peaceful resolution of the conflict. Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the preamble and operative language of the resolution will be read in that order for amendment. The clerk will read. Ms. BLOOMER. Whereas during the Russo-Chechen War of 19941996, Russian Federation Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open to amendment at any point. The resolution is in the original jurisdiction of the Full Com mittee. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman. Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman withhold? I support the resolution introduced by our colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. I believe it makes some important points with regard to the current warfare in the region of Chechnya and Rus sia. Most importantly, it points out that tens of thousands of innocent civilians are suffering terribly due to the Russian Government's indiscriminate use of force and the Russians violation of its own commitments as a member state in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This resolution states the obvious, that a peaceful settlement is required in Chechnya if the suffering of innocent civilians is to end soon. The resolution also states, and I think quite appropriately, that there has been a wave of internal lawlessness and kidnappings within Chechnya in recent years, including an armed attack on a neighboring region of Russia by extremist forces from Chechnya. Although I do not think that excuses the current military actions by Russia in Chechnya, it perhaps underlies why there is no clear consensus yet as to what the international community should do with regard to the latest conflict in that region. I would like to take this opportunity to state my belief that the latest Russian military offensive will very likely do little to address the underlying causes of instability in the North Caucasus region and indeed throughout Russia. Those underlying problems include vast corruption at all levels of the Russian Government; and in absence of real economic reforms, allowing the North Caucasus region to slip into grinding poverty, that is, in turn, breeding yet even more instability. This resolution makes several important statements, but I would specifically point out that the resolution states Russia's use of indiscriminate force in Chechnya is a direct violation of its commitments as a member state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, just as the previous military operation in Chechnya was in violation of those OSCE commitments. I also note that Russia has violated the treaty on conventional forces in Europe in the course of that operation. The summit of the OSCE heads of state is to be held in Istanbul in the next few days, and it is time for our government to call Russia to task for its violation of those OSCE commitments and disregard for the CFE treaty, a treaty that, in fact, has already been revised to meet earlier Russian demands. The OCSE summit is a perfect venue in which to do that. We may not see it on our television screens, but many innocent people are suffering terribly from the indiscriminate force used by Russia in Chechnya, as well as for the extremism of some of those on the Chechnya side. It is time to get the two sides to the table, and as this resolution points out, the OSCE can help if Russian lives up to its commitments. Accordingly, I support the resolution and recognize Mr. Gejden son. Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The conflict between Russians and Chechens is over 100 years old. Under Stalin, they tried force to resettle the Chechen people. We are still seeing here today the convulsions of the end of the old Soviet system. It is clear that this is a very complicated situation. The Russians have failed to recognize the impact on the civilian populations-over 200,000 people displaced. |