- FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011 AND PAKISTAN ENDURING ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT,
FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011 AND
PAKISTAN ENDURING ASSISTANCE AND
COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

=======================================================================

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

H.R. 2410 and H.R. 1886

__________

MAY 20, 2009

__________

Serial No. 111-36

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-842 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, CaliforniaAs TED POE, Texas
of 3/12/09 deg. BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
BARBARA LEE, California
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
David S. Abramowitz, Chief Counsel
Laura Rush, Professional Staff Member/Security Officer
Genell Brown, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

MARKUP OF

H.R. 2410, To authorize appropriations for the Department of
State and the Peace Corps for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, to
modernize the Foreign Service, and for other purposes.......... 2
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Howard L.
Berman, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs....... 325
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2410 offered by
the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida........................... 371
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Sheila Jackson
Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas.... 706
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Dan Burton, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana......... 713
Substitute amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable
Howard L. Berman to the amendment offered by the Honorable
Dan Burton................................................... 717
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Joe Wilson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina.. 720
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Jeff Flake, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona......... 722
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey....................................................... 725
Amendment offered by the Honorable Bob Inglis, a Representative
in Congress from the State of South Carolina, to the
amendment offered by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith...... 733
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Edward R.
Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California................................................... 740
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Elton Gallegly,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California.... 748
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Mike Pence, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana......... 750
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Donald A.
Manzullo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois..................................................... 756
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Connie Mack, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida......... 762
En bloc amendment offered by the Honorable Connie Mack and the
Honorable Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Nebraska........................................ 771
Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by the Honorable Jeff
Fortenberry.................................................. 780
H.R. 1886, To authorize democratic, economic, and social
development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize security
assistance for Pakistan, and for other purposes................ 783
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1886 offered by
the Honorable Howard L. Berman............................... 842
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1886 offered by
the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen............................ 908
Amendment to H.R. 1886 offered by the Honorable Michael T.
McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas. 917

APPENDIX

Markup notice.................................................... 928
Markup minutes................................................... 929
Foreign Affairs Committee Markup Summary......................... 931
The Honorable Howard L. Berman:
Prepared statement on H.R. 2410................................ 932
Prepared statement on H.R. 1886................................ 934
The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: CRS Report............................ 936
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa:
Letter from the Embassy of Vietnam............................. 937
Material from the Department of State.......................... 938
Statement regarding the Royce Amendment which calls for the
U.S. State Department to list Vietnam as a ``Country of
Particular Concern''......................................... 942
Prepared statement on H.R. 2410................................ 944
The Honorable Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York:
Statement on Jerusalem Waiver.................................. 945
Statement on Section 333....................................... 946
Statement on Cyprus Amendment.................................. 947
Prepared statement on H.R. 2410 and H.R. 1886.................. 948
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee:
Prepared statement on H.R. 2410................................ 950
Prepared statements on H.R. 1886............................... 952

FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011 AND
PAKISTAN ENDURING ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

----------

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009

House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Berman. The meeting of the Foreign Affairs
Committee will come to order.
Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill, H.R. 2410, the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and
2011. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read
and shall be open to amendment at any point.
[H.R. 2410 follows:]H.R. 2410 deg.

Chairman Berman. In a moment, I will yield myself 5 minutes
to explain the bill--5 minutes, 310 pages--I will try to do
that and then recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes to
allow her to provide her views on the legislation.
If a member wishes to make a general statement on the bill,
they may do so by asking to strike the last word once the bill
is being considered for amendment.
Given the conflicting responsibilities of many members of
the committee, I want to notify members that, without
objection, I may recess the committee from time to time. In
addition, I reserve the right to exercise the chair's
prerogative, under Rule IV of the Committee Rules, to postpone
votes for the convenience of the members. I will give members
as much notice as I can on when such postponed votes will
occur.
I now yield myself 5 minutes to explain the legislation.
H.R. 2410 authorizes funding for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011
for the Department of State, the Peace Corps, U.S.
international broadcasting activities, and other foreign
affairs programs. This legislation continues efforts by this
committee to strengthen U.S. foreign policy agencies to promote
American national security interests and better serve U.S.
citizens.
For far too long, we have failed to provide the State
Department with the resources it needs to fill critical
overseas posts, provide adequate training, and ensure effective
oversight of the programs that it manages. With the expansion
of the United States diplomatic responsibilities in the 1990s
and the more recent demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the
Foreign Service has been strained to the breaking point.
Sixteen percent of all positions are currently unfilled.
One in nine positions overseas is vacant.
H.R. 2410 builds on the process begun in the current fiscal
year to help rebuild the capacity of the State Department.
Specifically, our legislation supports the President's request
for funding to hire over 1,000 new staff, including at least
750 Foreign Service Officers. Three hundred and thirty-two of
these positions will be used to immediately expand our
diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other
strategic areas.
A further 213 positions will be dedicated to improving and
expanding training in critical-needs languages, deg.
such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Urdu.
The bill also provides resources for significant numbers of
new public diplomacy officers, arms control experts, and
counterterrorism specialists.
In addition, H.R. 2410 reforms the Foreign Service Act to
accelerate the transition of the diplomatic corps from its
traditional diplomatic framework to a more expeditionary
mission to meet the new challenges facing our Nation.
Finally, to help ensure that the State Department can
continue to attract the best and brightest to its ranks--and
retain those professionals over the long term--our legislation
closes the ``pay gap'' that currently results in a 21 percent
pay cut when junior Foreign Service Officers leave Washington,
DC, for overseas assignments.
Hiring and training a large number of new Foreign Service
Officers to advance our national security interests overseas
does not come cheap.
But investing resources now to help prevent conflict and
failed states is a much more cost-effective method than
providing massive amounts of humanitarian relief, funding
peacekeeping operations, or, in the most extreme circumstances,
putting U.S. boots on the ground.
H.R. 2410 also authorizes funds to pay our full dues and
all recognized arrearages to the United Nations. The U.N.
system is very far from perfect, and it certainly does not live
up to our expectations on a number of occasions.
But, deg. on a wide range of issues with implications
for United States national security--from Iran's nuclear
weapons program, to North Korea, to climate change--we need the
close cooperation of the international community. And
experience has shown that withholding U.S. dues to leverage
change at the U.N. simply does not work--we are much more
likely to get the reforms we want through active engagement.
H.R. 2410 also supports a significant expansion of the
Peace Corps, a vigorous, deg. public diplomacy effort,
and deg. increaseing deg. in international
broadcasting activities, and a strengthened Arms Control and
Nonproliferation Bureau at the State Department.
In addition, the legislation creates a new foundation to
help U.S. students study abroad, enhances United States efforts
to help Mexico and other Latin American countries to reduce the
drug violence, and addresses a number of key human rights and
democracy issues around the world.
Finally, H.R. 2410 reforms our system of export controls
for military technology, improves oversight of U.S. security
assistance, and requires a report to the Congress on actions
taken by the United States to maintain Israel's qualitative
military edge.
I think it is an excellent piece of legislation--I guess I
would--but I want to thank all of the members, really, from
both sides of the aisle who have contributed to its creation.
Many of your thoughtful ideas are included in this text, and
they have made the bill much better.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation,
and I now yield to the ranking member to explain her views on
H.R. 2410.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I am
gratified that our committee is exerting our jurisdiction and
our authority over State Department budgeting and programs
through a markup of this foreign affairs authorization bill
this morning.
I shared the chairman's initial hope that we would be able
to move a bipartisan bill forward together in this Congress. We
provided views on the majority's proposals, and we were able to
reach agreement or acceptance on some of these issues.
I am also pleased to see the addition, in the chairman's
manager's amendment, of reporting language calling for an
assessment on the return of U.S. personnel to Gaza and vetting
capabilities. I hope that the addition of this language is an
indication of the chairman's willingness to consider our
partner vetting systems bill at a future markup. This partner
vetting systems bill, as the chairman knows, seeks to prevent
U.S. taxpayer funds from falling into the hands of Palestinian
terrorists.
Despite some areas of agreement, the hopes of adopting a
bipartisan State Department authorization bill were dashed when
policy provisions were included in the majority text that are
poison pills, as they seek to promote or advance a social
agenda overseas on issues that either remain unresolved here in
the United States or that we fundamentally disagree as a matter
of conscience.
The majority bill also includes funding levels that appear
to ignore the economic reality that our Nation is currently
facing. These significant funding increases in the majority
bill do not appear to be linked to any specific criteria
premised on any certain rational, nor do they appear to be the
result of any sort of review of evaluation or budget
justification from the Department of State.
I appreciated the statements made by Secretary Clinton when
she appeared before our committee several weeks ago, and she
said, and I quote, ``I have challenged the Department to reform
and innovate and save taxpayer dollars,'' but the majority's
bill preempts the State Department's ongoing review by
providing massive funding increases before any recommendation,
before any changes, before any reforms are announced.
Without justification, the majority bill also represents an
explosion of the bureaucracy, containing 48 new reporting
requirements and creating 20 new government entities, offices,
foundations, programs, and the like.
For these and many other reasons, we will be offering a
Republican amendment in the nature of a substitute when the
chairman's State Department Authorization bill is open to
amendments that will expand on many of these concerns that I
have just cited here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.
Chairman Berman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I
recognize myself. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
Without objection, the amendments will be considered en
bloc, and the clerk will report.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, there were opening
statements.
Chairman Berman. Let me get this amendment in, and then we
will recognize people based on moving to strike the last word.
That is what I announced at the beginning of the hearing, if
that is all right.
[The amendment of Chairman Berman
follows:]Amendment H.R. 2410--Berman deg.

Ms. Jackson Lee. That is certainly all right. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will report.
Ms. Rush. Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by Mr. Berman of
California. ``Page 9''----
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes to
explain the amendment.
This en bloc, or manager's, amendment makes a number of
minor technical and conforming amendments to various provisions
of the bill.
In addition, it adds a new Subtitle E to Title 2 to
strengthen arms control and nonproliferation activities at the
Department of State. Specifically, this provision provides for
additional new positions in the Arms Control and
Nonproliferation Bureau, makes it easier for the Department to
hire experts, adds an arms control and nonproliferation
rotation program and scholarship programs to enhance the
Department's capacity, and provides for a Science Advisory
Committee to help the Department develop a science-based
approach to these issues.
I believe these provisions will go a long way to rebuild
the capacity of the Department to conduct arms control
negotiations at a time when these issues are high on the
President's agenda.
The manager's amendment also increases the authorization
for the Peace Corps above the level in the base text, which
will allow the agency to place more volunteers in developing
countries around the world.
In addition, the amendment includes two new provisions, one
from the majority on Gilad Shalit and one from the minority on
Haiti, and makes changes to a number of others--at the request
of our Republican colleagues--including, I might add, a few
reporting requirements.
Finally, I want to note that our base bill would have
provided certain benefits to the committed, same-sex partners
of Foreign Service Officers, including access to embassy
medical services, transportation to and from posts, and
training and recognizing potential terrorist threats.
It is my expectation, based on very recent conversations,
that the Secretary of State will move forward with implementing
all of the benefits provided in that provision in the very near
future, and, based on that expectation, I have agreed to remove
this provision from our legislation.
I am deeply committed to this issue and would not casually
strike a provision on my own amendment if I did not feel
confident that this would be taken care of by the
administration. And I would like to say, parenthetically, that
I am very pleased today that we have with us Ambassador Michael
Guest, a Foreign Service Officer and our former Ambassador to
Romania, who, for 26 years, served our country with distinction
and who, sadly, was forced to leave the Foreign Service when he
could no longer accept the second-class status accorded his
lifetime partner.
I am saddened that the administrative changes needed to
provide the life partners of Foreign Service Officers serving
abroad with critical benefits, such as security training,
emergency evacuation, and access to embassy medical services,
came too late for Ambassador Guest and his partner, but I am
heartened that soon no more of our best and brightest will be
forced to choose between family and country.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment, and
Ambassador Guest is in the audience there.
Does anyone wish to be heard on the amendment? I recognize
the ranking member for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do
appreciate the hard work that you and your staff have put into
this en bloc manager's amendment. It makes certain edits and
technical changes to the underlying text in order to make
corrections to clarify your policy intent and to reflect the
substance of your discussions with other committees, such as
Judiciary and Armed Services, who share jurisdiction over
portions of this bill.
While I do not have specific problems with those aspects, I
will, respectfully, oppose adoption of the manager's amendment
because it would have the effect of further increasing the
already prohibitive cost of this legislation and would also
perfect some particular items that I cannot support.
As I previously stated, we will present our Republican
amendment at the proper time this morning.
The majority's bill contains contradictory provisions in
the sections regarding the Department of State's
nonproliferation and arms control bureaucracy. On one hand, it
asks the Department of State to develop a comprehensive plan to
determine what the State Department actually needs, in terms of
personnel, additional authorities, new appropriations, and so
forth, in order to carry out its arms control and
nonproliferation activities, yet before that plan has even
begun, the bill removes the statutory requirement for the
Assistant Secretary for verification and arms control, it
authorizes $3 million for 25 new positions focused on arms
control, and mandates other programs and activities.
Instead of attempting to reshape the State Department
before the requested plan has even begun, it makes much more
sense to wait and see what the Secretary of State says that she
actually needs before we tell her what she needs.
As I said, we will present our Republican amendment at the
proper time, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the manager's
amendment.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Are there people who wish to strike the last word for
purposes of opening statements? The gentleman from California,
Mr. Sherman, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Mr. Sherman. I would strike the last word, if the chairman
thinks this is the appropriate time to just address the bill in
general.
Chairman Berman. This is the appropriate time to just
address the bill in general.
Mr. Sherman. Then I will enjoy doing that.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. I thank the chairman for including in the text
of the bill, H.R. 4246, which was introduced in the 110th
Congress, the Defense Trade Controls Performance Improvement
Act.
I would also like to thank Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Royce, and Mr.
Scott for their work on that bill, which will create, as
included now in this larger piece of legislation, significant
improvements in our process for licensing arms exports.
I would also note that many of the improvements that we
were pushing for then have been undertaken by the State
Department since the hearings we held in July 2007.
I would like to commend the chairman for including language
similar to H.R. 1202, the State Department Report on Unfair
Business Practices Abroad. This also came out of hearings of
our subcommittee, and I especially commend Mr. Royce for his
work on this effort.
Finally, I would like to commend the chairman for including
in this bill a provision repealing the mandate that commercial
satellites be controlled for export purposes on the munitions
list under the International Traffick deg. in Arms
Regulation (ITAR). I think that it makes sense to give the
State Department and the administration more flexibility in
this area. The provision would maintain an effective embargo on
satellite sales to China, as well as a prohibition on launching
United States satellites in China.
I hope that the administration would use the authority
granted by this provision of the bill, and I hope to work with
the chairman on report language that calls for an orderly
examination of satellite technologies to determine which items
can safely come off the United States Munitions List, and I
would hope that, within 6 months, that our report language
would urge the administration to review this within 6 months. I
yield back.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman yields back his time.
Is there anyone on either side who wishes to strike the
last word for purposes of general comments on the bill?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would just like to express my
appreciation to Brad Sherman for the good work that he did and
the diligence that he took in handling a very significant issue
for American industry, but also for national security.
It was a complicated issue that he worked with both
Republicans and Democrats and extended courtesy to me, as a
member of this committee, and met many of the concerns that I
had to make sure that we broadened the ability for our own
industry to deal overseas but, at the same time, took care
about the issue of China and the potential threat that it would
pose, and I appreciate his leadership and just thought I would
put that in the record.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for what purpose do you seek
recognition?
Mr. Connolly. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I wanted to
express my support and appreciation to the chairman for the
chairman's work and for the amendment he has just put in front
of the committee. I think this represents, actually, a real,
good-faith, bipartisan effort at addressing many of the issues
we have been concerned about for quite some time.
I am a little surprised to hear references to ``the
prohibitive cost of the bill'' or that somehow the arms control
section of the bill ought to wait until we hear from the
Secretary of State. We actually heard from the Secretary of
State for 3\1/2\ hours at this committee, and I thought I heard
the Secretary say she was in close consultation with the
chairman and this committee and expressed general support for
the principles clearly enshrined in this bill.
I think it would be naive to believe otherwise, that a bill
of this magnitude authorizing the State Department would not
have been put together with some careful consultation with the
Secretary of State and her staff. So I have confidence moving
forward.
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. Yes, sir.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. He
h deg.is correct, both as to the authorized number for
the State Department, generally, and for the provisions that we
have introduced in this manager's amendment. There is strong
general support, both for the increase in numbers and for
nearly all of the provisions in that amendment from the
Department of State and the Secretary.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chairman. As to prohibitive cost,
I also serve on the Budget Committee. The Function 150, the
foreign affairs function, of the budget continues to, frankly,
be the anemic part of the Federal budget, and, as Secretary
Gates noted himself while still the Secretary of Defense under
the Bush administration, unless we want to have a proliferation
of military deployment all over the world, we have got to start
investing in smart diplomacy, and that means we have got to
shore up and beef up our resources with respect to the State
Department and the Foreign Service, and I believe the bill, and
the amendment to it, offered by our chairman does just that.
So I am looking forward to supporting this bill. It saddens
me to hear there is going to be a ``Republican substitute.'' I
spent 10 years of my life as a senior staff member on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where we wrote State
Department authorization bills and foreign aid bills. We did
not have Republican or Democratic bills in those days; we had a
bill, to which people offered amendments. Some were successful,
some were not, but, at the end of the day, I would hope we
could have a unified position moving forward in support of U.S.
diplomacy abroad.
I thank the chairman and yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Does anyone else seek recognition to strike the last word?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see Walker Roberts here because he and other
members of this committee will know that we have tried
repeatedly, and actually succeeded. Henry Hyde did get a State
Department bill through into law. We did it in the 1990s. We
attached it in 2000 to an appropriations bill in its entirety.
We worked in a bipartisan way, although we had our differences.
I think those differences are sometimes constructive and good.
We get a better bill.
I would like to raise a question, Mr. Chairman, with regard
to Section 333, which seems to elevate the human rights agenda
for homosexual rights to that of those rights enumerated in the
Bill of Rights.
Section 333(b) in the old bill--I know you just amended it,
in part, through the manager's amendment--requires the
Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor, tracks ``restrictions on the enjoyment of
fundamental freedoms consistent with U.S. law in foreign
countries based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and
gender.''
In the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, that now
would be required to include ``discrimination that affects the
fundamental freedoms regarding actual or perceived sexual
orientation and gender identity.''
My question, first, would be, do the words ``restrictions''
and ``discrimination'' include laws in other countries that ban
homosexual marriage?
And, secondly, on Part E, although it will be renumbered, I
know, or redesignated, training for Foreign Service Officers
concerning human rights reporting and advocacy identifying
discrimination of an individual based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation and gender; does that require Foreign
Service Officers--does that make it permissive or mandatory
that they be advocates for the homosexual agenda, and if a
Foreign Service Officer had a religious tenet, perhaps based on
his or her Christianity or perhaps on their Muslim beliefs or
perhaps on their Jewish beliefs or any other faith or just a
moral belief that it is not wrong, would they be compelled,
under this legislation, to advocate and be involved in advocacy
for that agenda?
Chairman Berman. If the gentleman will yield. Without
seeking to have you expand on what you mean by ``the homosexual
agenda,'' I will point out, number one, you left out a few key
provisions of that language--``tracking violence and
criminalization'' and ``restrictions on the enjoyment of
fundamental freedoms consistent with U.S. law.'' In other
words, we are not asking our Foreign Officers abroad to track
or report on any provisions which we have not ourselves
adopted.
So, as to your question about same-sex marriage, the answer
is, obviously, no. That is not something that is consistent
with U.S. law.
This does not foster anybody's agenda on the Foreign
Service Officers but on the fundamental questions of violence,
criminalization, and restrictions on the enjoyment of
fundamental freedoms. I want our Foreign Service Officers, in
the spirit which you have so frequently and sincerely and
passionately advocated, to be forces in favor of promoting
human rights and individual rights and individual liberties and
actions to deter and stop violence and to ensure that
fundamental human liberties are not criminalized, and I do not
apologize for supporting such a provision.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. If I could, Mr. Chairman, with
regards to Foreign Service Officers, just so I am very clear,
if he or she is the FSO that deals with the human rights
agenda, and very often very low grade, in terms of their
seniority, members of the Foreign Service, if he or she had a
moral tenet, would they still have to participate in this? I am
not talking about violence; I am talking about the
discrimination portion because ``discrimination'' is not
defined in the bill.
There are people, sincerely, who believe that a ban on
homosexual marriage is discriminatory. It is going on in many
of our states, we all know, and it could become the law of our
land. It is the law in several states.
Chairman Berman. Many things could become the law of our
land. Many things could become the law of the U.S. That is not
now the law of the U.S., and nothing in this bill--and I think
the reports should reflect that--would force the Foreign
Service Officer to do anything that was fundamentally contrary
to his own moral precepts.
The time of the gentleman has expired. Who else seeks
recognition? The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for
what purpose do you seek recognition?
Ms. Jackson Lee. To strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise
to both enthusiastically support the Berman Amendment and, as
well, H.R. 2410, which, I know, has been both long in coming
but also a deliberative initiative that really sets the tone of
this new President and new Secretary of State, and I think it
is valid to express the importance of the partnership between
the Members of Congress in foreign policy, as we move forward,
to set a new tone for America, a new face of friendliness, and
a new understanding of our Foreign Service leadership and the
vast, brave men and women who are part of the Foreign Service.
So I am grateful that a number of items are in this
legislation and that I will have subsequent amendments, or an
amendment, that will deal with the, if you will, crisis or
conflict in Sudan. However, let me express enormous
gratification for the inclusion of my legislation, H.R. 72, to
increase global stability and security for the United States
relating to, de jure or de facto, stateless people.
We do know there are approximately 11 million individuals
who are stateless. This encourages the United Nations to have a
firm program providing the basic human right of giving everyone
the opportunity to have a nationality.
Compounding the crisis of statelessness are internally
displaced persons, and I look forward, as we move to our next
legislation on this agenda dealing with Pakistan, to confront
that question of, how do we help those people who are now
presently being displaced in countries around the world,
including Pakistan, because of conflict? This is the right
thing to do.
I am also very grateful that, in this legislation, there is
direction for the State Department to create a policy on
genocide so that we do not sit idly by not because of
intentions but because of lack of knowledge or how to approach
it. This legislation has a provision on genocide so that we can
be part of the world family in standing in the way of the
horrificness [sic] of genocide.
I also believe this idea of working with the policy dealing
with our military assistance and diplomacy is an important
aspect that is evidenced in the language in this bill. The
Secretary of State and the President make a point that the
State Department and diplomacy should be engaged when the
military are engaged in diplomacy, and I think the partnership
that is set here is very important.
I want to applaud the chairman for his initiative on
providing benefits to our Foreign Service partners. That is a
simple premise of human dignity, and I look forward to this
chairman working with the State Department and pushing the
State Department to ensure that every person, regardless of
their religious beliefs, regardless of their sexual
orientation, regardless of whether they are tall or short, male
or female, whether or not they are an athlete or nonathlete,
will have the opportunity to live or work in dignity and serve
their country.
I have been to a number of places. I have been grateful to
have been able to serve in this Congress and visit on behalf of
the United States. I have never seen a Foreign Service Officer
advocating any personal policies that may be pertaining to
their personal life. Maybe I have missed it and, therefore,
have avoided any conversations like that.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think that we are on the right track,
and I do want to acknowledge work that was done by my other
colleagues that I join, which is adding the Caribbean to the
Merida Initiative a very, very important element of providing
resources for that part of the world, and, as well, which came
out of the Western Hemisphere Committee, Mr. Engel and Mr.
Meeks, and then the work of my good friend and colleague, Mr.
Payne, on Somalia is in this legislation.
I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by just acknowledging to you
that, hopefully, the members of Parliament from Pakistan are en
route, and I hope that when they do come and come into the
room, we will have seating for them, but, more importantly, we
will be able to acknowledge them as a group.
I rise to support the amendment and H.R. 2410. I yield
back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
We welcome their coming. The issue of seats is beyond my
ability to handle because I do not want to throw anybody out.
We would like to get through the opening statements part of
this. Who else seeks recognition? The gentlelady from
California, Ms. Lee, is recognized for striking the last word--
--
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to
strike the last word.
Chairman Berman [continuing]. And is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you for holding this important hearing, and
I want to also commend you for your hard work and your staff,
all of our staffs, in bringing this important and forward-
looking legislation before the committee.
I would also like to thank the chairman and his staff for
their hard work and open minds in working with members of this
committee to address issues of vital importance around the
globe, and working with an open mind has really made a
difference, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to thank you so much
for that.
I am greatly encouraged that H.R. 2410 takes an important
step toward reorienting our foreign policy for the 21st Century
by authorizing funding to meet President Obama's budget
request. In the words of President Obama, he said, ``America is
a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who
seeks a future of peace and dignity,'' and I think, Mr.
Chairman, that this legislation rightfully commits the
resources necessary to uphold that promise.
H.R. 2410 includes many valuable programs and provisions to
extend the arm of diplomacy in the interest of development,
peace, and progress.
I would also like to thank the chairman for including the
United States Caribbean Educational Exchange program in this
legislation. I introduced this legislation several years ago.
It passed the House in the 110th Congress. It is called the
``Shirley H. Chisholm United States Caribbean Educational
Equity Act.''
This valuable initiative will promote better understanding
of the United States' values and culture by offering
scholarships to Caribbean students to pursue secondary,
undergraduate, and graduate or post-graduate studies in the
United States.
The benefits of educational exchanges are limitless in our
efforts to promote democratic values, a better understanding of
the United States and our people, and the work done by these
students will offer enormous opportunities for building the
capacity of our longstanding allies in the Caribbean community
and, actually, in the West Indies and in Caribbean nations.
I am also pleased that this legislation includes reporting
language that I offered to address the enduring humanitarian
crisis in Gaza. Residents of Gaza continue to lack appropriate
access to basic necessities, including food, fuel, water, and
reconstruction assistance, absolutely so vital to restoring
basic infrastructure and access to services, such as education
and healthcare following the 2008 and 2009 conflicts.
I am hopeful that this provision will provide much needed
insight and information into the obstacles facing the
successful delivery of humanitarian and reconstruction
assistance in Gaza.
I am also confident, and I speak for my distinguished
colleagues on the committee--I note several of them who I have
talked to about this provision--we are confident that this will
improve the lives of the Palestinian people in Gaza and that
this is essential in fostering conditions necessary for
stability, economic and social development and a lasting and
sustained peace.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, as you know, your staff has already
worked very closely with my office on the contracting and
hiring provisions which have been included in this bill to
ensure that the State Department, in its composition and
activities, accurately reflects the diversity of the United
States, and I know that there are some issues that are still
outstanding that we are going to work with on the minority,
women-owned, and small business contracting provisions as we
move this bill to the floor.
So I look forward to working with you on that additional
language, and I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your open-
mindedness and your willingness to really be very inclusive of
all of the members of this committee in this bill. Thank you
again.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired. I
thank the gentlelady for her comments. I am thanking her for
forcing my mind to open. And I recognize the gentlelady from
Arizona; for what purpose does she seek recognition?
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
support H.R. 2410. It is an important piece of legislation that
addresses issues pertaining to both domestic and international,
but also it includes our Nation's export-control system.
As you know, I am the chair of the Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee on the Science and Technology Committee, and, in
February of this year, the committee held a hearing on the
impacts of U.S. export-control policies on science and
technology competitiveness which are absolutely critical to our
economic and national security.
There are a couple of members of the Science Committee here
on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and many of you represent the
space industries in your district.
The impact, in terms of what we are hearing from the
reports, of the current export-controls regime on America's
civil and commercial space programs and space research
activities is significant, and we have heard some very
troubling conclusions.
For example, the Center for Strategic and International
Studies Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space
Industrial Base and the Impact of Export Controls found that,
and I quote, ``the current export-control policies is
constricting U.S. engagement in partnership with the rest of
the global space community and is feeding a growing separation
between the U.S. space community and an emerging, non-U.S.
space community.''
It also went on to say that ``export controls are adversely
affecting U.S. companies' ability to compete for foreign space
business, particularly the second and the third tier. It is
those two tiers, the second and third tier, of the industry
that are the source of much innovation for our country and is
normally the most engaged in the global marketplace and in the
aerospace and defense sector.''
Space is increasingly becoming a global undertaking, with
new space-faring nations emerging that will provide both
competition and, I believe, opportunities for cooperation and
commercial involvement.
I think provisions need to be included in this legislation
to ensure that our export-control policies are structured to
enable us to address both the competition but also the
opportunities while still protecting legitimate security
concerns.
So I do not intend to offer an amendment today, Mr.
Chairman. I want to work with you, and I want to work with the
ranking member, and I want to work with members that are
interested in ITAR, but to develop an amendment for the floor
that can be properly incorporated into the act.
H.R. 2410 initiates critical actions to reform export
controls, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing this
legislation. I look forward to working with you and other
members.
Chairman Berman. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Giffords. Yes, sir.
Chairman Berman. I very much appreciate the gentlelady's
comments on this issue. You, at the end, made reference to some
of the provisions already in this bill, but I very much am both
aware of those reports and very sensitive to the outdated
nature of an Export Administration Act which is essentially the
law last reauthorized fully in 1985 or 1986, if I am correct,
and I can remember the Conference Committee on that and, since
that time, it has not been.
So, obviously, this bill and some of the other regional
issues, the State Department legislation, and the foreign
assistance reform legislation are on our agenda, but third on
my agenda, hopefully, is, in this Congress, to reauthorize the
Export Administration Act and update the Export Administration
Act along the lines of some of the reports that you have made
reference to. I yield back.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I
look forward to working with you on this. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The Commerce Committee, on Monday, had opening comments on
their climate change bill. They went all day.
Are we done? Do we need more, or can we go to amendments?
All right.
Hopefully, the final speaker on the general statement
portion on a motion to strike the last word, the gentlelady
from California, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your staff for
working with my office to provide several provisions to the
baseline text of the State Department Authorization bill, and I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Section 214, ``Public Diplomacy Resource Center,'' amends
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to direct
the Secretary of State to ensure that diplomatic and consular
mission libraries and resource centers are open to the general
public, to the greatest extent possible, to schedule public
showings of American films that showcase American culture,
principles, values, and history.
Section 215, ``Grants for International Documentary
Exchange Programs,'' authorizes the Secretary of State to make
grants to U.S. nongovernmental organizations that use
independently produced documentary films to promote a better
understanding of the United States abroad and a better
understanding of global perspectives of other countries and the
United States.
Section 216, ``U.S. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy,'' amends the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 to reauthorize the United States
Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy through October 1,
2011.
Section 330, ``Department of State Employment
Compositions,'' amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act
of 2003 to direct the Secretary of State to report on efforts
to develop a uniform definition of ``diversity'' that is
congruent with core values and the vision of the Department and
to evaluate the diversity plans specifically relating to
Foreign Service and senior Foreign Service.
This section also provides for a GAO review by the
comptroller general of the United States to assist the
employment of composition, recruitment, advancement, and
retention policies of the State Department for women and
minority groups, and, as many of you may know, the Department
of State has some of the worst diversity rates among its
Foreign Service Officers, to include the senior Foreign Service
and Foreign Service specialists.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a
report obtained by CRS from the State Department, which shows
the lack of diversity within the various levels of the Foreign
Service.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, that report will be
included in the record of the markup.
Ms. Watson. For example, Foreign Service generalists, by
race and gender, shows that, as of September 30, 2008, there
were 3,543 white males; 2,073 white females; 164 black males;
210 black females; 181 Spanish males; 108 Hispanic females; 205
Asian males; 182 Asian females; 11 Native American males; 12
Native American females; and as you look up the graph regarding
diversity in top leadership levels, there is, basically, none.
I believe the reporting requirements in Section 330 and the
GAO review will help the Department of State develop a policy
where all groups are participants and involved in conducting
our Nation's foreign policy.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
passage of the State Department Reauthorization bill, which
will enhance smart public diplomacy, and it will support our
diplomacy abroad, our efforts worldwide, and diversity of our
Foreign Service. I thank you very much, and I yield back the
remaining time.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The pending question is the manager's amendment. The
question occurs on the amendment. All in favor, vote aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed will vote no.
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it. The manager's amendment
is adopted.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. Should we go to final vote? No. Are there
other amendments?
Given the tremendous restraint on the minority side
regarding opening statements, I will----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We do have an amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We have a Republican amendment
that, I think, is being given out.
Chairman Berman. Pass it out, and then we will read it, and
then we will stop reading it.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
[Pause.]
[The information referred to follows:]Amendment in
the NOS to H.R. 2410--Ros-LehtinenNote: original transcript had
051909.052; final had 051909.623--used .623 deg.

Chairman Berman. We would also like to point out that this
amendment has been printed smaller so that two pages of the
bill are on each page, and it is printed both front and back,
and we congratulate the minority for their saving a few trees.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Rush. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
2410 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, ``Strike all''----
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady from Florida,
the ranking member, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me be clear to our colleagues, at the outset, this
Republican substitute does not cut funding for U.S. foreign
affairs activities. Let me repeat that: It does not cut funding
for U.S. foreign affairs activities. But, unlike the majority's
bill, it caps any account increases at 3.7 percent over
current-year levels. This is a reasonable, 3.7-percent
increase. That is the average rate of inflation for 2008. Even
that amount is higher than the cost-of-living increases being
given to our troops in the field.
By taking this measured approach, the Republican substitute
would produce a minimum, single-year cost savings of $2.84
billion in 2010, as compared to the majority's bill. Let me
repeat that, Mr. Chairman: The Republican substitute would
produce a minimum, single-year cost savings of $2.84 billion in
2010, as compared to the majority's bill.
Among other key differences, the Republican substitute does
not include the majority's proposal to authorize the payment of
all claimed U.N. arrears or back payments. Instead, the
Republican substitute leverages our contributions to the U.N.
on specific, concrete reforms in that institution.
Why should American taxpayers be asked to write a blank
check to the United Nations? Why not demand specific returns on
our investments?
Also, the Republican substitute does not include the
majority's inexplicable authorization to pay a higher rate for
U.N. peacekeeping than even the U.N. is charging us, and that
bears repetition as well. The Republican substitute does not
include the majority's inexplicable authorization to pay a
higher rate for U.N. peacekeeping than even the U.N. is
charging us.
The majority's assessment rate could result in the U.S.
paying, in 1 year alone, more than $100 million more for U.N.
peacekeeping above that which the U.N. requires us to pay.
Instead, the Republican substitute includes the U.N.
Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, a comprehensive
approach to fundamental U.N. reform. This bill has been pending
before the committee for the past 2\1/2\ years, notwithstanding
the 88 current co-sponsors, our numbers requests to have it
marked up, and our request that it be included in the bill
before us today.
This section of the Republican substitute addresses the
anti-U.S. and anti-Israel bias at the U.N. Human Rights
Council. It addresses the continuing provision of nuclear
assistance by the International Atomic Energy Agency to the
likes of Iran and Syria. It addresses the widespread corruption
at the U.N. and its agencies.
I would also like to emphasize, in light of the Gaza
reporting language in the chairman manager's amendment, which I
referenced to earlier in my opening remarks, that the
Republican substitute includes language addressing problems
with UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
Keeping bilateral U.S. assistance to West Bank and Gaza
from reaching unintended recipients is but one component of a
broader problem: UNRWA has a notorious history of allowing the
use of its facilities by the likes of Hamas and, even recently,
was funneling assistance to Gaza through banks that are
sanctioned by the United States for money-laundering and
terrorist-financing concerns.
The majority bill and the manager's amendment are silent on
this issue. Focused on reform and accountability, the
Republican substitute maintains current levels of funding for
the State Department's Office of Inspector General to continue
its investigations and auditing while the majority bill cuts
oversight funding for the IG, all the while ballooning the
State funding that the IG is supposed to be monitoring.
Our substitute includes language requiring that the U.S.
Treasury receive 50 percent of the remaining assets of the
Enterprise Funds that were started with U.S. taxpayer money and
are winding down. This could result, Mr. Chairman, in hundreds
of millions of dollars being used to pay down our national
debt.
The Republican substitute also includes important security-
related provisions, such as an outright prohibition on
assistance to a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas and
other Palestinian terrorist organizations.
It also has many other valuable components, such as Mr.
Royce's amendment, Mr. Manzullo's amendment, and expands on
Holocaust-era property restitution and compensation, and it has
other items that, unfortunately, I have run out of time to
explain.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that our colleagues see
this as a responsible, calibrated approach that will provide
necessary funding but will leverage transparency and reform in
outlining foreign policy priorities for our Government. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Before I recognize myself, I would like to ask the
committee to welcome, and I would ask my colleague from Texas,
Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, to introduce a group of Pakistani
parliamentarians, part of an exciting parliamentary democracy
for whom we will be focusing on after we finish this
legislation. And we are very glad to have you here, and the
gentlelady from Texas, with whom I went to Pakistan just a few
weeks ago--my first trip, her 25th, I think--the gentlelady
from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, your kind indulgence will
not be over utilized. Let me wish that you will visit Pakistan
many, many more times. This is an exhibition of the true sense
of international relations and the extended friendship that we
want to continue with Pakistan.
Might I have these members of Parliament, who happen to be
all women and who will be returning again for democratization
issues in the month of June? The Member of Parliament Memon, is
here, if you would please stand; the Member of Parliament Ijaz;
the Member of Parliament Yasir; the Member of Parliament
Shadre; and the Member of Parliament Hasme, if you would just
continue to stand.
We welcome you. We thank you for your presence here----
[Applause.]
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. And we look forward to
working with you. We also acknowledge Tajah Gaya, who has
worked with us on a number of issues. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Welcome.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentlelady, and I now
recognize myself to strike the last word, and I speak in
opposition to the substitute amendment. I will try and make
this quick.
Basically, this bill reverses a trend that started under
Secretary of State Powell and was continued under Secretary of
State Rice in recognizing the vital loss of capacity inside the
State Department to pursue a critical diplomatic agenda, an
agenda that is vital to our own national security interests.
This cut is a cut from the proposed budget of a
significant, huge amount of money. It is drastically reduced
from the administration's budget request. It puts a cap on
contributions to international peacekeeping that is too tight,
given the fact that the assessment rate is being negotiated now
for future years, and this would, in effect, preempt those
negotiations.
It eliminates contributions to any U.N. organization in
which Iran holds a position of leadership. That is not so bad.
By and large, I disagree with the fundamental notion that
our withholding dues is a strategy that is going to achieve its
goals. All it does is add to the arrearages--we end up paying
it anyway, and the whole thrust of this bill is to get off of
that particular track.
Again, I repeat: The bill that we have in front of us,
which this would seriously wipe out, is 8 percent over the
projected levels for 2009, which, to me, is only the first step
toward restoring U.S. global leadership.
It is rather difficult for me to understand why we would
want to deny the State Department these resources. Recall the
vacancy figures in the current Foreign Service that I mentioned
earlier, and think, for a moment, about the incredible needs to
deal with issues like hunger and the global food insecurity
that we are trying to deal with here, in our legislation. This
substitute wipes that out.
With the crisis that exists with stabilization and
reconstruction assistance, Secretary Gates, no less, and others
in the military have asked us. In other words, here, we are
cutting the State Department, and we know what is going to
come.
The Defense Department will be asked to take on missions
not directly related to their mission that the State Department
should be performing. We will not be saving this kind of money
by these cuts; we will be pushing it onto the Department of
Defense, people not trained for that mission required to do
that mission because of the urgent, national security interest
we have in stabilization and reconstruction work.
So I could go through the whole bill. There are some good
provisions in the substitute, but they are vastly overwhelmed
by the fundamental assault on the President's budget request,
and I urge my colleagues on the committee to vote no, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? The
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I yield the remainder of my time
to Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Thank you for the
time.
I know that the word is used about ``cut.'' Again, the
substitute continues the trend of increasing funding for
foreign affairs but keeps those increases to 3.7 percent as we
continue to wait for the State Department's budget
justification, which, every other year, we have received, and
we wait for the conclusions of the Department's ongoing review.
There is no such cut.
The Republican substitute also strengthens the United
States-Israel relationship and highlights the 2007 memorandum
of understanding between our two nations, reaffirming the
increase in security assistance to help Israel meet the growing
threats that she faces. The substitute also affirms our
commitment to Israel's missile-defense capabilities, in light
of Iran's stated intent to mass produce longer-range missiles
and to help ease uncertainties about the overall U.S.
commitment to missile defenses in Europe.
Just today, it was reported that Iran had successfully test
fired a new, medium-range, surface-to-surface missile. In
response, the Republican text incorporates the substance of the
bipartisan, Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act introduced by
our chairman, which has been co-sponsored by over 100 Members.
We must urgently address the rising threat to the United
States and our allies posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons capabilities and its support for violent and extremist
Islamic militants like Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Republican substitute also includes the Western
Hemisphere Counterterrorism and Nonproliferation Act to help
address the growing threats in our own neighborhood.
Our substitute also includes a provision to increase
accountability and oversight of taxpayer-funded activities,
such as civilian police training and security assistance to
Yemen and Lebanon.
Our substitute maintains current funding levels for the
National Endowment for Democracy, where the majority's bill
cuts funding to NED.
Our substitute does acknowledge the value of some of the
provisions in the majority's bill and, therefore, includes
language on protecting girls by preventing child marriage,
providing exchanges between Liberia and the United States for
women legislators, and calls attention on securing the release
of Galad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held captive by his Gazan
kidnappers since 2006, and it includes provisions on
intellectual-property-rights protection, which is a priority
for both the chairman and for me.
We hope that all of the members look carefully at the
Republican substitute, which takes this calibrated approach. I
thank my good friend for his time, and I yield back the time to
him.
Chairman Berman. For what purpose does the gentleman from
California seek recognition?
Mr. Sherman. [Off mike.]
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. I would want to address the idea of the cap in
this substitute amendment. I have to disagree with the ranking
member when she uses the argument that 3.7 percent exceeds the
rate-of-pay increase for our troops in the field.
The implication there is that somehow this bill is going to
provide wild, large salary increases to State Department
personnel. That is hardly the case. It is not an increase in
the pay of each person; it is an increase in the number of
people and the amount of activity that they will engage in.
It would be wrong, I think, to criticize a defense bill
that had total personnel costs growing at more than 3.7 percent
and say that bill was unduly generous to the troops because
inflation is below 3.7 percent. Personnel costs in the Defense
Department rise in the next few years chiefly as a result of
the plan to increase the size of the Army.
But as to the idea of a 3.7-percent cap, I might be
inclined to support it if there was language in the amendment
which capped at the rate of inflation the propaganda budget for
al-Qaeda, if there was a cap in this amendment on the number
and severity of international crises that we are going to face,
but those caps are not in the amendment.
The fact is that it is the Pentagon that tells us that we
are entering treacherous waters around the world. I do not
think there has been a more complicated time for our foreign
policy, and it is the Pentagon that tells us that the right
troops to deploy work for the State Department and USAID.
I think we have to deal with the foreign policy crises that
confront us as effectively as possible, and I think those
crises have grown faster than the rate of inflation. I yield
back to the chairman.
Chairman Berman. Anyone else seeking debate? The gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. I am disappointed that the Republican
substitute will not be accepted because I think every
opportunity that we have right now, with the uncertainty that
takes place in the Middle East, that we ought to be showing our
support for Israel, and, in the bill that is before us, the
Democrat bill, it is silent on the majority State Department
Authorization bill, the Israel-related provisions contained in
the Republican substitute text, which constitute a
comprehensive, coordinated effort to provide the necessary
military, economic, and diplomatic support for the State of
Israel.
The aid request reflects the second year of a 10-year
memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and
Israel in 2007 to gradually increase U.S. security assistance
to the Jewish state in order to meet increasing threats, and,
by authorizing foreign military assistance and financial aid to
Israel, the United States makes good on the 10-year memorandum
of understanding, signed by the United States and Israel in
2007, to gradually increase U.S. security assistance to the
Jewish state.
With what is going on over there right now, Mr. Chairman, I
think it is important, in every single bill that we pass that
deals with foreign assistance, the State Department, or
whatever it happens to be, we ought to state very, very clearly
our strong support for the State of Israel because they are our
only real, true friend and anchor in the Middle East, and if we
do not show that support, and if we do not let the Iranian
leader, Mr. Ahmadinejad, know that we are strongly in favor of
Israel and the support of Israel, I think he is likely to
continue rattling his sabers, as he did just yesterday when he
launched that missile, and they said that it had pinpoint
accuracy, and it had the distance capable of reaching Israel.
So all of the talk that we are hearing about discussing a
peaceful solution to the nuclear program that Iran is
developing really has not gained much footing.
So we need to show, very strongly, that we support Israel,
we support them in every single way possible, and to send a
very strong signal, a very strong signal, to Iran that we are
going to continue to do that, and if they continue their
nuclear development program, they will pay a very dear price.
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Burton. I would be happy to yield to my colleague.
Chairman Berman. The actual language in the substitute is
different than what the gentleman described, and, in fact, as a
great supporter of our foreign assistance to Israel, I would
find this language to question the intensity of our commitment,
for the gentleman does not authorize appropriations of $2.7
million; he authorizes such sums as appropriated.
This is not a foreign assistance bill. This committee would
always be earmarking the requested and the specific amount. The
gentleman's amendment simply provides an authorization subject
to appropriations----
Mr. Burton. I understand that.
Chairman Berman [continuing]. And I would view it, given
that you are trying to speak on an issue that is not
appropriate for this bill, but your failure to talk about the
dollar amount indicates less-than-full interest.
Mr. Burton. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not have
a great deal left. Let me just say that I want to make sure
that the message is clear, and, in the majority bill, I do not
think it is clear.
I think that we ought to take every single opportunity to
show our support for Israel, and we ought to make it very, very
strong. I do not think the majority bill does that, and that is
why I am disappointed that the substitute offered by the
ranking member is not going to be accepted.
Chairman Berman. All right. The time of the gentleman has
expired. The delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Eni
Faleomavaega, is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I yield 5 minutes of my time to you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding,
but I have decided, deg. I do not want it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. For that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. All right. Any further debate on the
amendment? The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I move to strike
the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the ranking
member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership in providing
for the Republican substitute. This truly is, I think, a very
significant alternative that caps spending. It stops the
spending increases. It provides for a 3.7 increase, by way of
inflation. It is not a cut; it is a cap. It is a very positive
way to address the fiscal situation of the United States that
we face today.
I, particularly, approve of the Republican substitute with
the reform of the United Nations. I believe that we can,
particularly, see, with the scandal of the oil-for-food
scandal, that there should be transparency. The funds being
spent by the U.N. are frequently just simply not accountable.
There needs to be proper accounting.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing
that there are, in the Republican alternative, restraints on
Iran, and the challenge of Iran, truly, today, has been
revealed more than ever with their most recent missile test,
which has the capability of striking to the West as far as
southeastern Europe, Turkey, but, to the East, could strike our
allies in Pakistan.
So what we have, in the Democrat bill, it provides for an
increase of 12 percent in contributions to international
organizations, and then it provides for a repayment of all U.N.
arrears without requiring any U.N. reform or transparency. I
would hope that could be addressed.
Additionally, it has been pointed out that the majority
proposal provides for paying U.N. peacekeeping assessments at
27.1 percent, even though the U.N. has only requested and
assessment of 25.9 percent. This is a $100 million increase per
year of a bill which actually increases spending by $2.84
billion a year.
The increase in the basic salary and operations of the
State Department, with the majority proposal, is a 34.5-percent
increase, more than a third of the current spending.
Another concern I have is it creates 20 new government
entities, 48 new reporting requirements. It decreases the
funding for the Department of State Inspector General while
vastly increasing the funding over which the IG has oversight,
and I think this could lead to a potential for further fraud,
waste, or abuse.
A final point I want to make is concern about earmarks. In
this bill, there is a series of designated new funding
earmarks, specifically, $120 million for the new Senator Paul
Simon Study Abroad Foundation; $5 million to promote
``independently produced documentary films.'' Again, I am
concerned, how in the world would you define, truly, what is
proper?
Additionally, there is a provision that provides for
diabetes treatment and safe water for the Pacific Island
countries, at $500,000 a year. That seems so broad that it
could be subject to misunderstanding or misinterpretation or
misspending of the taxpayers' money.
So, with those points, I would like to urge persons to look
at the Republican substitute. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
has done an extraordinary job of creating a bill with so many
different points that she so eloquently stated a few minutes
ago. I urge support of the Republican substitute, and I yield
the balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair would like to call the question, if that is all
right, on the Republican substitute. Can we vote on the
question? Is there anyone? The gentleman from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike
the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you for the time. I wanted to thank
the ranking member for her excellent alternative to H.R. 2410
but, first, want to thank and acknowledge, you, Mr. Chairman,
for including a small part of my language in Section 1105 of
H.R. 2410 calling for religious freedom of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate.
I am disappointed, however, that it does not go far enough.
The language in H.R. 2410 fails to mention the human rights and
property rights violations perpetrated by the Government of
Turkey and against the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
More importantly, there is no mention of reopening the
theological school at Halki, something that President Obama
addressed in the Turkish Parliament weeks ago.
I appreciate the ranking member acknowledging the
seriousness of the frail status of the Patriarchate, the center
of faith for me and over a request of 1 billion Orthodox
Christians worldwide.
The ranking member's substitute amendment is comprehensive
and includes the totality of the language in a bipartisan
resolution seeking religious freedom for the Ecumenical
Patriarchate.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen; I also appreciate her inclusion of
additional important language regarding Cyprus and Afyon. The
language you included in your substitute amendment that failed
to be included in H.R. 2410 very simply asked for transparency
and accountability of funding. The language requires the
President to submit a report to Congress to make sure that U.S.
tax dollars are being used for programs and activities that
help achieve reunification of Cyprus.
In regards to Afyon, the substitute amendment also requires
the President to submit a report to Congress which will ensure
that U.S. funds are not being directed to programs that promote
hostile activities or propaganda by the Government of Afyon, or
private entities in Afyon, against Greece.
Again, thank you for your substitute amendment, Madam
Ranking Member Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, and I
yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from New York; for what purpose do you seek
recognition?
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
just strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Berman. Thank you for
your hard work, and I will be brief because I know you want to
move this along.
I would just like to state for the record that I agree with
Congressman Bilirakis. It is critical that the State Department
and USAID work to foster the reunification of Cyprus. I
strongly support the notion that a memorandum of understanding
should be signed between the legitimate Government of Cyprus
and USAID. However, I also understand that the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act is not the appropriate vehicle in
which to do this. If this amendment were to be placed in the
bill, it would not be strong enough at this time and would not
have effect.
I look forward to working with the committee on addressing
this issue in the Foreign Assistance Act itself.
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McMahon. Yes, sir. I yield the remainder of my time.
Yes, I yield, sir.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to respond, actually, to the comments of both you
and the gentleman from Florida. Having just been to Cyprus, my
fundamental interest in the unification of Cyprus was only
enhanced by virtue of what I saw there and the people with whom
I met, and I share both of your commitments to this being a
priority foreign policy goal for the United States now, and I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, sir, and I yield the remainder of
my time.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Can we vote on the pending amendment, the gentlelady from
Florida, the ranking member's amendment in the nature of a
substitute? All of those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, say no.
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute fails.
Any other comments?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will distribute the amendment,
and the clerk will read.
[The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]Jackson
Lee Amendment to H.R. 2410 deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
of Texas. ``At the end of the bill, please add: `Section 1126.
Sense of Congress Sudan. It is the Sense of Congress that--(1)
the United States' ''----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, so ordered.
The ``Sense of Congress on Sudan,'' an amendment offered by
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas; the gentlelady is recognized to speak
on behalf of her amendment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would
like to thank the chairman and his staff for working with me
and my office on this legislation that would be included in a
very important, new initiative in our Foreign Affairs
Authorization bill. It is to emphasize that the foreign policy
of the United States is not unmindful of the continuing
conditions and humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
There is an estimated 2.45 million people that are
displaced, more than 240,000 people have been forced into
neighboring Chad, and an estimated 450,000 people are killed.
Yesterday, members of the Congressional Black Caucus joined
leaders on this issue, including a recent person who has
experienced fasting for a number of days because of the
conditions there, and the evidence is that our job is not yet
complete.
We are delighted that an envoy has been appointed, but this
is a crisis, and this resolution, ``A Sense of Congress,''
continues to emphasize the importance of the United States
participating in determining and helping to establish a stable
and lasting peace in Sudan in the wake of a devastating
conflict that continues to cause violence in Darfur and
throughout Sudan.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Will the gentlelady yield for 30 seconds?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I am pleased to support the
amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee,
regarding Sudan. This amendment emphasizes the importance of
finding a truly comprehensive peace for all of Sudan--north,
south, east, and west--and now that the Sudanese regime has
callously expelled number of humanitarians NGOs, the stakes are
higher than ever.
The administration will, hopefully, soon develop a
comprehensive approach toward Sudan, and I am pleased to
support the amendment by the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I would
like to acknowledge the members on this committee who have been
supportive, including the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Africa, Congressman Donald Payne, that led to the commitment
yesterday for many of us to begin fasting, along with the
chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman
Barbara Lee.
I just will conclude by saying that the importance if this
is to reinforce America's commitment to a peaceful Sudan and
also prosecuting the perpetrators of war crimes and, as well,
allowing the Darfurians and others to return to their homeland
with safe elections and, of course, a legitimate referendum so
that people can design their own destiny.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that other members would welcome
the opportunity to co-sponsor this amendment, but I believe
that this is an important addition, and a necessary addition,
to major legislation that will help establish the foreign
policy of the United States of America, and I would ask my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The question is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. Who seeks recognition? On this amendment,
the gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Thank you very much. I will be very
quick.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. I support the
amendment and thank my colleague for offering the amendment.
Let me just note that, while it is a good amendment, it
neglects to mention the heinous role that China is playing in
this ongoing Sudan tragedy, and I would, very quickly, remind
my colleagues that, in spending more money, as this package of
bills that we are putting together here now in this legislation
will do, we are, basically, and considering the fact that we
are now in such a heavy area of deficit spending for the
overall budget, we, in essence, are borrowing more money from
China in order to give to other peoples, which makes no sense
whatsoever.
So I do support the amendment, but I think we should all
note that China is playing a horrible role in the Sudan, but
that exemplifies the role that it is playing throughout the
world with other dictatorships as well.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman has made a very, very
important statement, and you can be assured that, in the
writing of this amendment, the role of China was not ignored.
In fact, we captured it, we hope, by declaring a marker in this
legislation that it is important for the United States to be
actively involved, which means to engage with sovereign
nations, such as China, that have played a horrific role in
bolstering up the Sudanese Government and the President of
Sudan, who, as we all know, has been indicted.
We know that there is an envoy, as we speak, en route to
China who has the full force of the United States Government to
emphasize the key responsibility of China, in essence,
recognizing its responsibility, and I would use the term
``stand down,'' from creating a comfortable zone for these
heinous acts to occur.
So I yield back to the gentleman, thanking him for his
comment and indicating that it is not unmindful and not missed
in the language of this particular amendment.
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield further?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would yield further.
Chairman Berman. I want to use this one opportunity, and I
will not repeat it again.
I certainly understand differences of opinion as to how
much we should authorize for State Department and Peace Corps
operations, and I am speaking to the gentleman's general
comments.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Chairman Berman. But this is not a foreign assistance bill.
This is not about giving money to other countries. We will have
that bill, and I will support that activity when it comes up,
but that is not what this bill is about. This is about State
Department and other related agencies' operations. The
increases in this are to beef up and shore up what we view
w deg.as a weak, deeply incapacitated, foreign
relations agency that has lost positions and is unable to carry
out its diplomatic mission to the degree that we think serves
our interests.
I just want to make it clear that it is not foreign aid; it
is State Department operations.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time, let me note, then, and
be more perfect in my language, that we are borrowing more
money from China in order to give to the United Nations. That
might be a little bit more accurate. It is just as
nonsensical--it is just borrowing more money from China to give
to other countries. So, with that said, I think I have made my
point.
Chairman Berman. I want accurate attacks, not----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Chairman Berman. All right. I yield back. Is there any
further--the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, is
recognized.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Let me just commend the gentlelady
from Texas for this very timely amendment. We all know that it
was, 4 years ago, a unanimous vote in the House, 422 to 0, that
genocide was declared, and, for the first time in the history
of this Congress, that genocide was declared while it was
actually occurring, and it is still occurring.
However, we are certainly disappointed that the declaration
has not ended the genocide, and we are also disappointed that
the rest of the world has not really stepped up on this issue,
as we were hoping.
We do urge our new envoy to Sudan, who is on his way to
Beijing, that we have strong words with the Government of
China. As you know, PetroChina is the sole oil company in
Sudan, and we feel that they could be more supportive in urging
the Government of Sudan to have more consideration for human
rights.
We have gone to the region many times. We see the suffering
continues. Thirteen organizations have been expelled. Unless
there is an intervention by humanitarian organizations, many
people will die, children. The rainy season will be coming
soon, making it impossible to deliver food, if you wanted to,
and so this is very, very important.
I also feel that the indicted President of Sudan should
report to The Hague to answer the court's indictment, and I
would like to also commend Mia Farrow, who led the ``Darfur
Fast for Peace,'' where she, after 12 days, was taken off the
fast, and many of us picked it up.
The Congressional Black Caucus has picked up the ``Darfur
Fast for Peace,'' where the members will take a day, and we
will send a ``Dear Colleague'' urging all of the Members of the
Congress to have a ``Darfur Fast for Life'' for 1 day to fast
so that we would not only support this psychologically, but we
could also feel the pain of even 1 day without food. We can
drink water, but, even in Darfur, they do not have water to
drink, as I did for the 4 days that I fasted last week.
I would hope that this will be picked up, but, primarily,
we must stop the genocide in Darfur. We must support the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan. We must bring war
criminals to justice. As a matter of fact, there were three
rebels who were indicted also, and they are going to The Hague
to stand trial, and I think that the President of Sudan should
follow suit as the rebels. One has already turned himself in in
The Hague, and I would hope that the others would.
So, once again, let me commend the gentlelady for this
resolution and also commend our chair of the Congressional
Black Caucus, Barbara Lee, for the outstanding work that she
and other Members of the Congress have done. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlemen has expired. The
gentlemen from New Jersey is recognized on the pending
amendment.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I do support
strongly the ``Sense of the Congress'' resolution offered by my
friend and colleague from Texas, and I think she puts a very
important emphasis on the CPA, the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement.
I remember one meeting in Khartoum, meeting with Salva
Kiir, who made it very clear that if the CPA falls apart, a new
genocide in Southern Sudan would be very likely. We already
know that the genocide occurring in Darfur is unconscionable.
Upwards of 450,000 people have been killed--nobody knows the
exact number--and I think General Bashir's response, when
indicted, to oust the nongovernmental organizations and the
humanitarian-aid workers, in a like manner, was unconscionable.
I have been to the camps, like many members of this
committee have been and other Members of Congress. I was in
Mukjar and Kalma Camps, and to think that those camps, without
the aid workers, without the doctors and the LPNs and the
nurses and the people who are providing food and other
humanitarian assistance, the situation, horrific as it is, only
gets worse.
So my hope is that, with the continued pressure of the
United States, the European community, this resolution, again,
lifts the issue up, as it ought to be. Today, 12:00, genocide
continues in Darfur. It is always appropriate to bring this up.
I commend the gentlelady.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield, thank you,
and I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey that if the CPA
falls, there is little hope for finding a negotiated settlement
for Darfur. Key to the importance of finding a truly
comprehensive peace process is the implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It ended two decades of conflict
between former rebels in the South and the regime in Khartoum.
This is a critical time for the CPA. Elections are due this
year, but, almost certainly, they will be delayed. Tensions in
the contested areas are still high, and intermittent fighting
between rival ethnic groups has had a deathly toll. So we hope
that there will soon be peace to this largely contested and so
battled area. I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
congratulate and thank the gentlelady from Texas for offering
this amendment and would like to request that I be added as a
co-sponsor of the amendment.
Chairman Berman. Without objection.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say how
important this is at this moment because we have seen, and many
of us have visited the camps in Darfur on many occasions and
have seen the desperation in the eyes of the people of Darfur.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and
millions of people have been displaced from their homes. We
have got to turn the heat up now, and we have got to turn it up
high.
Oftentimes, and I have to commend Congressman Don Payne
for, as I always say, being the lone voice in the wilderness,
calling what it is what it is, and that is genocide and,
finally, put the United States on the right side of history in
declaring genocide.
But also it is important that we do look at China and turn
the heat up on China. I want to remind my colleague that we did
pass a resolution, a couple of years ago, calling for China to
join the world community to try to pressure and insist that the
Sudanese Government end this genocide, and so we have to, I
think, take it another step now, and I look forward to working
with you on ways to do that.
Finally, let me just say, yes, the Congressional Black
Caucus has mounted our fast efforts, and I want to just commend
Congressman Payne for dealing the charge. Yesterday, members of
the Caucus committed to at least a 24-hour fast. I started mine
last night, Congresswoman Jackson Lee will take over tonight,
and I hope that members of this committee will understand the
value of fasting and consider joining with us in this effort
because we have to raise awareness with regard to what is
taking place in Darfur.
Again, young people in our country, the faith community,
people have pulled together, but we still need to beat that
drum much louder so that the world understands that the United
States will not tolerate any more of this and will move very
aggressively to end it.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congresswoman
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Lee. Yes, I will yield.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentlelady yield? Let me just
quickly say, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you, I want to thank the
gentlelady for seeking to be a co-sponsor and just add my
challenge to raising the ante and participating in the fast in
a broad manner, as we are doing. Some of us have been arrested
already and will probably try to do that in the future, but, in
any event, I think it is very important, and I conclude by
saying, if the humanitarian organizations have been evicted out
of Sudan, it is a death knell that is one that we could not
understand the horror that is forthcoming if these humanitarian
organizations do not come in.
The purpose of this sense of the resolution is to, again,
heighten the emphasis of the United States that we are not
going to abandon the people of Sudan or Darfur. I yield back to
the gentlelady.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The question occurs on the Jackson Lee-Lee Amendment. All
in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The
amendment is adopted. Are there any other amendments?
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, I have an Amendment No. 1 at the
desk.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will get a copy of the
amendment, and then the clerk will----
Mr. Burton. It is not going to be necessary for it to be
handed up because I intend to withdraw the amendment. What I
want to do is have a----
Chairman Berman. Do not even bother handing it out.
Mr. Burton. I wanted to have a colloquy with the chairman.
First of all, in our previous discussion, that was a ``Sense of
Congress'' amendment that was added to the ranking member's
substitute, and I think you indicated that the cost was going
to be above what was anticipated, and, as I understand it from
the staff, the savings in the overall GOP substitute offsetted
the Foreign Military Financing costs for Israel.
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Burton. Yes, sir.
Chairman Berman. I think it is my fault. I think I muddled
through what I was trying to say so poorly that you heard
something I did not intend to say.
Mr. Burton. Whatever, in any event, what I would like to
do, Mr. Chairman, is ask that, when we get to the Foreign Aid
Authorization bill, that the Foreign Military Financing that we
have given to Israel in the past will be a part of that, and,
if I get your commitment, then we will move on.
Chairman Berman. You have my commitment, and you would have
had it, even if you had not asked, and it is part of why I am
here.
Mr. Burton. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. I appreciate it very much. We will not
count that as a minority-side amendment since it was not passed
out.
Mr. Burton. Well, if that is the case, I have another
amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Do you want to label the amendment at this
time? Should it be passed out?
Mr. Burton. Yes, it should be passed out, Mr. Chairman.
[The amendment of Mr. Burton follows:]Burton
Amendment to H.R. 2410 deg.

Mr. Burton. This amendment deals with showing strong
support for United States-Israeli missile defense projects.
United States-Israeli missile defense cooperation has presently
been authorized and appropriated in the Defense Authorization
and Appropriation bills. I understand that this is the State
Department bill, but I did want to bring this up.
Missile defense cooperation is generally not considered a
form of direct aid, but many U.S. and Israeli observers
consider it a vital component of the Israel's strategic
relationship with the United States. Israel and the United
States each financially contribute to several projects and
share technology from co-developed weapons systems.
This provision not only supports these goals but specifies
support to co-development of long- and medium-range,
antiballistic-missile defenses, as well as short-range
projectile defenses.
The ranking member mentioned, just a moment ago, when she
was discussing the Republican substitute, that Iran just
launched a missile that had a range of 1,200 miles, and,
according to their defense minister, their Sajil II missile had
pinpoint accuracy. That is very, very troubling.
As we know, Iran is trying to develop a nuclear capability.
Now we know they have a missile that has pinpoint accuracy that
can reach Europe and Israel, and Ahmadinejad has said he wants
to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth, and I think it
is extremely important that we send a very strong message by
adopting this amendment to this bill that we strongly support a
cooperative effort to make sure we have anti-ballistic-missile
technology that Israel can use to knock down those missiles, if
they are fired at Israel.
Chairman Berman. The amendment is deemed as read, and I
recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment to the
amendment and ask that it be considered, and I grant that it be
considered. The clerk will read.
[The amendment of Chairman Berman
follows:]Amendment to H.R. 2410 by Mr. Berman deg.

Ms. Rush. Substitute amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by Mr.
Berman to the amendment offered by Mr. Burton. ``Strike section
1202 and insert the following: `Section 1202. Support to Israel
for Missile Defense.' ''----
Chairman Berman. The amendment should be considered as
read, without objection, and I recognize myself on behalf of my
substitute amendment.
Like the gentleman, I am a very strong supporter of a
variety of different programs that the United States is working
with the Government of Israel, in terms of dealing with short-,
intermediate-, and long-range missile defense.
The substitute only changes two items. One, it removes
language which would otherwise bring in the jurisdiction of
other committees and conforms it to the jurisdiction of the
committee; and, secondly, it eliminates reference to NATO
because the words, ``deployment as soon as is technologically
possible,'' when dealing with NATO, can be viewed as--I
interpret that as a possible mandate on us to deploy something
which, with a little bit of negotiations, for instance, in the
context of what we are planning to do in Poland and the Czech
Republic vis-a-vis Iran's missile threat, some discussions and
negotiations with other parties, in this particular case--the
Russians--can create a much broader base of support for
effective missile defense. And I interpret your language as
literally offered, and the inclusion of the NATO countries to
perhaps limit and constrain the ability to do that, the
substitute speaks to the issues that you addressed as you
debated on behalf of your amendment.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield.
Chairman Berman. I would be happy to yield.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, and I thank you for this
substitute amendment to the Burton Amendment, and I
congratulate Mr. Burton for always being an outspoken advocate
for maintaining strong, positive ties with our greatest
democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel, and doing
everything that we can to ensure that she will always have the
qualitative military edge and gets the protection that she
needs, and this missile defense issue is of great importance.
So I am sure that Mr. Burton understands the corrections to
his amendment that get to the very heart of what Mr. Burton
seeks to do.
Mr. Burton. Thank you for so eloquently stating my
position. I agree.
Chairman Berman. And I agree with your eloquent statement
of his position, and if we can go to the vote on the substitute
amendment; all of those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The
substitute amendment is adopted.
The question is now on the amendment, as amended. All of
those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the
amendment is adopted.
The gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will read.
Mr. Wilson. And while it is being handed out, Mr. Chairman,
I will proceed. The current bill under consideration----
Chairman Berman. Let us wait.
Mr. Wilson. It is so brief, you are going to love it.
Chairman Berman. In that case, we will dispense, by
unanimous consent, with the reading. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[The amendment of Mr. Wilson follows:]Amendment to
H.R. 2410 by Wilson deg.

Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The current bill under
consideration today adds 2,200 new Foreign Service Officer
positions--that is over 2 years--for the State Department and
the U.S. Agency for International Development, many to work in
failed, failing, or at-risk states.
The bill states that a potential's higher experience in war
zones ``may be considered an affirmative factor in making such
appointments.''
My amendment is a technical amendment. It turns ``may''
into ``shall,'' and it provides that applicants who served in
the armed services fall into this category, which, obviously, I
would interpret to be veterans.
Without this amendment, it would seem that these agencies
will not get the veterans they need. The U.S. Agency for
International Development's low, 5-percent veteran-hiring rate
is evidence that we need a change, and this has been indicated
by a report from the Congressional Research Service.
USAID and the State Department do give a preference to
veterans, as do all U.S. Government agencies, but it is not
big, five points on a 100-point scale. As a result, USAID has a
mere 5.2 percent of new hires in Fiscal Year 2007 as veterans.
This is far below the government average of 23 percent.
I know the State Department and USAID would benefit from
having many more veterans and the skills and experiences they
have, and I would specifically point out that, from the Office
of Personnel Management, which was provided by the CRS, that,
in the last 7 years, the number of Federal employees who have a
background as veterans has increased from 17.4 percent to 22.9
percent, but, sadly, with USAID, which is a great agency, there
has been a reduction in veteran hires, from 9.9 percent to 5.2
percent, and so I believe this amendment would be helpful.
This bill stresses----
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Chairman Berman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
The gentleman seeks to cover this program for hiring of
people with experience in areas of great instability to create
a veterans' preference.
The chair agrees with the gentleman's intent. The chair is
advised that because of the technical way this is drafted, this
may undermine the general veterans' preference. The chair
pledges to work with the gentleman, between now and the time
that this comes to the floor, to see if he agrees with our
conclusion about the way it is crafted, and, if he does, to
work with him to provide language which achieves his purpose
but without undermining the existing veterans.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and, with that said, I
will withdraw the amendment.
I do want to point out that our veterans and persons
serving overseas do have such experience that can be positive.
Chairman Berman. It makes perfect sense.
Mr. Wilson. I have seen humanitarian efforts in Iraq to
provide potable water, schools, backpacks, health clinics, and,
in Pakistan, I was honored to participate and observe in the
providing of earthquake relief in Pakistan.
So, with your statements, and, again, I appreciate your
enthusiasm for it, and withdraw the amendment.
Chairman Berman. I appreciate the gentleman's action to
withdraw his amendment, and, by unanimous consent, the
amendment is withdrawn.
Should we see what the next amendment is and, at least,
have it pending before the vote? The gentleman from Arizona;
for what purpose does he rise or sit?
Mr. Flake. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will distribute and read the
amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Flake follows:]Flake
Amendment to H.R. 2410 deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by Mr. Flake of
Arizona. ``At the end of subtitle A of title XI of the bill,
add the following new section: `Section 1115. Rule of
Construction. Nothing in the legislative history of this Act
shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect the
implementation of any provision of this Act that authorizes
appropriations for any foreign assistance program, project, or
activity.' ''
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. I think what we will do now, if it is
okay, is--this amendment is pending. The gentleman from Arizona
will be the first person recognized when we come back.
We have three votes. It is the intention of the chair to
continue the markup after those votes and to get through as
many additional amendments as we can before a vote, which we
expect in about 1 hour, 1\1/2\ hours, after these three votes,
and, with that, the committee is now recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., a recess was taken.]
Chairman Berman. The committee will come to order. The
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake's, amendment regarding report
language affecting Foreign Assistance Act authorizations is
pending. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes
to speak on his amendment.
Mr. Flake. I thank the chairman.
This amendment, the intent is to go at soft earmarks that
are sometimes included in conference reports that accompany an
authorization bill.
I had a discussion with the chairman on the floor just now,
and he noted that the big problem here is on appropriation
bills. I will concede that. That is where most of the soft
earmarks occur, in committee reports that accompany
appropriation bills, but it has also been a problem, in the
past, on authorization bills like this one.
For example, language in the committee report for the last
State Authorization bill, and this was approved in 2005, reads:
``The committee encourages the Agency for International
Development and other government agencies to consider
sympathetically such applications as the Asian University for
Women in Bangladesh or consider applications that they may make
for additional assistance.''
Now, this language was not included in the text of the
bill, and, as a result, it was never able to be challenged on
the House floor or anywhere else, and the problem with
committee language is you cannot get at it or challenge it. It
is typically put in in relative secrecy, and there is no
ability to actually strike at it.
So I think that we do need to do something about this. I
concede that this is mostly a problem with the appropriation
bill, but we have had examples in the past where it has been
an deg. problem with the authorization bill as well,
and, with that, you can yield back, and we will have a
discussion, or I will yield time to the chairman.
Chairman Berman. Well, if it is all right with the
gentleman, he could yield back his time, and I will just
recognize myself, and then if you want to----
Mr. Flake. Well, let me just say, I do want to work with
the chairman on this, and I take his point that there is no
intent on this committee, under this leadership, to include
these kinds of soft earmarks in authorization bills like this
one, but, like I said, I do have examples where it has happened
in the past.
If the chairman will commit that he will not allow soft
earmarks in the committee report accompanying this
authorization, then I am happy to withdraw, but, if not----
Chairman Berman. Okay.
Mr. Flake [continuing]. I feel that we need the language.
Chairman Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Flake. Yes, I will yield.
Chairman Berman. I will commit that that kind of a soft
earmark, none of which--there is no report yet, but we have no
intention of doing anything like that in the report on this
bill. I will commit to the gentleman to make sure we do nothing
like that in the report on this bill. That commitment, I am
prepared to give.
The problem with your language, and you have given me a
good example of sort of a mush earmark, now, the fact is, if
the chairman of this committee had any clout--which is a fact
that is arguable, at best--he could not have that language
about whatever university that was in Bangladesh, I think, and
he would call the director of USAID or something, and he would
say, ``I want some of this money to go there.''
So there is a limitation on what your amendment would do,
but your amendment is crafted much broader than that, and we
have a great example from this morning's discussion. The
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, in the context of certain
language, made a good point. Would language regarding the
dealing with tracking of violence and criminalization against a
certain class of people force someone to do something that
violated their moral or religious precepts? And I indicated
that the committee report language will make it clear that we
do not intend for that provision to be construed to allow that
to happen.
That is what report language generally does. It helps to
elaborate, to create, to deal with some hypothetical issues
that might be raised in a debate, like that one was, and tries
to clarify it.
Your bill, your amendment, goes far beyond just the earmark
question because it talks about the entire legislative history,
and it is a fundamental attack on the report writers of the
world.
Mr. Flake. If the gentleman would yield.
Chairman Berman. I would be happy to.
Mr. Flake. I have no intention to attack the chairman in
his commitment to ensure that no soft earmarks, no funding
earmarks, like this will be contained in the committee report,
and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn. Who else seeks recognition?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized.
The clerk will distribute the amendment. The word is coming
back that we do not have an amendment, but this may be it now.
[The amendment of Mr. Smith of New Jersey
follows:]Amendment H.R. 2410--C. Smith deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by Mr. Smith of
New Jersey. ``Page 130, beginning line 9, strike section 334
and insert the following: `Section 334. Office for Global
Women's Issues. (a) Establish' ''----
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the amendment is deemed
read, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, my amendment
authorizes an Office for Women's Issues led by an ambassador-
at-large designed to coordinate and advise on activities,
policies, programs, and funding related to women's empowerment
internationally.
The office would promote activities designed to expand
educational opportunities and job training for women, push
equal pay for equal work for women, push microfinancing and
micro-enterprise programs for women, push property and
inheritance rights for women, improve maternal health and
expand pregnancy care centers, combat forced abortions, forced
sterilization, sex and labor trafficking, and other forms of
violence against women, seek an end to genital mutilation, stop
child marriage, and promote changes in male attitudes and
behavior that are detrimental to women.
Consistent with a core, human rights norm that all human
life is precious and sacred and worthy of protection,
regardless of age, sex, race, color, creed, disability,
wontedness, or condition of dependency, my amendment seeks to
protect unborn children and their mothers from the violence of
abortion.
Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. has had two abortions but now, boldly and compassionately,
she speaks out for both victims, mother and baby. She is part
of a group of courageous, post-abortive women called the
``Silent No More Campaign'' and works tirelessly to help women
deal with the emotional pain and find peace and a sense of
reconciliation following an abortion.
In discussing her late uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
remarkable dream of inclusion and justice, Alveda King recently
said in a speech, ``How can the dream of my uncle survive if we
murder the children?'' The niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. says, ``Protection of the unborn is the civil rights
issue of our time.'' Her words ought not to be dismissed
lightly.
Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative that women never
be regarded or reduced to the status of objects or second-class
citizens. The same is true, I would respectfully submit to my
colleagues, of unborn children. They are human, they are alive,
they are not objects or throw-aways, and, today, like never
before, they are in need of friends.
Abortion is child abuse. Abortion methods dismember,
chemically poison, starve to death, suction to death, or
puncture to death, with ultra-sharp, surgical knives, the
fragile bodies of young girls and boys. Human rights,
especially the right to life, must be for all, including, and
especially, the weakest and the most vulnerable.
Sex-selection abortion kills millions of baby girls around
the world, singled out for destruction simply because they are
girls. Like genocide, gendercide is based on extreme prejudice
enabled by indifference.
As part of a humane and consistent agenda for women, the
Office of Global Women's Issues ought to be the first in line
in affirming the inherent value and dignity of mothers and
their babies, both before, as well as after, birth.
Like newborns, unborn babies are a class of human beings
that need care, nurturing, love, and, as the littlest patients
of all, medical interventions designed to mitigate disability
or disease.
The Preamble of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the
Child states, and I quote, ``The child, by reason of his or her
physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and
care, including appropriate legal protection before, as well as
after, birth.''
Abortion is the antithesis of protection. It is the
abandonment of both mother and child. If abortion is promoted
by the Office for Global Women's Issues, it will profoundly
undermine both the message and the mission of what would
otherwise be a truly noble initiative. My amendment seeks to
ensure that that will not be the case. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. For what purpose does the gentlelady from
California seek recognition?
Ms. Woolsey. I would like to respond to Mr. Smith.
Chairman Berman. By striking the last word? The gentlelady
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Smith, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
I want to express my respect for you, Representative Smith,
and say that I believe this is a good-faith effort, on your
part, to do the right thing, but this amendment is the wrong
thing to do. Given that family planning actually prevents
abortion, it should be one of the things that all of us support
in every way we can.
I wish my colleague from New Jersey could truly appreciate
how essential family planning and reproductive healthcare is to
women in developing countries and, perhaps more importantly,
how essential family planning is to their families and to their
nations.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Would my good friend yield on that
point, just very briefly?
Ms. Woolsey. Briefly.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. There is nothing in this amendment
that refers to planning family; this only deals with abortion.
Ms. Woolsey. Right, but, by assuming abortion and not
supporting family planning in the past, we have ended up where
we are, with women in Tanzania, where I visited just about a
month ago, having death and dissemination of their families
because they could not plan for their families because of what
has come out of this committee in the past.
Women play a critical role in driving economic development
throughout the world, and reducing the rate of maternal
mortality is essential for driving broad-based, economic
growth.
So the new Office of Global Women's Issues is mandated not
only to promote gender integration and women's empowerment
internationally for all U.S. programs, but the ambassador is to
play a leadership role, internationally, in all matters
relevant to women. That is why the Office of Global Women's
Issues is so important to us, and by narrowing the mandate of
this office, we will only detract from our effort to improve
the status of women around the world.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith Amendment. I
yield back.
Chairman Berman. Has the gentlelady yielded back her time?
Ms. Woolsey. I have.
Chairman Berman. All right. Is there a speaker here on this
amendment? Mr. Inglis?
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Berman. Perfecting?
Mr. Inglis. Yes.
Chairman Berman. You are recognized. The clerk will
distribute the perfecting amendment.
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to----
Chairman Berman. First, the clerk should read the
amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Inglis follows:]Inglis
Amendment to the Amendment of Mr. Smith deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment by Mr. Inglis, amendment to the
amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey. ``In Section
334(c)(B) insert new [Subsection] (iii) and renumber
accordingly. `[Subsection] (iii): Increase women's
participation in political processes at the local, national,
and international levels, including representation in governing
bodies;' ''
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized on his
amendment.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, of
course, I am very much in support of what Mr. Smith is doing
here, and I simply seek to add another section that would
instruct our State Department personnel to spend time doing
what they may already be doing, but we want to encourage them,
in the form of a statute, to increase women's participation in
the political process and increase that representation in
governing bodies.
It is very important for us to export concepts of human
rights and dignity, and, of course, it is important, in that
connection, to stress the significance of women's participation
because we all know that, in our own country, we have had a
problem with that, and elsewhere around the world there is a
substantial problem with recognizing the full participation of
women in the political process.
So I am very much in support of both what Mr. Smith is
doing here because of the importance of the issues that he is
raising as to the dignity of women around the world, and then I
would suggest to the committee that we add this section about
women's participation in the political process, and, with that,
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, if
he would like to comment on this.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I thank you for the amendment. I
think it is a strengthening amendment. As we saw when the women
parliamentarians from Pakistan visited earlier, women's
participation in the political process is essential. So you do
nothing but strengthen it, so I appreciate it.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. Yes. The gentlelady from California on the
perfecting amendment.
Ms. Woolsey. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. I would just like to comment that Mr. Inglis's
amendment certainly is a good addition, but this amendment
continues to restrict women's access to full reproduction
options and should be voted against. I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The question is on the Inglis Perfecting
Amendment to the Smith Amendment. All of those in favor, say
aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. Opposed? The ayes have it. The perfecting
amendment is adopted.
On the Smith Amendment, as amended, I recognize myself and
yield myself 5 minutes.
If I cannot persuade the gentleman to withdraw this
amendment now, I am going to have to ask for a ``no'' vote. I
say that reluctantly, but I will explain why I come down that
way.
First of all, I have just seen the amendment. The amendment
is very prescriptive, not that there is anything wrong with
that, but there are a lot of things in there, and if you are
going to have a prescriptive list of things you want that
office to do, I can think of some prescriptive things that, if
we are going to define it with a prescriptive list of things to
do, we should think about whether a balanced approach would be
to add some additional things.
So what occurs to me as I first look at this is that it
talks about ``eliminate family planning practices, including
coercive abortion and sterilization.'' I agree with that
completely, but maybe there should be something in there that
calls on that office to promote noncoercive methods and choices
of family planning alternatives to abortion that might be
desperately needed and wanted in countries with peoples who are
receiving our foreign assistance work and that the office is
working on.
So, putting in a list of a number of detailed things which
we have not had a chance to see if it has gaps in, I think, is
a mistake.
Secondly, I just want to remind everyone that, right now,
existing law says the Siljander Amendment of 1981, part of the
Foreign Ops Appropriations Act of 2009--and it will continue to
be--says: ``None of the funds made available under this Act may
be used to lobby for or against abortion.''
A more balanced way of saying the same thing is what the
gentleman from New Jersey is driving at. The Leahy Amendment
serves to clarify the term ``motivate.'' Under the Helms
Amendment, the Helms Amendment says: ``None of the funds made
available under this Act''--this was since 1973, again, part of
the Foreign Operations Appropriations--``may be used to pay for
the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or
to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.''
The Leahy Amendment clarifies the term ``motivate,'' as it
relates to family planning assistance, ``shall not be construed
to prohibit the provision, consistent with local law, of
information and counseling about all pregnancy options.''
We have a layer of provisions and laws already, and my
third point is, this office, while it has some general
obligations, its primary function right now is dealing with the
women of Iraq and the women of Afghanistan, deg. who
have suffered tremendously by virtue of what has gone in those
two countries, and that is their emphasis now.
Now, all of a sudden, we are imposing a whole series of
prescriptive duties on them that they may not be staffed and
ready to accept.
So it is not, at first blush, anything you have in your
bill, deg.amendment, deg. that bothers me;
it is what is not in the amendment, the lack of time I have to
get the full picture, and, for that reason, I reluctantly--
well, I ask for the gentleman to withdraw his amendment for now
to see if we can work through this process, understanding what
he is going after, to see if we can come up with something
before we go to the floor, or, in the alternative, I ask my
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
My time has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I yield my time to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I appreciate my friend for
yielding.
With all due respect to the distinguished chairman, and I
have an enormous amount of respect for Mr. Berman, I would ask
that we do have a vote on this. We can continue to work on the
language.
As I said to the distinguished gentlelady from California,
nothing whatsoever in this precludes family planning being
promoted. We know it will be promoted.
My concern is that so many things, like safe blood--I held
a hearing in this room when we were in control of the House,
and I chaired the Africa and Global Human Rights Subcommittee,
and we heard from the World Health Organization that if women
had access to safe blood, 44 percent of maternal mortality
disappears.
So we have done some good things in that area, but I think,
as an advocacy group, we do not expect that all of this will be
done overnight by the Global Office. These are strongly held
beliefs, I think, on both sides of the aisle, and these are the
kinds of things that we want them to do.
The ultimate consensus breaker is abortion, and the hope is
that we will see our way clear to say, ``Let us have a foreign
policy that is not promoting abortion.''
As you said, the Siljander Amendment clearly states that,
but does that apply to the Global Office. It is unclear.
Chairman Berman. It applies to any of the monies
appropriated to the State Department.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. So this just makes it clear, in
this piece of legislation.
I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this. I
yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. You know, Mr. Chairman, I was the youngest
member of the U.S. delegation to the first World Population
Conference in Bucharest, Romania, in 1974.
Chairman Berman. You were not even that young then.
Mr. Connolly. I was, believe it or not--I did not have any
gray hair, that is right--appointed by the Nixon
administration, and, you know, this debate is an important one,
and I know that my colleague from New Jersey is sincere in
wanting to express his values, but the notion that somehow the
United States promotes abortion overseas is itself fallacious.
It is a false premise. I have never known the United States
Government to do that.
We have legislated on this issue for decades, and while it
may make some sense for some people, in terms of making
political points with certain parts of their constituencies, I
do not know that it makes sense in terms of overall U.S.
foreign policy.
Now, we need to be concerned about the health of women. We
need to be concerned about the spacing of children and the
morbidity and mortality rates of children, in terms of child
survival rates. That is what we need to be focused on.
I have no reason to believe, nor does anyone on this
committee, frankly, that somehow Secretary Clinton's Office of
Women and Global Affairs would somehow promote something that,
as you point out, Mr. Chairman, is already prohibited and
prescribed by law. This amendment is designed to make a point,
and it is a point, I think, that is not necessary at this time,
and it actually could prove injurious to United States' foreign
policy interests.
I join with the chairman, reluctantly, in urging my
colleagues to vote no.
Mr. Connolly. I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. Okay. The previous question has been moved
by the ranking member. Debate is closed. We will now vote on
the Smith Amendment, as amended. All of those in favor, say
aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, say no. No. The noes have it.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, can I request a
recorded vote?
Chairman Berman. A recorded vote has been requested. The
clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Rush. Chairman Berman?
Chairman Berman. No.
Ms. Rush. The chairman votes no. Mr. Ackerman?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no. Mr. Payne?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Sherman votes no. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Engel?
Mr. Engel. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Engel votes no. Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. Delahunt. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Delahunt votes no. Mr. Meeks?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Ms. Watson?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Carnahan?
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Sires votes no. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Connolly votes no. Mr. McMahon?
Mr. McMahon. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. McMahon votes no. Mr. Tanner?
Mr. Tanner. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Tanner votes no. Mr. Green?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. No.
Ms. Rush. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Ms. Lee?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. Berkley. No.
Ms. Rush. Ms. Berkley votes no. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. Crowley. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Crowley votes no. Mr. Ross?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Scott votes no. Mr. Costa?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Ellison?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Ms. Giffords?
Ms. Giffords. No.
Ms. Rush. Ms. Giffords votes no. Mr. Klein?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Burton votes yes. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Gallegly votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Royce votes yes. Mr. Paul?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Flake?
Mr. Flake. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Flake votes yes. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Pence votes yes. Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Wilson votes yes. Mr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Boozman votes yes. Mr. Barrett?
[No response.]
Ms. Rush. Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Mack votes yes. Mr. Fortenberry?
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Fortenberry votes yes. Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. McCaul votes yes. Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Poe votes yes. Mr. Inglis?
Mr. Inglis. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Inglis votes yes. Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Bilirakis votes yes.
Chairman Berman. Are there other members who wish to be
recorded? The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. No.
Ms. Rush. Ms. Lee votes no.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Wexler. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Wexler votes no.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Payne votes no.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Klein. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Klein votes no.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Chairman Berman. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
Ms. Rush. Mr. Manzullo votes yes.
Chairman Berman. Is there anyone else who wishes to be
recorded? If not, the clerk will tally. Mr. Mack?
Ms. Rush. No. He voted.
Chairman Berman. He already voted. All right. The clerk is
tallying the vote.
[Pause.]
Chairman Berman. Mr. Crowley?
Ms. Rush. He voted.
Chairman Berman. Okay. That is it. The polls are closed.
Ms. Rush. On this vote, there are 17 ayes and 22 noes.
Chairman Berman. The amendment, as amended, is not agreed
to.
Mr. Royce. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Gallegly. You are next.
Mr. Royce. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will distribute.
[The amendment of Mr. Royce follows:]Amendment
Foreign Relations Authorization...--Royce deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment to Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, offered by Mr. Royce of California.
``At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
`Section blank. Sense of Congress on Restrictions' ''----
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the amendment will be
deemed read.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes
on his amendment.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of us, on both
sides of the aisle, are members of the Human Rights Caucus, and
I bring this resolution up for a particular reason.
There is a problem for the Buddhist Church in Vietnam, and,
over the years, we have had this issue of the countries of
particular concern, the list that allows us to apply some
leverage in order to try to obtain the right kind of conduct,
whether it is in Burma or Saudi Arabia. Vietnam was on that
list and was taken off a few years ago, but, colleagues, Human
Rights Watch said that they have commenced the worst crackdown
on human rights in 20 years, and I just want to share this with
you.
I had an opportunity, in the past, to visit some of those
dissidents, some of those Buddhist monks, in prison. One was
Thich Quang Do, who is serving 33 years. Another who was under
house arrest was Le Quang Liem.
When you meet with someone, and, subsequently, they have
their head bashed in by the state because they attempt to go to
a religious ceremony for their prophet's birthday, I just want
to read you the press account.

``Mr. Trung Van Duk was clubbed to death on site. His
body is kept at the Phu Tan District Prison. As for Mr.
Le Quang Liem, he suffered several major blows to the
head and shoulders. Fellow Hoa Hao Buddhists came to
his aid, quickly carried him to the gates of the Thu
Than City. Three thousand Hoa Hao Buddhists surrounded
the gates to protect him. The policeman pursuing Mr. Le
Quang Liem ruthlessly clubbed and beat the Hoa Hao
Buddhists surrounding the gates of the city.''

Now, we have Protestant leader Ben Hdok, this year, who was
also beaten to death. This is a photograph from the Human
Rights Report of Pastor Nguyen Kon Chin beaten over 20 times.
This is his latest beating, July 12, 2008. His church was
bulldozed twice.
The point I am trying to make here is that when Human
Rights Watch gives us the hard evidence, in terms of the
crackdown that occurred this year, and it is across the board,
we must act. The church that has the greatest problem, I think,
are the Buddhists because, as Le Quang Liem showed me, the
sacred texts are not acceptable to the party, so the party has
rewritten them to about 30 percent of what used to be in the
document and changed the document. This is why the head of the
Unified Buddhist Church, Thich Quang Do, and why Le Quang Liem
cannot convert to the party's interpretation for their religion
as Buddhists.
Now, the bottom line is that the State Department is going
to do what it wants to do. We cannot compel Vietnam's
inclusion, but we can use our judgment and express our view
that the Vietnamese harassment of religious believers here is
over the top.
So this is what I really recommend to all of you. For those
of us who are members of the Human Rights Caucus, we have had
hearings on this, we have heard in detail all that has
happened, also to the Catholic Church at Thai Ha and to the
parishioners there, how they have been beaten. I just think it
is time, in a bipartisan way, we go on record in this body to,
at least, express to the Vietnamese Government that someone is
paying attention, just like we do to Burma and just like we do
to the Saudis and so forth.
I will reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. You cannot reserve it, but you can get one
of your friends to yield.
Mr. Royce. Then let me explain one other point. The fact
that Vietnam was put on the list shows how bad things were,
and, for a while, that served to create some leverage, but now,
as Human Rights Watch has told us, we have lost any leverage,
and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom,
which is the custodian of this list, to begin with, now
recommends that Vietnam be relisted, our own U.S. Commission on
Religious Freedom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentlemen from America Samoa; for what purpose do you seek
recognition?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect
for my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Royce, and I
also am a member of the Human Rights Caucus, and I want to
include, for the record, Mr. Chairman, the letter that was
received from Vietnam's Ambassador to the United States in
opposition to the Royce Amendment.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, that letter from the
ambassador will be included.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I also want to include the State
Department's response to the amendment.
Chairman Berman. I am sorry?
Mr. Faleomavaega. The State Department.
Chairman Berman. They have sent a communication on this
issue.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Chairman Berman. Having seen neither, we will include both.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. Mr. Chairman, the State Department
continues to list Vietnam as a country of particular concern
with respect to religious freedom. This is what the amendment
calls for:

``Vietnam was placed on a Country of Particular Concern
list in 2004, and, in 2006, under the Bush
administration, the U.S. Department of State took
Vietnam off of the CPC list because it no longer fit
the criteria of a severe violator under the
International Religious Freedom Act.''

While I agree with my friend from California that problems
remain in Vietnam, and while I am aware that the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom would like to see
Vietnam put back on the list, the Commission on International
Religious Freedom also recognizes some positive developments,
as does the U.S. Department of State.
According to the State Department, Vietnam has addressed
the central violations put forward in the Royce Amendment and
has instituted policies and practices to protect religious
freedom.
According to the statement from the State Department, and I
quote,

``All prisoners of faith that were on our list in 2004
have been released. There have been only isolated cases
of renunciation in the past year. Almost all of the
places of worship that were shut down prior to 2004
have been reopened, new churches and religious
denominations continue to be recognized, religious
texts are now printed and distributed to several ethnic
minority languages, and many thousands of believers are
able to practice their faith without harassment.''

The reference that my good friend's amendment makes to the
Catholic Church was a land dispute and not a religious dispute.
In fact, according to the ambassador's letter, the improvement
of religious freedom was acknowledged by Vatican Under
Secretary of State Monsignor Pietro Parolini, the Pope's envoy
during his visit to Vietnam in February of this year.
The ambassador's letter also reports that the Bush
administration's decision to take Vietnam off the CPC list,
that, in the year 2008 and early 2009, nine religious groups
received national recognition, tripling the number that
received recognition throughout 2007, the number of locally
registered Protestant congregations has increased. In Ho Chi
Minh City alone, there are now 130 registered congregations,
and, by the end of the year 2008, there were 1,175 in the
Central Highlands and about 126 in the Northern Provinces.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I respect very highly my
good friend's proposed amendment, but, for the reasons----
Mr. Royce. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I will gladly yield.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The letter that you submitted; was it from
the American Ambassador to Vietnam, or are you submitting a
letter from Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States?
Mr. Faleomavaega. From the Ambassador of Vietnam to the
United States.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the representative of the government
who has been accused of the human rights abuses; he is the
representative of that government, not our Government.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And rightly so.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. That is what he is here for, and I
believe the same letter was also sent to other members of the
committee.
Chairman Berman. Is the gentleman yielding back?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank Mr. Royce for his excellent
amendment.
As one of the prime authors of the International Religious
Freedom Act (IRFA)--Frank Wolf was the prime author, but all of
the International Religious Freedom Act hearings, and the
markup, were in this room--I was also the chair of the Human
Rights Committee at the time--when we wrote that legislation,
we meant for countries like Vietnam, which are egregious
violators of religious freedom, to be listed as countries of
particular concern. Vietnam actually uses the registration of
churches as a way of suppressing these institutions and church
membership.
I have been to Vietnam several times--as a matter of fact,
David Killion and I were there on one of those trips, but my
most recent trip took me to Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, and Hue. I
met with about 60 dissidents who were out of prison. Several
are under house arrest, including the venerable Thich Quang Do.
There was an easing in Vietnam's repression for a time.
What happened, though, after PNTR and after Vietnam's ascension
into the World Trade Organization, was a snapback. You will
recall, my colleagues, probably that, like Charter 77, that
great human rights manifesto of Czechoslovakia--Vaclav Havel
and others have signed that--we have a similar manifesto for
human rights in Vietnam today.
On 8406, April 8, 2006, some of the leading intellectuals
in Vietnam all signed the Block 8406 document, many hundreds of
them, and now, one by one, those men and women have been
dragged back to prison--for some, it is the first trip--they
have been totally mistreated--some have been tortured. We have
seen a profound deterioration of the human rights situation in
Vietnam.
On religious freedom, the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, the individual body created by IRFA, the
International Religious Freedom Act, back in 1998, has
recommended, since 2001, that Vietnam be listed as a CPC, a
Country of Particular Concern.
In 2004 and 2005, the Bush administration put them,
designated them, as CPC countries, as they ought to have been.
Ambassador John Hanford, our ambassador-at-large, worked
very hard, got a whole set of what he called ``deliverables''
that many of us thought, and had some expectation, that the
Vietnamese Government would honor. One by one, those
deliverables have been ripped in half, and the dissidents all
hauled back into prison.
The Unified Buddhist Church remains outlawed, and we have
severe depression there.
The Protestant Church, the Montagnards--there is a whole
list and category of individuals, including the Catholic
Church, which has now seen the pendulum that was easing go in
the opposite direction.
So I strongly urge my colleagues to go with Mr. Royce on
his CPC designation. It is well-founded, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. I
am going to recognize myself to speak in support of the Royce
Amendment.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has
recommended that Vietnam be named a ``Country of Particular
Concern.'' There was a significant level of improvement, and
whether it was a ``snapback,'' as Mr. Smith said, or an
erosion, the fact is, there are still far too many serious
abuses and restrictions of religious freedom in Vietnam.
By redesignating Vietnam, I hope that the consequence will
be that the Vietnamese Government will engage with us further
on this issue and address these concerns. While some areas of
United States-Vietnamese relations have improved quite markedly
in recent years, restrictions on religious freedom remain an
area of real concern, so I am going to vote for the amendment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield for just a
moment?
Chairman Berman. Yes. I will yield for a moment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me, as a member of the Human Rights
Commission, respectfully disagree with my distinguished
colleague and agree with the chairman. This is, I think, an
important step. It is a ``Sense of Congress'' that allows
latitude, but I conclude by saying that you cannot label all of
the Vietnamese-Americans that are here to be anti the present
Government of Vietnam. They care about it. They care about
their relatives, and they report to you all of the time the
human rights abuses that they suffer.
My final statement is, if we reflect back on the Vietnam
War, many of our contemporaries, those of us who remember that
war, lost their life, upwards of 50,000-plus of Americans who
died, so that there might be democracy, there might be justice,
there might be human rights, and we cannot fail them, and I
think this is a reasonable response to that, and I yield back
and support the amendment.
Chairman Berman. My time has expired. The gentleman from
California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will make this very quick, Mr. Chairman.
We need to go on record in opposition to the brutal human
rights violations that are now taking place in Vietnam. I
commend Mr. Royce for what he is doing. Less than 2 months ago,
police in the Mekong Delta brutally beat to death the head of
the Kamir Christians Alliance Church. And we just heard, in
opposition to Mr. Royce's amendment, we heard the fact that so
many churches have been registered, as if that is good thing.
The fact that they had to register those churches with a regime
that espouses an atheistic philosophy is actually something
that indicates that we should be passing this resolution, as
Mr. Royce has suggested.
One last note, as the situation has degenerated in Vietnam
and human rights activists have been jailed and religious
leaders have been brutally beaten to death, the American
business community continues to invest in Vietnam and to go
there, treating that government as if it is no different than
the Belgian Government. We owe it to our founding fathers and
everybody who built this country to value liberty and justice.
And if we just value making money and letting our businessmen
go over there like that and then write policy for us, shame on
us. Thank you, Mr. Royce and thank you, Mr. Chairman for
supporting this amendment.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
question is on the amendment from the gentleman from
California, Mr. Royce. All those in favor say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, no.
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it. The amendment is
adopted. All right. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. I have a short amendment.
Chairman Berman. A short amendment. Real short?
Mr. Gallegly. I think so. Everything I do is short.
Chairman Berman. If it is the one I think it is, I like it.
Mr. Gallegly. Okay. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Berman. It is not on immigration?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Chairman Berman. Okay.
Mr. Gallegly. Well, we may work something in there.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized.
[The amendment of Mr. Gallegly follows:]Gallegly
Amendment to H.R. 2410 deg.

Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes three
changes to section 912 of the bill, which increases----
Chairman Berman. The clerk will read the amendment.
Mr. Gallegly. Okay.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment is waived. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Gallegly. As I said, Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes
three changes to section 912 of the bill, which increases
penalties for illicit trafficking in arms and weapons to
Mexico. First, this amendment expands the enhanced penalties
from exports to Mexico, to exports to the Western Hemisphere.
Trafficking weapons to the Caribbean or Central or South
America is just as detrimental to our national security as
smuggling guns to Mexico.
Second, this amendment increases the penalty for exporting
weapons to the Western Hemisphere from 10-20 years. If we want
to send a strong message to those putting guns in the hands of
the drug cartels, we need to also increase the possible jail
time.
And third, this amendment strikes subsection C of section
912, which imposes a sunset on these new penalties.
Unfortunately, gun trafficking to Mexico and other countries is
nothing new. This problem will not go away by the year 2012.
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gallegly. Yes, I will.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman's amendment deals with the
illegal trafficking of small arms to Mexico and others. It is
all part of our Merida Initiative and our effort to deal with
the crisis down there. It is an excellent amendment because it
recognizes that the issue is not just Mexico. It is the entire
Western Hemisphere. It is right in extending the penalties. The
language in the bill had focused on fines. In some cases, you
are dealing with people who can never pay for their fines. In
some case, you are dealing with people for whom the fines are
nothing because they have so much cash. So, the extension of
the sentencing is a good idea and I do not think there is logic
to the sunset clause. So, I urge the committee to adopt the
amendment.
Is there any further discussion or debate?
[No further discussion.]
Chairman Berman. If not, the question is on the amendment
by the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly. All those in
favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, no.
[A chorus of nos deg.es.]
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it. The amendment is
adopted. We will recess and come back at 3 o'clock where we
hope to finish up this bill and take up the Pakistan bill.
[Whereupon, a recess was taken.]
Chairman Berman. The committee will come to order. The
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will read the amendment from Mr.
Pence.
[The amendment of Mr. Pence follows:]Pence
Amendment to H.R. 2410 deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment to H.R. 2410 offered by Mr. Pence of
Indiana. ``In subsection C of Title III, strike the current
section 333 and insert the following new section: `Section 333.
Protection of fundamental human rights. The Secretary of State
shall continue to work through appropriate United States' ''--
--
Mr. Pence. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
consider the amendment as read.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, that will be the order
and the gentleman of Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes on his
amendment.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly
straightforward amendment that follows on some action that this
committee has already taken with regard to section 333. And my
amendment would actually replace what remains of section 333
with a reaffirmation of our shared commitment to protect
fundamental human rights for all people on the globe.
First, let me say rather emphatically, this is obviously a
sensitive issue and it is an issue that has been recently
debated on the floor of the Congress. The question of sexual
orientation, gender identity is one that upon which many
millions of Americans are divided and this Congress has debated
and will continue to debate. But let me say emphatically, I do
not support criminalization of homosexual behavior. And I
understand the import of the aspects of this legislation that
identify themselves with efforts toward ending the
criminalization of homosexual behavior around the world. So,
let me say emphatically on that point, this is not about that.
What I do oppose, though, as the current legislation
suggests, I oppose mandating that our Secretary of State,
diplomatic and consular staff essentially promote a gay rights
agenda around the globe over and above other issues. Currently,
section 333(c) reads, in part,

``in keeping with the administration's endorsement of
efforts by the United Nations to decriminalize
homosexuality in member states, the Secretary of State
of State shall work through appropriate United States
Government employees at United States diplomatic and
consular missions to encourage governments of countries
to reform or appeal laws, and again it refers to laws
of such countries criminalizing homosexuality. But,
then, it goes on to say to reform or appeal laws
restricting the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms
consistent with the United States law by homosexual
individuals or organizations.''

My amendment would simply delete that language and replace
it, as my colleagues can see, with the assertion that the
Secretary of State shall continue to work through appropriate
United States Government employees, diplomatic and consular
missions, to encourage governments of other countries to
protect all people against gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights, as described in the Foreign Assistance
Act, regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, or national
origin, which, of course, is from Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
It seems to me that that is altogether much more
appropriate than using this legislation to specifically direct,
and I emphasize to my colleagues, the language of this
legislation says ``the Secretary of State shall work through
employees, diplomatic staff, and consular missions'' to promote
a particular agenda on a particular issue bearing on a
particular rights of particular individuals. We ought to rather
have a broader statement on internationally recognized human
rights.
And I want to say, respectfully, and we ought to identify
race, color, religion, sex, national origins, those matters
upon which the American people broadly agree, rather than
introducing and singling out an issue that divides so many in
our Nation and I suspect will continue to. My amendment will
ensure that American diplomats speak with an undivided voice,
undivided voice of the American people and their values. As
currently drafted, ,our bill would tie the hands of American
diplomats by mandating that they make sexual orientation a
foreign policy priority regardless of other national security
considerations.
So, I offer this legislation and would be delighted to have
the chair accept it. But, I offer this legislation really in
the spirit of saying let us move this critical reauthorization
bill with the broadest possible consensus. I know the chairman.
I respect the chairman. I respect my colleagues on both parties
on this committee. But, as we just saw in recent days on the
floor of this Congress, this is a difficult issue that goes to
the very heart of values to the American people and we ought
not single it out with a mandate in this reauthorization bill
and essentially risk turning our diplomatic core into agents of
a particular point of view that emerges out of the midst of the
American political debate, but make them advocates of those
broad principles and advocates of human rights that do unite
the American people. And I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. Mr. Chairman, I find it
amazing that ostensibly in the name of letting us have a broad
consensus on the protection of fundamental human rights, the
gentleman would carve out one whole class of human beings, who
would be exempted from those human rights. I find that to be an
exquisite contradiction that I certainly cannot support.
I represent a state that not so long ago enshrined
discrimination in its statutes. It is a sorry part of our past
we certainly do not want to go back to. And I think it is
perfectly appropriate for the United States to include sexual
orientation along with race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. I think it is wrong in the name of comity to say let us
all agree we are going to carve out a whole class of human
beings against whom we will sanction discrimination. And,
again, sadly, we hear rhetoric about ``a gay or homosexual
agenda,'' whatever that is. I do not subscribe to any
particular agenda other than that which says I do not favor
discrimination. And I did not run for office to sign up to
discriminate against any class of human beings and I am not
going to do it now.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope, unlike the gentleman from
Indiana, I hope you will not accept this amendment because I do
not think it represents fundamental American values. I yield
back my time.
Chairman Berman. Can we call a question? Is there further
debate? The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Watson. I would like to align myself with Mr.
Connolly's remarks, as well. I am reading the language in this
amendment, section 333, and I do not see the language that he
described in it. And it says ``regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.'' Can the chair point out
the language that Mr. Pence is referring to?
Chairman Berman. If the gentlelady will yield?
Ms. Watson. I will yield.
Chairman Berman. I believe it is fair to say--and the
gentleman from Indiana can correct me if I am wrong--that he
seeks to strike subsection C of Title III, which starts with
``international efforts to revise laws criminalizing
homosexuality.'' He seeks to strike that paragraph from lines 1
through 12 and insert the language that has been passed out as
his amendment. I am sorry, he is striking section 333, which
starts with----
Ms. Watson. I am looking at the bill, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. All right. Yes, I am sorry. If you are
looking at the bill, look on page 125, section 333,
``discrimination related to sexual orientation.'' Subsection
(a) has already been struck by the amendment because for the
reasons that we have a strong expectation that that issue will
be dealt with administratively.
Subsection (b) is tracking violence or criminalization
related to sexual orientation. The gentleman from Indiana seeks
to strike that.
Subsection (c), ``international efforts to revise laws
criminalizing homosexuality,'' he seeks to strike that. And
then he seeks to strike the country or ports on human rights
language in the rest of the section.
He is striking everything in 333 that has not already been
struck and substitute the language in front of him. Is that a
fair characterization, Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is substituted with the
language that is in my amendment.
Ms. Watson. As the United States of America and as our
Secretary of State travels the globe to spread the virtue of
western democracy and the fact that in our Constitution, in our
Bill of Rights, we protect human rights. I think it would be
counterproductive and hypocritical to take the language that
you have in the bill out and substitute with this language
because it is obvious that this language would allow
discrimination and we are a country that abhors discrimination.
We have an inclusive society and we need to have language that
protects the rights of all human beings regardless of color,
creed, sex, or sexual orientation. I would hope that this
amendment would be struck down. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I will be very brief.
Chairman Berman. I wish to strike the last word and
recognize----
Mr. Delahunt. I wish to strike the last word and I want to
associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Connolly, the
gentleman from Virginia. I want to be very clear. I do not
consider the existing section as promoting a gay rights agenda.
It simply does not do that. That is a mischaracterization of
that particular section.
What the gentleman from Indiana's amendment would do, it
would signal to the rest of the world that violence against
people, gay people, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals, and
others with a different sexual orientation, would be of no
concern, of less of a concern to the United States. This is
about condemning violence against a category of people because
of their sexual orientation. It is not about a gay rights
agenda. It is about violence against gays. I think that is a
bad message to send.
As you, Mr. Chairman, are aware, I recently came back from
Moscow where there was an event and there was violence against
people because of their sexual orientation and it was condemned
by every single democracy in Europe. And I think that the
gentleman's amendment, no matter how well intentioned, would be
a move that would bring discredit to the United States. And
with that, I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Delahunt. I will yield.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We went through this before. The chairman
indicated his viewpoint. He indicated he was going to work with
the State Department, that we were going to stand on the basic
respect for human dignity. What this amendment does with the
reference to protecting rights, in essence, it takes away
rights, as it refers to laws that may not, in fact, identify
and respect sexual orientation differences. And so I would ask
that we would oppose this amendment and I yield back to the
chairman.
Chairman Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Delahunt. I will yield further.
Chairman Berman. I appreciate the general feeling. I just
want to join issue with my friend from Indiana on one aspect of
his comment, a notion of a general statement versus specific
references. First of all, a number of us, and I know you are
one of them--who, in the context of the general respect for
human rights, in terms of particular issues in particular
countries--have been at the forefront of trying to jar
attention. The earlier debate about religious freedom in
Vietnam was an example. There are all kinds of issues, but in
that specific situation, there was conduct by Vietnam that
troubles us greatly and we tried to address it with language by
Mr. Royce. I remember after the Gulf War the issue that Kuwait,
who we had--as part of a coalition, had liberated from an Iraqi
aggression, had a system, which did not allow women to vote. It
became part of our agenda as parliamentarians and part of the
State Department's agenda, in terms of bilateral relationships,
to push. Obviously, the Kuwaitis will decide for themselves,
but we would push the notion that that discrimination based on
sex was wrong. And here we are 20 years later and Kuwaiti women
have a right to vote. Kuwaiti women now have a right to run for
Parliament and lo and behold, four Kuwaiti women were just
elected to the parliamentary.
So, we have issues that were thought of as cultural norms
in certain societies years ago change. And there was a time we
talked about, oh, democracy would not work in Asia and it was
contrary to Asian values. But, this is one of, I think, the
fundamental freedoms. And by your own comments, you indicated
your abhorrence, and I believe you, with both the violence and
the criminalization of homosexual conduct and your opposition
to that. There was a time in America where that was common,
part of State laws. They were knocked out and a remnant to the
past.
The one thing I do not think we should rightfully be doing
is asking our diplomats to push issues that we, in our country,
have not come to terms with yet. For instance, in some cases, I
hate to say it, we do not have a Federal statute on employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation. I hope one day soon
we will. This language that you seek to strike is sensitive to
all those issues. It focuses on it. The report language will
make it very clear that no one will be forced to promote an
agenda in this area in carrying out the provisions of this law
that they find morally repugnant. And I would join my
colleagues from Virginia, Texas, California, and Massachusetts
in urging a no vote.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
Mr. Flake. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. Yes. We have some members, deg.
who have to go to the White House, so we would love to get a
vote on this soon. The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. Flake. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Pence. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just
say, and I appreciate, other than everybody except Bill
Delahunt, I appreciate the comments that were made by all the
members of the panel and even those from my friend from
Massachusetts. And it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, you just said
we ought not to push issues we have not come to terms with yet.
I think I wrote that down. It is in the record. And maybe I am
just not really getting an understanding, this language. It
says, ``the Secretary of State shall,'' I am looking now at
section 333(c), ``Secretary of State shall work through,
diplomatic, consular, missions,'' et cetera, ``to encourage
governments'' and, again, I am stepping over the criminalizing
homosexuality part, but then also says, ``reform or repeal laws
restricting the enjoyment fundamental freedoms by homosexual
individuals, organizations.'' That strikes me as singling out
the interest of a particular group when what we ought to be
doing is having our diplomatic corps be, as my amendment
suggests, promoting internationally recognized human rights as
described in the Foreign Assistance Act, the gentleman from
Massachusetts referred to and the chairman did.
I abhor violence against individuals. I abhor
discrimination. The reason I cited the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, because it internationally recognized human rights.
There is a long list of abuses against individuals, which are
encompassed in this, that our diplomatic corps ought to be
about pressing the interest of individuals, regardless of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. It just seems to me
that as we are in the business in this important committee of
laying a legal foundation, we ought not to be singling out. It
seems that one of my colleague's issues, the phrase that they
were concerned, we were expressing less of a concern toward a
group of individuals that may have homosexual or sexual
preference. What troubles me about this language, Mr. Chairman,
is just simply it seems like the bill as currently written puts
more of a concern on individuals on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender identity than a broad concern for
individuals, who are the subject of human rights abuses or
discrimination.
So, that is the reason why, as you accurately stated, I am
calling for us to strike this section and replace it with what
would be a very broad affirmation grounded in the Foreign
Assistance Act, grounded in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
simply say that as our Nation continues to debate along the
fault lines of whether it would be hate crimes or other issues,
that we would not be dictating, which I see when it says,
``Secretary of State shall,'' we are dictating that our
diplomatic corps, our foreign service essentially get in the
business of promoting an agenda upon which there is broad
disagreement and disagreement based on values and world view of
millions of Americans. With that, I will be happy to yield back
and move the previous question.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Can
we go to the question? All those in favor of the amendment by
the gentleman from Indiana say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, say no.
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes
have it. The gentleman from Illinois. The amendment fails, by
the way.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will read.
[The amendment of Mr. Manzullo follows:]Manzullo
Amendment to H.R. 2410 deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment H.R. 2410, offered by----
Mr. Manzullo. I move that the amendment be considered read.
Ms. Rush [continuing]. Mr. Manzullo of Illinois----
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read. It is a long amendment.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. This amendment seeks to correct a
problem that barred American small businesses form
participating in the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
What it does is when APEC gets together, businesses from all
over the world are actively engaged in shaping important
policies, such as standards, intellectual property rights, and
even export promotion. But, unfortunately, America's 26 million
small businesses are not given a seat at the table. The City of
Rockford, which is in the district I represent, Mr. Chairman,
has about 340,000 people and exports $1.4 billion worth of
products. So, it is a heavy manufacturing, heavy exporting area
and this bill allows small businesses the opportunity to come
to the table.
The Small Business Exporters Association of America
supports the amendment. It levels the field of America's small
business and manufacturers. It will give the little guys the
opportunity to attend and participate in the APEC meetings.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for working with us on
another issue which is also very important to manufacturers of
northern Illinois. The inclusion of language in section 804
pertains to the Directorate of Defense trade controls on which
Congressman Sherman and I worked last year is a huge boost. It
is a step in the right direction. Mr. Sherman and I--our expert
process and also the provision on satellites in section 826
will help create more manufacturing jobs. And I would urge the
adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. I
recognize myself for 5 minutes to support the Manzullo
amendment. It addresses a need for more U.S. engagement in APEC
and for assistance for small businesses to participate in the
forum. And I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
American Samoa, the chair of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
I do want to commend my good friend and ranking member of our
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, for offering this
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know of no one in this committee,
who has a greater sense of passion, understanding, and
commitment concerning the needs of our small businesses
throughout our country. Because the gentleman was formerly
chairman of the committee of small business and I as a former
member of that committee, I thought the gentleman did an
outstanding job in pressing for the needs of our small
businesses throughout our Nation.
The gentleman's amendment is a clear statement to the State
Department and several other Federal agencies of the importance
of small businesses and quite often our small businesses never
seem to get the attention and the proper treatment to be
included in business contracts and transactions, especially
with foreign countries. My only concern is that whether the
gentleman's amendment is in the right structure as far as APEC
is concerned. Problems with APEC is that while this
organization is composed of 21 countries, which includes two
unique entities, like Hong Kong and Taiwan, APEC today is still
struggling with its own sense of identity and whether it will
evolve into a formalized economic organization like NAFTA or
the European Union.
Over the years, APEC has been an excellent forum, which
allows heads of state and governments to conduct side meetings.
My colleagues will recall our former President Bush attended
the APEC meeting that was hosted by Prime Minister John Howard
of Australia and long afterwards, he left the conference while
the attendees were still in the meeting. As it is currently
structured, every embassy we have around the world has economic
advisors to each of our ambassadors. And I think this is where
the rubber meets the road, Mr. Chairman. Do our economists or
advisors of these embassies, does the State Department
earnestly have programs that specifically address the needs of
our small businesses?
It has been my experience that when we address economic
trade relations with other countries, exports, imports, always
seem to look after the needs of the larger corporations. But
when it comes to including small businesses, nothing is done.
Having said all of that, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding
the gentleman's amendment has been revised so as to also have
the support of you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, to emphasize the
gentleman's concerns, small business is never given proper
consideration by the State Department and other Federal
agencies to promote trade relations with other countries. And I
could not have think of better what the gentleman is saying,
that if you are not at the table, you will be on the menu. And
I must say that our small businesses have been on the menu for
all of these years and it is about time that the State
Department and other agencies give due attention to this need.
And I thank, again, my good friend from Illinois for proposing
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
question is on the amendment from the gentleman from Indiana.
All those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. Illinois. We already dealt with. Illinois,
it is close. All opposed, no.
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it. The amendment is
adopted. State of play, just a couple more amendments and then
final passage. We, obviously, need a reporting quorum, so we
are getting near the end of the first bell and I think the most
time consuming one, I hope. The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Berman. The clerk will read.
[The amendment of Mr. Mack follows:]Mack Amendment
to H.R. 2410 deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment H.R. 2410, offered by Mr. Mack of
Florida. ``In title II, add at the end of subtitle B the
following new section: `Jewish community in Venezuela.' ''----
Mr. Mack. I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading.
Chairman Berman. So ordered and without objection. And the
gentleman from Florida is recognized on his amendment.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we all aware, Hugo
Chavez and his cronies have targeted the Jewish community of
Venezuela and we, in Congress, must stand against tyrants and
show our support to the Jewish community. The facts are clear,
Mr. Chairman. Before Chavez took power, the Jewish community in
Venezuela was a thriving one and the Jewish population included
families that have lived in the country for over two centuries
and were survivors of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, Mr.
Chavez--sorry, Mr. Chairman--unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we
have witnessed growing state sponsored hostility toward the
Jewish people in Venezuela. In January 2009, a Caracas
synagogue was attacked. The men shattered religious objects,
spray painted ``Jews, get out'' on the temple's walls, and
stole a computer database containing names and addresses of
Jews living in Venezuela. That same month, Venezuela expelled
Israel's Ambassador to Venezuela, along with six other Israeli
diplomats.
Later, Venezuela officially broke relations with the State
of Israel, ending 60 years of diplomatic ties and deepening the
vulnerability of Venezuela Jews. In February 2009, attackers
through an explosive at a Jewish community center with the
intent of spreading fear and terror. Mr. Chairman, the list
goes on and on.
Countless organizations have already warned us on the
current situation in Venezuela. One of them, the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedoms placed Venezuela
on its watch list of religious freedom violators, finding that
official state rhetoric against the Venezuelan Jewish community
created an environment where Jewish religious leaders and
institutions are at risk of attack. Last month, the magazine of
Venezuela's state-owned oil company printed on the front page a
cartoon depicting a prison camp. Above it was an Israeli flag
and the sign read ``under new management.'' The facts are
clear, this is state-sponsored hostility toward the Jewish
population in Venezuela.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment asks for Members of Congress to
stand side-by-side with the Jewish community in Venezuela and
express to them our support and to let them know that they are
not alone in their struggle. I know that many of you have
expressed concerns as to the timing of this amendment of which
I respect each and every one of your opinions. But to me, we
cannot idly stand by and not talk and continue to condemn the
actions of Hugo Chavez on the Jewish community in Venezuela.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, is recognized.
Mr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to
thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack. He and I worked
very actively together on a number of Venezuela issues. I think
all of us in this body and people in the United States are very
concerned with Hugo Chavez, the tactics he has used on his own
people, the strategies he has used in the Hemisphere to
influence other countries and many of them are unacceptable.
The issue that Mr. Mack brings to us today is something
that is very important, but does require a little more
information for consideration. I live in south Florida and I
have had the opportunity, along with others, to visit with
members of the Venezuelan Jewish community that live in south
Florida, people that do business in south Florida and have
close relations with the Jewish community in Venezuela. And
what I have heard over multiple meetings with them is, yes,
this is certainly an environment that is not what it was. There
have been incidents, as mentioned by Mr. Mack, that are more
than troubling, that are not acceptable and we should condemn
them. And at the same time we have heard from them, we are
still able to conduct our businesses, we are still able to
live, we are still able to do the things that we need to do.
Now, I cannot speak for them, other than to say that maybe
if I was living in that environment, I would have gotten out. I
certainly, as a student of history, and I know many of us
understand the consequences of many of the European Jews that
did not leave their countries when they did. But, we have to
obviously look at each situation as it comes. And in this
particular situation, there are a number of ongoing activities
that have gone on that are being monitored by international
Jewish organizations in Latin America, which I have also spoken
with, and the word we are getting back is at the moment, the
time being, the community there, by and large, believes that
they re safe. They are not threatened physically. They do not
like some of these activities that are going on, but they are
continuing to be able to conduct their lives and choose to
continue to live there. And, in fact, and this is the crux of
the whole point, it would be more damaging if the United States
Congress were to put this type of resolution out there right
now, in their view, in terms of how their government would
react, than other activities are going on right now in their
region, specifically Argentina, and I met with the Ambassador
from Argentina, Mr. Timmerman, and other countries in that
region that have been working with the Venezuelan Government to
back off and take back and deal with some of these issues.
Now, I am not accepting the fact that Mr. Chavez is going
to all of a sudden turn around and have a different attitude.
But what I am saying very clearly is there are times when we,
in America, and this Congress can do the right thing. We feel
it is the right thing. We know that we are sending a message
out to the world that will, in fact, help a local community.
And there are times when our good intentions or good wishes can
do more damage. And what I am seeing specifically in this case,
based on my conversations with the communities in south Florida
that had direct relations and continue over the last number of
weeks have direct relations and contacts with the Venezuela
Jewish community, as well as ambassadors from various countries
working in that area, as well as Jewish community international
organizations that are very closely monitoring what is going on
right now in that country, that it is not in our best interest,
with all good intents that Mr. Mack has, to take up this
amendment at this time.
So, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this committee do
not accept this amendment, but absolutely continue to work very
hard to monitor and assist this community in all ways possible.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. Fortenberry. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fortenberry. I yield time to the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. Thank you. And just real quickly, I believe that
my friend, Mr. Klein, is correct, that when he says that there
are those who believe that the time is not right. But, I also
have heard from many, both from south Florida and as well from
Venezuela, that believe that the time is now. It is time to
act. And it is the decision that we have to make. Are we going
to act and stand together and denounce the actions of Chavez
and his government or are we going to delay and take a wait-
and-see approach? And I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to
support this amendment. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady from Nevada.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to----
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. I
pride myself on being in touch with Jewish communities
throughout the world and I would like to think of myself as
being in the forefront of those concerned about the rise of
anti-Semitism throughout Europe, Asia, and South America. I do
not take a backseat to anybody on this issue. So when I first
heard of the situation in Venezuela with the Jewish community,
my first reaction was to react and I seriously contemplated
sending a resolution around for people to sign up and to pass
independently to support Mr. Mack's amendment. But, I also
started hearing from members of the Venezuelan Jewish community
and they have convinced me to take a step back and not do
anything at this time that may further exacerbate the situation
and cause more problems for the Jewish community. And as long
as they took the time to contact me and spoke with such passion
that this is not the right time for the United States Congress
to react, I can only honor their wishes. And I thank the
gentleman from Florida for bringing this to everybody's
attention. But, I will be voting no, with the understanding
that if we get a signal from the Venezuelan Jewish community, I
will work very closely with you on this issue and move it
forward in Congress as a separate resolution. And I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack, for his sincere and
genuine and heartfelt concern for this beleaguered community.
We appreciate it, all of us in the Congress do and those of us
with Jewish heritage, in particular.
I, also, serve as the president of the International
Conference of Jewish Parliamentarians, representing members of
parliaments all over the world, who are of the Jewish faith.
And one of the things we do is try to look out for Jewish
communities that are in peril all over the world and speak out
on their behalf and try to defend their rights as part of the
overall human rights concerns that we together share. This
community finds itself in a very precarious position. And
sometimes there are unattended consequences to the good and
righteous actions that we would take as legislators, that we do
not personally have the sensitivity to fully understand and is
counterintuitive to what we would do in most other
circumstances, as well. But this particular community in this
particular country feel that they are literally under the gun
and any push back at this time, although they welcome the moral
support that we could give them as individuals, would be taken
by the President of that country, as well as others, as a sign
and signal that they should clamp down further on this
particular community.
Sometimes, we have to ask those, who we would help, what is
in their best interest. I know I tell some of my Republican
conservative friends that I want to bring down a bunch of
liberal Pinkos like me from New York to campaign in their
Republican primary and they indicate they would not be helped
by my kind intentions. There is a funny aspect to that. But,
this is real and this is serious. I would ask the gentleman to
consider rethinking this and working collectively with the rest
of us, so that we can figure out a better way to help those
people. My mother, who was my favorite philosopher, used to say
if you want to help me, help me my way. I think that is the
best advice a mother--and I think I speak for everybody--mother
was always right.
I think we should take a look at try to figure out, and I
know that everybody is not of the same view and think we should
push this issue a little hard, but if the gentleman would
consider withdrawing that, because even those of us, who would
be reluctant to vote against this as a resolution because we
agree with the notion and the sentiments, would be compelled to
do so. And I think we might be able to figure out a better way
to help those people, who certainly are deserving of the
concern that you have shown and for which we are grateful. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. I recognize myself. Motion to strike the
last word and yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and one of the things
that I can do, even though I am from Florida, is look around
and count votes. But with that being said, this is something
that I am very, very passionate about and believe in deeply.
And the crux of the argument is the time right and I believe
that the time is right. I absolutely believe the time is right
and that we should and must act now. But if there is sincerity
on the other side to work with us, with me, in listening to
those, who have contacted me, the chief rabbi from Venezuela,
who is in support, then I would be incline to withdraw the
amendment, but doing so in a way that really does foster an
opportunity for us to work side by side with the hopes of
bringing something either through the committee or to the floor
that can move this issue forward.
Mr. Engel. Will the gentleman yield? Will Mr. Mack yield to
me?
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Mr. Engel. I am sorry. Mr. Berman, I am sorry.
Chairman Berman. Yes, I will reclaim my time and we are
moving ahead here and give the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Engel, I yield to him.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me
first overall thank Mr. Mack and publicly state what a pleasure
it is to work with him as the ranking member on my
subcommittee. We have had many talks and many discussions about
this issue and other issues and I have always found Mr. Mack to
be a thoughtful, reasonable, and someone who cares very much
about not only this issue, but----
Chairman Berman. You do not know him very well.
Mr. Engel. So, I just want to say to Mr. Mack that,
obviously, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western
Hemisphere, I follow this situation facing the Jewish community
of Venezuela as closely as I have followed any issue in the
region. The Jewish community has been under siege in Venezuela
and members of this committee, Democrats and Republicans, were
very effective in sending a letter, which I authored, to Hugo
Chavez after the recent thrashing of the synagogue, deploring,
condemning it, and saying that he has created an atmosphere in
Venezuela that made it okay for people to think that they can
thrash the Jewish community and perpetuate other anti-Semitic
acts upon the small Jewish community in Venezuela.
So, we have not been quiet on this committee. The letter
was signed by 11 Democrats and nine Republicans and as
bipartisan as you can get. And I am told by many, many people,
it had a great impact. People in the Jewish community in
Venezuela have said that that letter had a great impact and
changed the Venezuelan Government's not attitude necessarily,
but how they were dealing with the Jewish community of
Venezuela. So, I think that we can be effective. We can do the
right thing.
And we have many people in that community now that we talk
to clandestinely and I would tend to be guided by what they
say. And as Mr. Klein had mentioned, Ms. Berkley, and others,
Mr. Ackerman, the community is saying right now, they would
prefer us not to do anything and to see how the situation is.
The situation has gotten better. But, I do not mean to imply
that it is good, because it is not good. And I want to assure
Mr. Mack and everyone else on this committee that I will
continue to speak out and involve other members of this
committee in speaking out and letting the Jewish community and
the Government of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, himself, know that
we are not turning a blind eye to this. It is not a matter of
doing this resolution or doing nothing. We are not going to do
nothing. We are going to do a lot of things and we are going to
be guided by what the community there says. And if the
community right now is saying that we have been effective, we
got the government to back down, we have been helpful to them
in this situation. And now, they are asking us right now to
leave it. I think the best thing to do is to leave it. But, I
want to tell Mr. Mack and then I will close, Mr. Chairman,
that----
Chairman Berman. 8 seconds.
Mr. Engel [continuing]. In between--that is hard--in
between the--even if I say it in Spanish, it is hard--in
between the time between deg.now and when the bill
finally hits the floor, we will continue to monitor the
situation of the Jewish community. And I want to assure Mr.
Mack that if at any point before the bill hits the floor, that
they----
Chairman Berman. I yield myself an additional minute and
without objection and yield it, seconds of it, to the gentleman
from New York, so that I can yield the rest of it to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying between
now and the time the resolution hits the floor, we will be in
constant contact with the Jewish community in Venezuela. And if
they think it would be helpful to have this kind of a
resolution, then I assure Mr. Mack that we will work to get it
in, in time for the entire House to vote on it. And I just want
to close by saying that Mr. Mack's resolution, I found it
moderate. I found it temperate. I thought it was good. It is
just not right at this time. But, if it is right in the future
time, I want to assure Mr. Mack that I will be right there with
him pushing the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Berman. I yield the remaining 26 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, also, want to thank
Congressman Mack. As someone who is Hispanic, but is very close
to the Jewish issue through marriage, I can tell you that it is
a concern and a constant conversation in my household. But the
concern that I have is if we sort of do not do anything on this
issue, we just have to make sure that we monitor the issue in
Venezuela because today, it is a Jewish community. Tomorrow, it
may be the Catholic community. The following year, it may be
the Christian community. So, we have to make sure that this
country monitors it, because I do not want to come back here in
a year and say we should have done something stronger than we
did today. So, that is just--I want to thank you, Chairman, for
your time.
Chairman Berman. My time has expired and can we--the
gentleman from Florida, as I understand it, is prepared to----
Mr. Mack. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. Yes.
Mr. Mack. With that, I would ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. I have a proposal for the committee. Let
me make a proposal to the committee here. As I understand it,
we have several amendments. Three of them, I am prepared to
accept. And I was wondering if we could consider them en bloc
and then the members could speak to the amendment, but
altogether. I think it might go faster that way--and
simultaneously--no. The amendments would be Mack, the Western
Hemisphere; Fortenberry, religious minorities in the Middle
East; and Fortenberry, IAEA related to the weapons of mass
destruction commission findings. Would there be any objection
to considering those three amendments en bloc?
[No objection.]
[The information referred to follows:]Mack
amendment to H.R. 2410 deg.

Amendment to H.R. 2410--Fortenberry deg.

Chairman Berman. Without objection, that will be the order.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. Fortenberry. I have no objection, except that I had
three amendments. The third one, which----
Chairman Berman. The third one----
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Overall, but I would like to
make a statement on it.
Chairman Berman. Yes. After we do the en bloc amendment and
the Woolsey colloquy, we will recognize----
Mr. Fortenberry. We will consider that separately, then. I
see. Thank you.
Chairman Berman [continuing]. The gentleman from Nebraska
for the final, final amendment. So, the clerk shall distribute
the amendments en bloc.
Ms. Rush. Amendment to H.R. 2410, en bloc, offered by Mr.
Mack of Florida, ``In title''----
Chairman Berman. Without objection, reading of the three
amendments being considered en bloc will be waived. And let us
see, I have never done this before. We have two different
authors. Mr. Mack, why don't you start first.
Mr. Mack. It is a good amendment and I hope everybody will
support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not have
the ability to be that brief. I need to speak to mine. The
first amendment simply relates to strengthening IAEA, the
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards by incorporating
key recommendations of the bipartisan commission on the
prevention of weapons of mass destruction, several important
recommendations they have made, and I think will be helpful to
strengthening the security of this country and identifying
vulnerabilities and preventing misuse of sensitive nuclear
materials and technologies worldwide.
The second amendment, would you like me to speak to that
now----
Chairman Berman. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Now, Mr. Chairman? We all are
aware that in many of our discussions on the Middle East tend
to focus on Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish communities when talking
about human rights and the status of differing ethnic
populations. However, Iraq's constitution also guarantees
religious freedom, but many of the religious minorities are
main targets of sectarian violence and this includes Iraq's
Christians, the Izidis, Shabacks, Sabi, and Mandians, Bahis,
and remnant Jewish community that are highly vulnerable. So,
this amendment simply calls for a more focused effort to
examine the situation of religious minorities in Iraq, but also
throughout the entire Middle East, to determine what steps that
can be taken to decrease their vulnerability to intimation and
violence.
Chairman Berman. If there is no further debate, the
amendment en bloc is before us. All of those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed.
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it. One Mack and two
Fortenberry amendments are hereby adopted. The gentlelady from
California. We are almost done with this bill.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
for a colloquy with you at this moment.
Chairman Berman. This is the moment.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. Thank you for the time and thank
you for the work that you and your staff have put into this
excellent forward-thinking bill. To all who have read and
reviewed the policies set forth here, it is obvious that the
bill will build upon the ideals of a strong State Department,
one that executes policy based on diplomacy, engagement, and
equality. I am very encouraged that in the early stage, the new
leadership at the State Department, led by Secretary Hillary
Clinton, has placed high importance on the issue of gender
equality through the appointment of Mullane Vervier as the head
of the new office on global women's issue. The Secretary made
an early and unmistakable declaration that the role of women
will be considered at every level of decision making.
Women deserve, as a basic human right, access to maternal
healthcare. Unfortunately, as I saw on a recent trip to
Tanzania, only a small percentage of women have access to
prenatal delivery and postnatal care. Sometimes, it is as basic
as a lack of transportation to a clinic or it could be as
serious as corrective surgery for obstetric fistula. The
obstacles to care are great. Every minute, someone in the
world, a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth. In the poorest
region, one out of 22 women will die from these causes,
compared with one in 4,800 in the United States of America.
Today's bill serves to begin the process of rebuilding civilian
capacity to conduct diplomacy and promote development.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that later this year, you plan
to move forward with a larger scale foreign aid reform package.
Is that correct?
Chairman Berman. It certainly is.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you will
consider the issue of maternal mortality and women's health in
connection with the foreign aid reform package. Specifically, I
hope to work with you to develop a comprehensive, evidence-
based maternal action plan that is funded at a responsible
level. I believe this is a key element I promoting security,
stability, and prosperity for women and their families
worldwide.
Chairman Berman. If the gentlelady will yield, I very much
appreciate her comments. This is an issue that is really very
important to me and I think it is important to a strong
bipartisan majority of the committee, as a whole. And I look
forward to working with you, specifically, as well as other
members of the committee to help improve both the quality of
healthcare for women and girls around the world and their
access to it through our foreign assistance reform effort.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady from California has the
time.
Ms. Woolsey. Am I able to yield to others? I will yield to
Ambassador Watson.
Ms. Watson. I wanted to go on the Jackson Lee Sudan
amendment as a co-sponsor.
Chairman Berman. So it is Jackson Lee, Lee, and Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, I feel left out, without a man
being on it. Would you add Payne to that list?
Chairman Berman. Without objection, you will all be, you
and any others who want to by letting staff know, will be
retroactively added as the authors of that amendment.
Ms. Woolsey. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. This is my colloquy
so I am assuming they are in support of my women's mortality
issue also.
Chairman Berman. Yes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Berman. Time is yielded back. The gentleman from
Nebraska.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for leading
the hearing today. I also want to thank our ranking member for
attempting to offer some reasonable alternatives today.
My amendment that I propose----
Chairman Berman. I am sorry. You are offering your
amendment at this point? Or are you just moving to strike the
last words?
Mr. Fortenberry. I am sorry. I would like to be recognized
to offer my amendment.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized, but first the
clerk will distribute and read the amendment.
This is the Fortenberry Amendment on the conscious clause
is the right term for it.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, if it is acceptable I would
move to dispense with the reading.
Ms. Rush. Non-discrimination requirements?
Chairman Berman. It is coming around right now, so give
people a chance to look at it. Without objection, the amendment
will be deemed as read and the gentleman from Nebraska will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
[The amendment of Mr. Fortenberry
follows:]Amendment to H.R. 2410--Fortenberry deg.

Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply tries
to provide sensible conscious protection for our diplomatic
community. I propose that in order to try to do some service to
help our diplomatic corps and our State Department, I do not
want to put any diplomat in a position of violating their most
deeply held belief of conscience, and I appreciate the fact
that you have stated several times during this hearing that no
Foreign Officer would be forced to act against their moral
precepts. Unfortunately, as we have discussed in private,
trying to codify this is more complicated than it first
appeared. So I do appreciate our conversation and from what I
understand your general inclination to seek language that may
be acceptable in this regard that could potentially be in the
manager's amendment. So I would be happy to withdraw the
amendment given that understanding.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman will yield.
I was reminded about this in listening to President Obama's
speech at Notre Dame where, if I can quote, he called for the
first time for drafting a sensible conscience clause and went
on to talk about honoring the conscience of people who disagree
on abortion and other issues.
It is in that spirit that I was taken with the gentleman's
amendment and wondering if there is a way to do this in a
manageable way that allows the government to continue
functioning, because this applies to employees as well as to
Federal contracts. So I appreciate the gentleman raising the
issue. I do intend to work with him to try and work through
some of these processes to see if we can get a workable
amendment to bring in some of the people familiar with State
Department functions to discuss it. I yield back to him.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you for that commitment, and I look
forward to continuing to work with you and wrestle through the
complications here. So I yield back the time.
Chairman Berman. With unanimous consent, the gentleman's
amendment is withdrawn.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ackerman, is he prepared
to make a motion?
Mr. Ackerman. If you wish, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Why not?
Mr. Ackerman. I move the favorable consideration and
recommendation of H.R. 2410 as amended to the floor of the
House.
Chairman Berman. The question occurs on the motion by the
gentleman from New York to report H.R. 2410 as amended
favorably to the House.
All in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed, no.
[No audible response.]
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it, and the motion is
adopted.
Without objection, the bill we reported as a single
amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the
amendments adopted by the committee, and the staff is directed
to make any technical and conforming amendments, to remove from
the bill as amended provisions that would cause the bill to be
referred to other committees, or that would result in
additional direct spending.
I do want to thank the members for sitting through the
first part of this markup and I hope they will stay for the
second part, which is very important but I think will be much
shorter.
I particularly want to thank the staff, both for the
majority and the minority. Until I got this job I never, I knew
they did well with the issues I cared about; I did not realize
what it took to deal with the issues everyone on the committee
cares about as well as a lot of other people in the House. They
spent incredible hours putting this together, dealing with the
amendments, dealing with the manager's amendment, and dealing
with us most of all. I think we owe them a great debt of
thanks.
I also want to mention Matt deg. Eckstein and Mark
Synnes from Legislative Counsel who we could really drive crazy
with the various forms of issues that came up, and their great
drafting skill.
With that, we move to, pursuant to notice I now call up
H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation
Act.
Without objection the amendment in the nature of a
substitute before the members will be considered as base text
for purposes of amendment, will be considered as read and will
be open for amendment at any point.
[The information referred to follows:]H.R.
1886 deg.

Amendment in NOS to H.R. 1886--Berman deg.

Chairman Berman. I recognize myself for up to 5 minutes to
explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The United States has an enormous stake in the security and
stability of Pakistan. All of us are deeply concerned about the
security and stability of that country.
We cannot allow al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group that
threatens our national security to operate with impunity in the
tribal regions of Pakistan. Nor can we permit the Pakistani
state and its nuclear arsenal to be taken over by the Taliban.
To help prevent this nightmare scenario we need to forge a
true strategic partnership with Pakistan, strengthen Pakistan's
democratic government, and do what we can to make Pakistan a
force with stability in a volatile region.
H.R. 1886 is designed to help achieve these goals. This
legislation would massively expand economic, social and
democracy assistance to Pakistan and provide a significant
increase in military assistance.
Specifically, the bill provides funding to strengthen the
capacity of Pakistan's democratic institutions, including its
Parliament, judicial system and law enforcement agency. It also
calls for increased assistance for Pakistan's public education
system, with an emphasis on access for women and girls.
To demonstrate America's long-term commitment to the
stability and democratic future of Pakistan, H.R. 1886
authorizes a permanent fund in the U.S. Treasury that will
serve as the conduit for most non-military assistance to
Pakistan.
With regard to military assistance, our legislation
increases funding for professional military education with an
emphasis on training in counterinsurgency and in civil/military
relations. It boosts the funding available for Pakistan to
purchase military equipment and requires that 75 percent of
those funds be used for items directly related to
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism.
The legislation also codifies the 2006 contract between the
United States and Pakistan that requires Pakistan to pay for F-
16 fighter aircraft with its own national funds rather than
American tax dollars.
To strengthen civilian control of the military, H.R. 1886
mandates that all military assistance flow through Pakistan's
elected civilian government.
The legislation authorizes a new Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capabilities Fund--we like to call it PCCF--in the State
Department. This provision lays down an important marker that
providing security assistance to other countries is a matter of
foreign policy and should remain a core responsibility of the
Secretary of State.
Finally, the legislation includes some important
accountability provisions to ensure that security assistance to
Pakistan is being spent in a manner consistent with U.S.
national security interests. It requires an annual Presidential
determination that Pakistan is cooperating with the United
States on nonproliferation, is meeting its commitment to combat
terrorist groups, and has made progress toward that end.
Contrary to what some have said, these are not rigid or
inflexible conditions. To ensure that the President has
sufficient flexibility, we provide a waiver if he is unable to
make the determinations. I believe this is an excellent bill
that will strengthen the critical United States-Pakistan
relationship and support U.S. national security objectives in
South Asia and I urge all my colleagues to support the
legislation.
I now turn to the ranking Republican member for her to
express her views on this legislation.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, thank
you so much.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that
Congress and the administration are united in our goals toward
Pakistan. We want a long term partnership with a modern, a
prosperous, a democratic Pakistan that is at peace with itself
and is at peace with her neighbors. We want a Pakistan that
maintains robust controls over its nuclear weapons technology,
and we want a Pakistan that does not provide safe havens for
al-Qaeda, Taliban and other militant extremists.
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the hard work that has
gone into your bill and the incorporation of some elements
suggested by our side, serious concerns remain.
The manager's amendment does include certain helpful
changes such as the inclusion of more flexible waiver
standards, but on the whole, however, I fear that the size and
the tenor of the bill still leaves the impression that Members
of Congress are arm-chair generals and are endeavoring to
micromanage U.S. policy toward Pakistan at a delicate time when
this new administration has yet to develop and submit an
implementation plan for its strategy.
As Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Mullen wrote to the members of the Armed
Services Committee last month, the degree of conditionality and
limitations on security assistance to Pakistan severely
constrains the flexibility necessary for the Executive Branch
and the Department of Defense given the fluid and dynamic
environment that exists in Pakistan.
This concern is particularly acute in terms of the current
Pakistani military offensive against the Taliban and other
extremists in Swat and adjacent areas of the northwest frontier
province. Instead, I will be offering a Republican substitute
which I introduced yesterday in a bill form with the ranking
members of the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services,
Homeland Security and Intelligence, and joined by Minority
Leader Boehner, Minority Whip Cantor, and Conference Chairman
Pence.
I asked my colleagues on the national security committees
for insight and input to ensure maximum coordination and to
some degree to emulate the administration's interagency
strategic review approach. A parallel bill has also been
introduced with respect to Afghanistan as it is my belief that
Pakistan cannot and must not be considered in a vacuum. These
countries are part of a wider theater of operations, and must
be dealt with as one package as the administration has
suggested following the conclusion of its strategic review.
The Republican substitute recognizes that of all the
foreign policy challenges facing us, stabilizing and reforming
Pakistan may be one of the most daunting.
Given the enormous complexities of the situation in
Pakistan as well as the rapidly changing conditions on the
ground, we believe that it is critical at this stage that all
relevant agencies retain the necessary flexibility to craft
policies that offer the best chance of successfully partnering
with the Pakistani Government and people to defeat violent
extremism.
At the same time our substitute requires an ongoing policy
dialogue between the administration and the Congress regarding
evolving U.S. policy toward Pakistan, as well as a robust
congressional oversight mechanism of our strategy, our
implementation plan, allocation and expenditure of U.S.
assistance.
Accordingly, the Republican substitute requires that no
later than 30 days after the enactment of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act for 2009 the President submit to Congress a
comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan for
U.S. efforts to eliminate safe havens and assist toward the
long term security and stability in Pakistan.
In doing so it requires that the strategy and
implementation plan include a description of how U.S.
assistance will be used to achieve U.S. foreign policy
objectives. It will also describe progress on achieving these
objectives as well as a financial plan and a description of the
resources, programming and management of U.S. assistance to
Pakistan and the criteria used to determine their need and
value in advancing our U.S. objectives.
The Republican substitute fully funds the administration's
pending request for non-military assistance, $1.5 billion; and
provides such sums as may be deemed necessary through 2013.
I hope that you give serious consideration to our
substitute amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Before we get to the Republican substitute, are there
members who wish to have general comments on the bill?
The gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. A move to strike the last word, and is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I move to strike the last word, and I
thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
I rise to support the legislation, and with great remorse
and disappointment to oppose the pending, to be offered
Republican substitute.
There has been a lot of hard work going into this
initiative and I would offer to say that the first framework
should be our committed friendship with Pakistan, a country
founded 60 years ago on the democratic process. We are in this
legislation protecting the national security of America, but we
are emphasizing without a doubt the friendship that we have
with Pakistan and the reality of the importance of Pakistan's
surviving against the insurgents and Taliban and the existing
and alleged presence of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the
FATA and frontier area of Pakistan.
We know that they have escaped from places known previously
in Afghanistan. We know that the disruption in Pakistan today
is not of the hard-working Pakistani citizens who seek
education and social justice, civil justice, who adhere to
three branches of government, a Parliament, a justice system, a
judiciary, and a civilian executive. We also know that they
have had a democratic election. We know they have experienced
an enormous tragedy with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
But yet they had a peaceful election of which I was present.
What a miraculous episode or set of incidents, to tragically
lose your candidate and then have an uninterrupted election.
They did that.
In the weeks past their leadership came to Washington and
proved themselves well. President Zardari indicated that he is
interested and committed to securing their nuclear material. He
is interested and committed in ensuring that the insurgents and
Taliban do not disrupt, diminish, undermine his particular
government. And it is evident by the bloodshed shown on behalf
of the Pakistani military and the frontier area and now in
Swat, that they are committed to the fight for justice.
So Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful that there is language
in this legislation that in the list of, if you will,
conditionalities or the list of benchmarks in Section 206,
there is language I secured that indicates that we will
acknowledge the progress that Pakistan makes in moving forward
in assuring that they are in essence fighting against the
insurgents and Taliban, that in fat their military and
intelligence authorities are focusing on the security of their
nation and the elimination of those who might be interested in
undermining those systems of government. Meaning that
insurgents and others would join the military. This is not a
condemnation of the military. It is not a condemnation of the
intelligence system in Pakistan. But it is a recognition that
all of us have to be vigilant and diligent.
So we will acknowledge their success story.
Then there is language in here that emphasizes one of the
weaknesses of the education system and that is to keep young
girls in school. And we specifically indicate that that is an
important aspect of that.
I hope that my colleagues will support this. In
conversations that are not classified we know that there is
attention being paid to the idea of securing their particular
nuclear resources. We know the manager's amendment, or the
amendment in the nature of a substitute will also speak to the
protecting and not expanding or using U.S. dollars for any
expansion of their nuclear resources.
Lastly I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this initiative is
still making its way to the Congress. I would hope that the
Pakistani people would see the good intentions here and the
well-meaning partnership and not perceive the emphasis on
protecting nuclear resources or the mention of military and
intelligence as in any way of condemning the friendship or
recognizing, or not recognizing the friendship or not
recognizing the blood that was shed by the Pakistani military
on behalf of freedom and on behalf of justice.
Lastly in these 21 seconds, there are now 1 million people
who are being displaced by Swat. I hope that we can assure that
the money that Secretary Clinton has put in place, we, Mr.
Chairman, can work with the State Department. That money must
get there now. And it must get to the NGOs now. And it must get
to the people, and I would say almost not to the government, it
has got to get to the people.
I yield back and I support this amendment and oppose the
substitute. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
yielding. I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, as always, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Smith.
I would like to further highlight some of the items that
are included in the Republican substitute, Mr. Chairman.
One of the items to highlight is that the substitute seeks
to ensure that congressional oversight, and congressional
notifications, keep pace with the ever-changing conditions on
the ground. This is very important as we have seen. Just look
at today's and tomorrow's headlines how swiftly the situation
keeps moving in Pakistan. It requires quarterly briefings on
the developments in Pakistan. Written notification to Congress
on adjustments in strategy, related changes, and allocations,
changes in expenditures.
The Republican substitute also fully funds the
administration's request for the critically important new
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, PCCF. We will be
hearing that phrase a lot in the months to come.
General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. CENTCOM, Central
Command, describes this fund as a vital tool to provide our
senior military representatives in Pakistan with swift access
to funding to counter and perhaps prevent emerging threats and
to rapidly enhance Pakistani counterinsurgency capabilities.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the Republican substitute is
tailored to meet the pressing requirements for United States
national security at this critical hour for Pakistan while at
the same time laying the groundwork for long term security,
long term stability in that country, but as well as for
Afghanistan and the wider region, and preserving appropriate
congressional oversight mechanisms throughout.
Thank you to the gentleman from New Jersey for the time,
and I thank the chairman for the time as well.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey
has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee, is recognized to
strike the last word. The young lady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me say I am greatly encouraged by the goals of
this legislation which aims to put the United States' smart
power to work by reshaping our relationship with Pakistan based
upon a long-term commitment to social, economic and political
development.
The legislation integrates key benchmarks and limitations
absent in previous aid packages which resulted in $10 billion
in U.S. aid since 2001 yielding little or no results or
progress on many fronts. This legislation also seeks to reshape
the United States/Pakistan relationship by shifting the United
States aid away form historical trends of almost exclusively
military assistance and instead toward economic, social and
democratic priorities.
As a long time supporter of nuclear nonproliferation
efforts, I am also pleased that the chairman was able to work
with myself and other members of the committee to address our
concerns regarding the potential expansion of Pakistan's
nuclear program which was reported in the press earlier this
week.
The critical reporting requirement added to this bill will
provide an important oversight mechanism to help ensure that no
United States aid, whether directly or indirectly, would aid a
destabilizing expansion of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
It is time we hold the Pakistani Government accountable for
its management of United States aid dollars and more
importantly to the people of Pakistan who desperately crave a
stable, democratic and prosperous country.
Nuclear weapons unfortunately are pointed in many
directions in many parts of the world and I do not want to see
our country supporting any efforts that would allow the money
to be fungible, that would allow for, by default, our U.S. tax
dollars going to support the proliferation of nuclear weapons
in Pakistan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentlelady very much. The
gentleman from Florida seeks recognition.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Real quickly----
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, and it will not be that long, I
promise.
As we talk about Pakistan, there is a friend of mine who
has done some extraordinary work in Pakistan. His name is Greg
Mortinson. He has written a book called ``Three Cups of Tea.''
I think many members, it would serve us all well to take the
time to read the book and to, Mr. Chairman, if there is a time
you would have time to meet with him and talk about his
experience and what he has learned in Pakistan, I think the
Congress could learn a lot from him and what he has done. So I
just wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Chairman Berman. Actually, I have not read the book but
then that goes with a lot of books I have not read. But I have
heard about this book. I hear it is a very important and
powerful book and I would be happy to. I know a little bit
about what it calls for and the experience and would be happy
to follow up with you on that.
The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, is recognized.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too want to
commend you and your leadership.
I do want to focus my remarks on the urgent concern of the
nuclear arsenal within Pakistan. Certainly I want to concur and
certainly agree with my colleague Ms. Barbara Lee and
appreciate the inclusion of one aspect of our concern in the
manager's amendment which was that none of our funds be
directly or indirectly used to expand their nuclear capacity.
But Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise this concern, that
it appears, and maybe you can answer for me, but it appears
that the other concern, not whether they will use any of this
money to expand their nuclear arsenal, but the fact that we
need some evidence, some information concerning Pakistan's
ability to protect and secure Pakistan's existing nuclear
arsenal from falling into control of internal or external
extremist groups or non-state authorized actors.
Perhaps on page 55 of your amendment, and I ask this
question of you, and then perhaps if you deem it necessary that
we might add additional language to take care of that part or
if this language would do so, is it your intent on page 55,
section D, line 8, where we state, ``A detailed description of
Pakistan's efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear-related
material and expertise.'' If that is meant to arrive at the
same point of making sure that the word ``proliferation''
applies to their existing arsenal and having protections that
it not get into the hands of internal or external extremist
groups----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Scott. My concern is that the word ``proliferation''
tended to mean them on their own expanding it out as opposed to
the protection and securing their existing nuclear arsenal from
falling into other hands.
I am particularly concerned----
Chairman Berman. Would the gentleman yield on this issue?
Mr. Scott. Yes, I will yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Section D is more what you interpret it to
be than what you like it to be. It is a focus on any current
proliferation issues.
The issue you raise is critically important, and I have
spent a significant amount of time and a number of members of
the committee have spent time on this issue. This is an issue
that I say in all sincerity should not be discussed in the
bill. It is a critical issue, but it is a little analogous to a
discussion we had a little while ago. Do we help what we know
is vitally important by discussing that in the bill? I would
love to talk to you further about it, but I would like to make
the case that the fact that that specifically is not referenced
in the bill in no way signifies that we in Congress or the
administration are not extremely sensitive to the issue.
But I believe putting it in the bill is counterproductive
to what we both want. Trust me.
Mr. Scott. Quite naturally, I will trust you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just make a final point on it, and I trust you, we
have had conversations----
Chairman Berman. That was sort of a facetious comment,
but----
Mr. Scott. Absolutely. You have my trust on it, and I
wanted to raise the issue rather than put an amendment on
there.
I am just very, very concerned not only about the external
forces but as we know, Mr. Chairman, there is internal
fragility going on in Pakistan as well. And I will leave it as
you want it to be, and we will take the word ``proliferation''
to mean, and your commitment of trust, and I will accept that.
Chairman Berman. I appreciate that very much and we will
talk about this some more.
The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentlelady from
Nevada seeks recognition. For what purpose?
Ms. Berkley. I move to strike the last words.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you.
I am going to support the majority bill, but I have serious
reservations for both versions of the bill.
I recognize the importance of partnership with Pakistan and
the United States in our efforts to fight against al-Qaeda and
the Taliban, but I fear that the situation on the ground is
spiraling out of control and I, as Ms. Lee said, have a serious
concern about the fact that over the last few years we have
given $10 billion to the Pakistanis and have very little to
show for it other than the situation on the ground seems to be
far worse, the government seems to be losing control of the
situation, and we have little if any accountability for the
billions of dollars that we have already spent.
I believe corruption is widespread and rampant in Pakistan.
The new President, I have a serious lack of confidence in his
ability to right this ship of state. I believe has done little
if anything other than to contribute to the continuance of
corruption in that country while the people of Pakistan are
suffering.
As far as the nuclear arsenal is concerned, and I
understand that this is probably not the place to talk about
it, it seems to me that Pakistan is more focused on its
perceived conflict with Pakistan than it is with partnering
with us to root out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that worries
me as well. I do not think we know enough about their nuclear
arsenal location, capability and security of it.
Those are the concerns I have. I wanted to express them as
I vote for the legislation. But I do think that our new
President and new Congress are entitled to a Pakistani position
of their own and that is the reason that I am supporting the
legislation.
Chairman Berman. Have you already yielded or could you
yield back to me just for one----
Ms. Berkley. I would like to yield the balance of my time
to you.
Chairman Berman. And I will not use the balance of your
time.
But you raise very important issues. What has happened over
the past 8 years and the inability to account for so much of
the money that has been appropriated, taxpayer money? There
were a number of guiding principles in crafting the bill and
the amendment in the nature of the substitute, and the
amendment in the nature of the substitute does not change, but
central to it was ensuring that never happen again. I will not
take the time to explain all the different ways we try to make
it, but within the provisions regarding monitoring and
evaluation and the whole nature of--and here I think it is a
bipartisan, bicameral and bi-branch--administration and the
Congress--desire in creating the Pakistani Counterinsurgency
Capabilities Fund, the PCCF, is to change the way we have been
doing things, reimbursing for items that have not been
receipted, providing significant amounts of funds for things
that may not be related to the counterinsurgency. The whole
thrust of this is to change that.
We think the issue is critical, but we think your comments
are valid. It is valid to be skeptical if the past is prologue,
and this is about changing the past.
Ms. Berkley. Reclaiming my time. That is why, as with Mr.
Scott, I have great faith and confidence in our chairman and
that is why I will be supporting you in this bill.
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Arizona is recognized.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last words.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Giffords. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that you
have done on this legislation and for the ranking member as
well.
I support the underlying intent of this bill, but I just
wanted to bring up one specific point. I think I am the only
member in the majority that serves both on this committee and
also on the Armed Services Committee. There may be a couple of
folks on the other side. But there is some concern specifically
about the differences on Title 2 between the Foreign Affairs
Committee and HASC.
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hopefully seeing these
differences worked out before the bill moves to the floor, but
I just wanted to raise those concerns and let you know that I
am looking forward to seeing that language.
Chairman Berman. If the gentlelady will yield, we are going
to, I think, be spending a lot of time trying to work out those
differences between here and the floor.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
The time of the gentlelady has expired.
I think I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
Florida for purposes of offering a substitute amendment.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I
ask that the substitute be considered and be passed out to the
members at this time.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read and the amendment is before us, and the
gentlelady is recognized.
[The amendment of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
follows:]Amendment in the NOS to H.R. 1886 by ?? deg.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. I know the hour is
late and you have already heard my explanation of what this
substitute does, but I believe that it has the best approach
because it gives the flexibility that all the relevant agencies
need to react to the shifting situation on the ground. It gives
the flexibility to the White House, to the Congress, to the
Department of Defense, to the Department of State. And as I
said, this is a bill that has been drafted with the ranking
members of the appropriate committees as our previous speaker
had pointed out. She was worried about how this bill would
conflict or not conflict with her other committee, the
Committee on Armed Services.
We have drafted our substitute in coordination with the
ranking members and the other members of the pertinent
committees, so we think this is a balanced approach and we
think that this is the one that could go a long way toward
stabilizing and reforming Pakistan without micromanaging from
above.
I ask for its consideration.
Chairman Berman. I will recognize myself to speak to the
Republican substitute, and I will make some points of why I do
prefer my substitute to her substitute. But also to indicate
that I would like between now and the floor--I do think it
would be very useful to develop a bipartisan approach here and
I am quite open to further discussions on this.
The ranking member has endorsed the Obama administration's
request for a funding level of $1.5 billion a year for economic
assistance. I am very happy to see that, and our bill does as
well.
The fact that there is agreement on this point among the
White House and members of the committee from both sides of the
aisle underscores the fact that providing such assistance is
the right and necessary thing to do.
The proposed amendment is long on aspirations and short on
details. It does not take the time that our bill, our
substitute, our amendment in the nature of a substitute and our
original bill too, to describe how U.S. assistance should be
expended. It says nothing about the expenditure of military
assistance. It contains no accountability provisions to ensure
that the U.S. assistance is used appropriately.
I believe that the United States relationship with Pakistan
is too critical and too complex for Congress to be silent on
such matters.
H.R. 1886 essentially includes all of the provisions of the
gentlelady's substitute, but more. It requires the President to
provide a comprehensive regional security strategy. Not
Congress, the President. And includes extensive reporting
requirements regarding progress toward disrupting terrorist
networks. It authorizes the Pakistani Counterinsurgency
Capabilities Fund. And H.R. 1886 includes other critical
provisions including the establishment of a Pakistan Democracy
and Prosperity Fund to provide additional flexibility for
economic assistance and robust monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms, the issues raised by the gentlelady from Nevada
just a moment ago, to help ensure that this time there is the
appropriate expenditure of such assistance.
One final word about the PCCF. The provision of security
assistance has been and should remain a tool of the Secretary
of State to advanced deg. foreign policy objectives.
In the case of Pakistan, the growing insurgency underscores the
need for assistance, deg. but it does not necessitate
establishing an entirely new authority in the Department of
Defense.
H.R. 1886 established PCCF within the State Department to
ensure that the Secretary of State remains the primary voice in
the bilateral relationship with that country. But I do want to
add that the whole way we created this fund, the many
differences from traditional security assistance, with all the
requirements and provisions of that and some of the
bureaucratic hurdles that one has to overcome, are dealt with
and eliminated in this bill based on conversations that we have
had with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen,
in line with the kinds of things that General Petraeus wants to
do. In other words, we do not want traditional road blocks that
mean when you provide security assistance it could be 6 months,
1 year or 2 years down the road before anything is procured and
before that assistance is afforded.
We know this is an urgency and we take care to make sure
that all the obstacles that would prevent that immediate
assistance from happening are dealt with in our bill.
So I share the gentlelady's concerns and the gentlelady
from Arizona's concerns, but fundamentally this is about a
decision to provide security assistance. This has traditionally
been and is rightfully so for many reasons appropriately a
Department of State function and that is why we create PCCF in
the Department of State.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1886 and oppose the
substitute amendment.
Can we go to a vote on this issue?
Before us is the substitute amendment proposed by the
gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member. All those in favor
say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed no?
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. The noes have it. The noes prevail and the
amendment is defeated.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman's amendment to be
distributed and the clerk will read.
[The amendment of Mr. McCaul follows:]Amendment to
H.R. 1886 by Mr. McCaul deg.

Ms. Rush. Amendment to H.R. 1886 offered by Mr. McCaul of
Texas. ``At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the
following new section: `Section blank. Restriction on United
States military assistance to Pakistan. (a)' ''----
Chairman Berman. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment shall be dispensed with, and the gentleman from Texas
is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. McCaul. I thank the chairman.
Since 9/11 we have spent nearly $10 billion in aid to
Pakistan to assist the Government of Pakistan. It has been a
series of carrots. I commend the chairman for putting sticks in
his bill, particularly with respect to security in the FATA, in
the tribal area, and also with respect to expansion of their
nuclear program.
We have heard from members on the other side about the
proliferation issue. You cannot look at the proliferation issue
without raising the name of Dr. A.Q. Khan. He is perhaps the
master nuclear proliferator of all time, proliferating nuclear
weapons to countries like Iran, to North Korea, to Libya. He
was indicted by the Dutch Government. He confessed to
participating in a clandestine international network that
provided nuclear technology to other nations.
After being released from house arrest there has been no
conclusive evidence that the network that Khan helped build has
been completely dismantled.
This is the real issue in Pakistan.
The United States has provided all the funding and yet the
Government of Pakistan has refused to allow the United States
direct access to Mr. Khan for questioning to find out how
extensive is this proliferation. It seems to me if we are going
to correctly assess what the proliferation damage is, that the
United States Government needs to have that direct access to
Mr. Khan.
This is a bipartisan idea. I am the ranking member on the
Homeland Security Intelligence subcommittee. Jane Harman is the
chair of that subcommittee. The provisions in this amendment
are almost identical to a bill that she has filed that I have
co-sponsored. It basically just says very simply that if we are
going to provide this kind of funding we should at least be
entitled to ask Dr. Khan directly questions about the damage
and the expanse of his proliferation. It also asks that the
government monitor his movements.
I hope this will be viewed, it is a very serious issue, and
this committee will look at this amendment in a very bipartisan
way. I urge that this committed adopt and pass this amendment.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired, and
I will recognize myself to address the amendment.
I regret that I have to ask, but strongly ask the members
to oppose this amendment. I am very sympathetic to his
interest, the gentleman's interest, in the United States
gaining access to one of the world's worst nuclear
proliferators, but this amendment is a mistake.
The gentleman's amendment is either exactly the same or
very similar to an amendment that I believe he co-sponsored
with Congresswoman Harman of California.
We have put into our bill in serious part occasioned by the
Harman legislation, deg. a provision which prohibits--
I want to make sure I am reading it right--Section 206, a
limitation on U.S. military assistance to Pakistan and I am
going to just take a moment to read it: ``None of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for military assistance to
Pakistan for Fiscal Year 2011,'' which is the first year it
could apply, and it is the same as the gentleman's, ``or each
fiscal year thereafter, may be obligated or expended if the
President has not made the determinations described in
subjection (b) . . .
``(b)(1) a determination by the President at the beginning
of each fiscal year that the Government of Pakistan is
continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to
dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of
nuclear weapons-related materials, including, as necessary,
providing access to Pakistani nationals associated with such
networks.''
Before additional security assistance goes, the President
has to make that determination.
I have spoken with Congresswoman Harman about this issue, I
would guess, 14 times. We fly on the same planes back and forth
from California every week. She thinks that our language is the
right way to move ahead. There is great pressure on us to take
out the language we have in the bill, but making specific
reference to A.Q. Khan in the legislation is a mistake because
of the consequences in terms of building the relationship of
partnership and trust that we want to build with Pakistan to
take on this mission.
Everyone knows what we are talking about in our condition.
Pointing the finger even at someone as notorious and
appropriate to have a finger pointed at as A.Q. Khan creates a
reaction that undermines what we want to do, it does not
further it.
I am with the spirit of what the gentleman wants to do. I
would have done what he did if I thought it would be more
likely for us to gain access to that individual. I do not for a
moment think naming him makes it more likely. It may not be
very likely anyway, we will find out.
But what I do know is if we name him specifically in this
bill it will be much less likely. So I would urge my colleagues
here to, as difficult as it is, I think it is very important to
oppose this amendment and I yield back the balance of----
Does the gentleman want to be yielded my remaining time, or
does the gentleman seek his own time?
Mr. Connolly. I would be glad to accept your time, Mr.
Chairman. Just briefly.
I am an original co-sponsor of the Harman bill along with
Congressman Royce, and I feel very strongly that we have to
address the issue of the world's single most notorious
proliferator since the advent of nuclear technology.
However, as the chairman says, there are ways of achieving
objectives and there are other ways to achieve the objective we
share.
I think that the language in this bill is carefully
crafted. I have worked with the chairman on this language from
the basis of the bill that mirrors the language of the
gentleman, and we have also agreed we are going to look at
report language and look at other opportunities for making sure
we achieve this objective.
I would urge my colleague to give that some consideration.
There are other ways of achieving the objective. I have been
persuaded those ways are efficacious.
I thank the chairman.
Chairman Berman. My time has expired.
Does anyone else seek recognition on this subject? The
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, over my many years in
Washington, both in the White House and in Congress, I have
seen time and again suggestions that we should back down from
various standards that were set in order to ensure that what we
are trying to accomplish is something that is within the realm
of possibility and also is accomplished.
There are always people who want to talk us out of saying
exactly what we are trying to do and drawing a line in the
sane, claiming that it will be done some other way. Over and
over again, that is not what happens.
We are told we are going to do it a different way, and
guess what? It does not happen the other way. For whatever
reason, the other side never really takes us seriously when we
try to come at it in a much softer approach.
We have provided Pakistan with $12 billion in aid since 9/
11. How much more do we have to do to prove our friendship? Is
it too much to ask people who supported the Taliban, people who
were instrumental in keeping the Taliban in power, when I spent
my 1990s trying to get an alliance against the Taliban, and I
remember when I went in and I went up to Peshawar and had to
sleep with guns underneath our pillows, for Pete's sakes.
How long is it going to be before we know that Pakistan, we
are their friends and the people who are not accepting things
like what is being demanded of this legislation or this
amendment, if they cannot accept that, they are not our friends
and we should not give them any money.
A.Q. Khan is vital, the information about him is vital to
our national security. We are talking about nuclear weapons
here. What about the next 9/11 which A.Q. Khan may have given a
nuclear weapon to a terrorist who is planning to light it off
in one of our cities? How do we know that is not happening?
If they do not think of us as their friends enough to
publicly make this person available to us, they should not get
one red cent of our money. This is a security issue of such
magnitude, we need to speak in very bold and distinct language
and we need to draw the line and people need to know where we
stand. We are not going to get anywhere by trying to treat
people with kid gloves and not make them make a choice between
the United States and the radical Islamists who would slaughter
thousands and thousands of people in various countries in order
to terrorist Western civilization.
This bill is very realistic. I support it 100 percent. I
think it stems from a dialogue that we had with President
Zardari when he visited recently, and I asked him specifically
whether or not the United States would be permitted to question
A.Q. Khan, and he dodged that issue.
I also asked whether or not American forces would be
permitted to attack the Taliban staging areas just inside
Pakistan from staging areas where they were staging attacks on
American troops in Afghanistan, and he failed to answer that
one correctly as well.
Now they are either going to be our friends or they are
not. This is a good way to determine that. If they are not
willing to be friends enough to tell us that they are going to
let us know about A.Q. Khan and his nuclear threat to the
security of the people of the United States, then they do not
deserve our help.
That is as simple as that. I think it is very clear, the
very last thing we need to do is be nebulous and try to be warm
and fuzzy. Warm and fuzzy gets us nowhere. We are going to have
to be tough and make sure we watch out for the security
interests of the people of the United States.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Carnahan. I yield.
Chairman Berman. In some discussions I am told that the
gentleman from Texas is open to inclusion of the word
``direct'' as a modifier of ``access,'' and if we agree to that
change, he would withdraw his amendment.
Is that a correct understanding? I yield to the gentleman
Mr. Carnahan's time, but----
Mr. McCaul. Yes, if the gentleman will yield.
The issue here is not just access, but direct access.
Access by the United States Government to Dr. Khan. Whether or
not he is specified in this bill, if the language said direct
access, because my understanding as the ranking member on the
Homeland Security Intelligence Community, we have not been
given that. It has been more indirect.
I will leave it at that.
Direct access to all Pakistan nationals.
Chairman Berman. To all Pakistan nationals associated with
such networks.
Mr. McCaul. Correct.
Chairman Berman. We do not have enough people to have
direct access.
Mr. McCaul. But I am saying they will provide direct access
to all Pakistani, within the provisions----
Chairman Berman. Of this bill, which is a Presidential
determination as necessary.
Mr. McCaul. Now remember, my amendment has a waiver
provision in it.
Chairman Berman. If the worl deg.d to be added--if
we can dispense with all the yieldings and just get right down
to it, if the word is just ``direct,'' I am prepared to by
unanimous consent we deg.amend our amendment in the
nature of a substitute to include it.
Mr. McCaul. I think that would be reasonable.
This objection was not called to my attention until about 5
minutes ago.
Chairman Berman. I apologize. We had a few other things----
Mr. McCaul. I understand.
The issue for me is the direct access. That would encompass
getting direct access to Dr. A.Q. Khan which I hope would be a
part of the committee's record. It is on the record here. If
that is the understanding of the chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Point of information, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. If the gentleman will withdraw his
amendment then I will yield Mr. Carnahan's time to Mr.
Rohrabacher and then offer a unanimous----
Mr. Rohrabacher. This is a point of information about the
issue that you are discussing, Mr. Chairman, in terms of this
determination.
I believe that the point of information does, the
parliamentary----
Chairman Berman. I never understood what that point of
parliamentary information was, but I hereby recognize the
gentleman for purposes of making it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The compromise you are offering is to take
A.Q. Khan's name out of the legislation?
Chairman Berman. No. A.Q. Khan's name is not in the
legislation. I think that is part of why the gentleman offered
his amendment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am talking about the gentleman's
amendment.
Chairman Berman. No. This would be, the gentleman would
withdraw his amendment and I would seek unanimous consent to
insert the worl deg.d ``direct'' in front of
``access'' in the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Chairman Berman. But the result would be that what would
pass this committee would be wording that would not include
A.Q. Khan's name, is that correct?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
Mr. McCaul. If the gentleman will yield.
I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the language
``direct access'' is put into the language.
Chairman Berman. And I am prepared to put in ``direct
access'' if the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment.
I think we have a deal.
Mr. McCaul. But with the understanding from the chairman
that the direct access to Pakistan nationals would encompass
Dr. A.Q. Khan.
Chairman Berman. One thing I know, deg. is that
that individual is a Pakistani national who is and certainly
has been associated with such a network. I cannot, to be honest
with you at this moment--I read some names--I cannot name a
single other person who I, from my recollection, is so clearly
associated.
Mr. McCaul. And I must say----
Chairman Berman. I do not think we are----
Mr. McCaul. I am not sure why we are so shy to acknowledge
this.
Chairman Berman. Because if you believe the purpose of this
bill is not--I mean my friend from California sort of
characterized it to do something for the Pakistanis.
This is about an issue that we are doing something for
America. We are talking about al-Qaeda; we are talking about
the Taliban; we are talking about Afghanistan; we are talking
about international terrorism. We are talking about a
fundamental challenge to the control of a government that has
nuclear weapons.
I cannot think of much more that is in our interest than
doing something on this. And I am told by people who share that
feeling, deg. that the reference to a specific
individual is counterproductive to that effort. Do I know for
sure whether it is or it is not? No, but I have gotten a little
taste of it just from the discussions over the past 3 or 4
months, and I think they are right. That is the reason I do not
want to mention A.Q. Khan. If we can vote on the amendment, or
we can make this deal.
Mr. McCaul. If the chairman will yield. If I can be clear,
I am willing to withdraw it if direct is put in there and with
the understanding in the congressional record here on the
record, that that would encompass direct access to Dr. A.Q.
Khan.
Chairman Berman. First of all, it is in the context of,
nothing we do will guarantee direct access to anybody in
Pakistan under the control of the Pakistan Government because
we do not get to have that kind of control over other
countries.
So nothing is going to guarantee anything.
We are trying to establish a principle here. One of the
important issues is dismantling this nuclear nonproliferation
network. We want our security assistance, we want a
determination of the President in terms of future security
assistance to know that that has been done. We want to empower
the President to make that determination. If he determines
access to a particular individual is necessary to ensure the
dismantlement of that network or that it has been dismantled,
we want to empower him to do that. That is what our goal is
here.
Mr. McCaul. If the chairman will yield again, I do not want
to prolong this healthy discussion, but if you would agree that
A.Q. Khan falls within the umbrella of this section----
Chairman Berman. We have always intended to have a report.
Don't tell Congressman Flake I said this. That would describe
in more detail what we mean by this.
Mr. McCaul. There would be reporting language on it this
year--specifically talking about Dr. Khan.
With that said, I am prepared to withdraw if the language
``direct'' is put into the bill and the reporting language
reflects that that would include access to Dr. Khan.
Chairman Berman. And no one will conclude that our report
constitutes a mushy earmark. [Laughter].
Without objection, the amendment by the gentleman from
Texas is withdrawn. I ask unanimous consent to add the term
``direct'' in front of ``access'' in the amendment, in Section
206 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Without objection, so ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
All in favor will vote aye.
[A chorus of ayes].
Chairman Berman. All opposed will vote no.
[A chorus of noes.]
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it and the amendment is
agreed to.
The chairman is prepared to----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, first I just want to ask
unanimous consent that my statement be put in the appropriate
place regarding my strong support of H.R. 2410.
Chairman Berman. Yes, without objection that will be----
Mr. Faleomavaega. And Mr. Chairman I move a favorable
recommendation of H.R. 1886 as amended to the House.
Chairman Berman. The question occurs on the motion by the
gentleman, H.R. 1886 as amended favorably to the House.
All in favor say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Berman. All opposed say no.
[No audible response].
Chairman Berman. The ayes have it and the motion is
adopted. Without objection the bill will be reported as a
single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating
the amendments adopted by the committee.
Staff is directed to make any technical and conforming
amendments.
The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the rules of
the House I ask for 2 days to file additional views on the
legislation just considered.
Chairman Berman. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chairman, I did mean to say ``no'' on
the voice, and I was----
Chairman Berman. Let the record show the gentlelady from
Florida thought no, even though she forgot to say it.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. Again, thank you all very much. The
committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Material Submitted for the RecordNotice deg.

Minutes deg.

Summary deg.

Berman statement on H.R. 2410 deg._

Berman statement on H.R. 1886 deg._

Watson State Department report deg.
__________

Material Submitted for the Record by the Honorable Diane E. Watson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California

Faleomavaega--Embassy of Vietname
letter deg.
__________

Material Submitted for the Record by the Honorable Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from American Samoa, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment

Faleomavaega--Vietnam--Religious
Freedom/Country of Particular Concern deg.
__________

Faleomavaega--Vietnam Religious
Issues deg.

Faleomavaega statement #1 deg.___

Faleomavaega statement #2 deg.___

McMahon statement #1 deg.___

McMahon statement #2 deg.___

McMahon statement #3 deg.___

McMahon statement #4 deg.___

Jackson Lee #1 deg.___

Jackson Lee #2 deg.___

Jackson Lee #3 deg.___