    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
        DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

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

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2583

                                   ----------

                           JULY 20 AND JULY 21, 2011

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 112-119

                                   ----------

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR
       2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESthe following is for the title page
                                   (inside)

                      TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
        DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

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

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2583

                                   __________

                           JULY 20 AND JULY 21, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-119

                                   __________

            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
    67-499                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                     ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman

    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         Samoa
    DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois         DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
    EDWARD R. ROYCE, California          BRAD SHERMAN, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    RON PAUL, Texas                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska           THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             DENNIS CARDOZA, California
    TED POE, Texas                       BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    DAVID RIVERA, Florida                FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
    MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania             KAREN BASS, California
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
    RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
    VACANT

                       Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director

                 Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                     DATES

    July 20, 2012....................................................     1
    July 21, 2012....................................................   515

                                   MARKUP OF

    H.R. 2583, To authorize appropriations for the Department of
      State for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.............     2

      Amendments to Title I, Authorization of Appropriations, offered
        by:
          The Honorable Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of Florida................................   169
          The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of New Jersey.............................   189
          The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from
            the State of Texas.......................................   197
              Second degree amendment to the Honorable Ted Poe's
                amendment offered by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a
                Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri   199
          The Honorable Russ Carnahan................................   209
          The Honorable Donald M. Payne..............................   216
          The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from
            the State of California..................................   229
          The Honorable Frederica Wilson, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of Florida.......................   233
          The Honorable Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of New York...............................   240
          The Honorable Brian Higgins................................   243

      Amendments to Title II, Department of State Authorities and
        Activities, offered by:
          The Honorable Frederica Wilson.............................   246
          The Honorable Connie Mack..................................   249
          The Honorable Brian Higgins................................   256
          The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of Florida, offered by the
            Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of California.............................   259
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   262
          The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch...........................   292
          The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch...........................   301

      Amendment to Title III, Organization and Personnel Authorities,
        offered by the Honorable Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative
        in Congress from the State of Nebraska.......................   305

      Amendments to Title IV, Foreign Assistance, offered by:
          The Honorable Ted Poe and the Honorable Jeff Duncan, a
            Representative in Congress from the State of South
            Carolina.................................................   308
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   313
          The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of Illinois......................   319
          The Honorable Allyson Schwartz, a Representative in
            Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...........   328
          The Honorable Jeff Duncan..................................   333
          The Honorable Allyson Schwartz.............................   337
          The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of Texas.........................   348
          The Honorable Russ Carnahan................................   354
          The Honorable Connie Mack..................................   360
          The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of Rhode Island, and the Honorable William
            Keating, a Representative in Congress from the
            Commonwealth of Massachusetts............................   371
          The Honorable Ted Poe......................................   376
          The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch...........................   383
          The Honorable Tim Griffin, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of Arkansas...............................   394
          The Honorable Donald M. Payne..............................   417
          The Honorable Jeff Duncan..................................   426
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   461
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   481
          The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of California....................   489
          The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch...........................   498
          The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher.............................   500
          The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry and the Honorable Donald M.
            Payne....................................................   505
          The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry.............................   511

      Amendments to Title V, United States International
        Broadcasting, offered by:
          The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher.............................   530
          The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of California.............................   545

      Amendments to Title VI, Reporting Requirements, offered by:
          The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry.............................   547
          The Honorable Allyson Schwartz.............................   549

      No amendments offered to Title VII, Proliferation Security
        Initative

      Amendments to Title VIII, Miscellaneous Provisions, offered by:
          The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of New Jersey....................   551
          The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in
            Congress from American Samoa.............................   553
          The Honorable Connie Mack..................................   555
              Second degree amendment to the Honorable Connie Mack's
                amendment offered by the Honorable Gary L. Ackerman,
                a Representative in Congress from the State of New
                York.................................................   560
          The Honorable Allyson Schwartz.............................   564
          The Honorable Ted Poe......................................   567
          The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of Connecticut...................   571
          The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry en bloc amendment...........   575
          The Honorable Donald M. Payne..............................   588
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   594
          The Honorable Christopher H. Smith.........................   608
          The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega........................   613
          The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega........................   617
          The Honorable Christopher H. Smith.........................   623
          The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in
            Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
            Honorable Howard L. Berman...............................   638
          The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher.............................   650
          The Honorable David Cicilline and the Honorable William
            Keating..................................................   653
          The Honorable Christopher H. Smith.........................   657
          The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of New York, and the Honorable Connie Mack   664
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   669
          The Honorable Tim Griffin..................................   673
          The Honorable William Keating..............................   686
          The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher.............................   697
          The Honorable Eliot L. Engel...............................   701
          The Honorable Christopher H. Smith.........................   705
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   709
          The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy........................   713
          The Honorable Christopher H. Smith.........................   721
          The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of New York, and the Honorable
            Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State
            of Indiana...............................................   724
          The Honorable Jeff Duncan..................................   727
          The Honorable Jeff Duncan..................................   733
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman en bloc amendment...........   736

      Amendments to Title IX, Security Assistance, offered by:
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   785
          The Honorable Allyson Schwartz.............................   803
          The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly...........................   805
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   807

      No amendments offered to Title X, Peace Corp Volunteer Service
        Protection

      End of bill amendments to H.R. 2583 offered by:
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   815
          The Honorable Howard L. Berman.............................   834
          The Honorable David Cicilline..............................   841
              Second degree amendment to the Honorable David
                Cicilline's amendment offered by the Honorable
                Christopher H. Smith.................................   845
          En bloc amendment offered by various members...............   867
          The Honorable David Cicilline..............................   909
              Second degree amendment to the Honorable David
                Cicilline's amendment offered by the Honorable Howard
                L. Berman............................................   918
          The Honorable Eliot L. Engel...............................   924
          The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks.............................   929
              Second degree amendment to the Honorable Gregory W.
                Meeks' amendment offered by the Honorable David
                Rivera, a Representative in Congress from the State
                of Florida...........................................   936

                                    APPENDIX

    Markup notice....................................................   962
    Markup minutes...................................................   963
    The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Prepared statement...............   965
    The Honorable Karen Bass: Prepared statement.....................   972
    The Honorable Russ Carnahan: Prepared statements.................   975
    The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch: Prepared statements............   978
    The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Prepared statement..........   989
    The Honorable Allyson Schwartz: Prepared statement...............   995

    TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR
                          2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
    Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
        I am pleased to welcome my colleagues to our markup this
    morning.
        Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill, H.R. 2583, the
    Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the
    text of which was provided previously to your offices. As
    members were notified yesterday, this bill is considered as
    read and open for amendments by title.
        [H.R. 2583 follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And after the ranking member and I
    deliver our opening remarks, I would be pleased to recognize
    other members who wish to speak for 5-minute opening
    statements.
        All members are given leave to insert remarks into the
    record, should they choose to do so.
        We will then proceed to consider each title of the bill in
    order, which the clerk will designate by number and descriptive
    title.
        I want to give folks a heads-up that, given the large
    number of recent and unknown amendments, I may be routinely
    reserving a point of order as each one is called up, and this
    does not necessarily reflect opposition to the amendment. It is
    just intended to give us a chance to look at the amendment, to
    make sure that it is within the committee's jurisdiction and
    doesn't expose the bill to unintended problems down the line.
    We have enough intended problems.
        I also want to give everyone a heads-up that it is
    presently my intention to recess temporarily only for floor
    votes so that we can get through the bill as expeditiously as
    possible. And there may be points in the day when I decide to
    postpone and roll recorded votes, but, in that case, I intend
    to postpone those votes to a time certain, giving members at
    least \1/2\-hour notice before 7 o'clock p.m. and a full hour's
    notice after 7 o'clock p.m. so that there are no surprises. We
    don't want folks to miss votes inadvertently.
        Before turning to the ranking member, I now recognize
    myself to speak on this measure.
        In my capacity as chairman, my priority has been to ensure
    that this committee is fully responsive to the interests and
    concerns of the American people. To that end, I have sought to
    significantly increase our oversight efforts and promote
    greater accountability, efficiency, and transparency in the
    agencies, programs, and operations under this committee's
    jurisdiction. I have been committed to expanding the
    committee's role in shaping U.S. foreign policy and have opened
    many committee-hosted meetings to the entire House.
        Fiscally, this legislation is based on the bipartisan,
    carefully negotiated agreement for the Fiscal Year 2011 budget
    that was signed in to law earlier this year. The funding levels
    in this bill represent no increase from the Fiscal Year 2011
    continuing resolution and will result in billions of dollars in
    savings in comparison with the proposed Fiscal Year 2012
    budget.
        The bill contains a long list of important measures, many
    of them resulting from the committee's enhanced oversight and
    investigations, and I will mention only a few.
        In foreign assistance, a key objective is to move countries
    from perpetual dependence on foreign donors to sustained
    economic growth that will lift their population out of poverty
    using innovative, efficient methods and public-private
    partnerships. In this regard, the goals of the Millennium
    Challenge Corporation serve as a guide, especially the emphasis
    on ending corruption and ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars do
    not fill the coffers of corrupt governments.
        Microfinance and microenterprise are vital to achieving
    economic growth, which is why the bill urges support for these
    efforts and also includes language on micro-credit in sub-
    Saharan Africa. An example of what can be accomplished through
    bipartisan cooperation are the very important initiatives on
    Sudan and micro-credit offered by Mr. Payne, the ranking member
    on the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.
    I want to thank Mr. Payne for his leadership on these issues
    and for his commitment to working closely with me and other
    members to ensure their inclusion in the base text.
        In the area of nonproliferation, by strengthening the
    Proliferation Security Initiative, we are enhancing the tools
    available to the President by preventing Iran from acquiring
    nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other means of
    assaulting the U.S. and or our allies. I appreciate Ranking
    Member Berman's input in improving this provision in the bill.
    The related change in the reporting requirement in the Iran,
    North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act, from 6 months to
    120 days, reflects our determination to address years of delay
    by the State Department in meeting its mandated schedule for
    reports on nonproliferation.
        The bill continues this committee's long support for human
    rights and democracy programs, including provisions offered by
    members on both sides of the aisle concerning Vietnam's ongoing
    restrictions on religious freedoms, the rights of religious
    minorities in Egypt, and strong support for the reunification
    of Cyprus.
        Among the most important provisions in the sections
    regarding U.S. security assistance are the reaffirmation of our
    unwavering support for our ally Israel, especially by ensuring
    that its qualitative military edge will remain robust and that
    our close relationship and cooperation on missile defense will
    continue.
        The bill also conditions U.S. assistance to Egypt, Lebanon,
    Yemen, and the Palestinian Authority. Basically, if Hamas,
    Hezbollah, and other foreign terrorist organizations or violent
    extremist groups hold policy positions in their respective
    governments, they are not to receive U.S. assistance unless the
    President determines that it is vital to the national security
    interest to allow it to go forward. Our goal is to promote
    democratic governments in these countries and ensure that U.S.
    taxpayers are not subsidizing groups that seek to undermine
    U.S. policies, interests, and allies.
        Turning to Pakistan, the language in this bill puts that
    government on notice that it is no longer business as usual and
    that they will be held to account if they continue to refuse to
    cooperate with our efforts to eliminate the nuclear black
    market, destroy the remaining elements of Osama bin Laden's
    network, and vigorously pursue our counterterrorism objectives.
    I think the prospect of a cutoff of assistance will get their
    attention and that the games being played with our security
    will finally stop.
        There are a number of provisions that stem from this
    committee's oversight and investigations, such as the reforms
    of the State Department Inspector General and the Peace Corps.
    A priority in the Peace Corps section has been to address the
    sexual assault and abuse that Peace Corps volunteers have been
    subjected to and that have been ignored or covered up by
    officials for decades. This is based on bipartisan legislation
    introduced by Mr. Poe that I was proud to cosponsor and work on
    with him.
        There are many other reforms and provisions aimed at
    improving our foreign relations agencies and programs, but I do
    not have time to go in to them here.
        From the first, my goal has been to have a foreign
    relations authorization bill enacted into law after many years
    of failed attempts or simply not trying at all. To ensure that
    we do not relapse, the authorization in this bill is limited to
    1 year, which will necessitate our addressing it again in order
    to ensure that we thoroughly review how State has implemented
    the policies and reforms. It is my hope that this bill will
    emerge from the committee with the support of a large majority
    and then quickly go to the floor. Hope springs eternal.
        With that, let's get to work. I now turn to my good friend,
    the ranking member, Mr. Berman, for the remarks that he might
    care to make. Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Passing a State Department authorization bill is one of the
    most important responsibilities of this committee, and I am
    actually glad that you are making it one of your priorities.
        It is also encouraging to hear that your leadership is
    insisting that we pass our authorization bill before the
    appropriators mark up the State-Foreign Operations bill. That
    is an important first step in making this committee relevant
    again.
        Having said that, the process that got us to this point
    leaves much to be desired and, in the end, severely undermines
    the credibility of this legislation. As you know, we received a
    first draft of this on July 6th. We appreciate the fact that
    you agreed to delay the markup by a week, but, frankly, 2 weeks
    is simply not enough to thoroughly review and vet a bill of
    this complexity. That is especially the case when the text
    keeps changing and changing. The most egregious example is the
    title on foreign assistance, which was not added until this
    past Saturday night. This is no way to run a railroad.
        I can't help pointing out--well, I could help pointing out,
    but I choose not to--I choose to point out that when this
    committee last did a State bill 2 years ago, you, as the
    ranking member, had a draft text 2 full months before the
    markup, and the bill was introduced 2 weeks before committee
    consideration.
        I wish that my concerns about the bill were limited to
    process, but they are far deeper than that. I appreciate the
    fact that the authorization levels for the State Department and
    certain foreign assistance are more or less the same as in the
    Fiscal Year 2011 budget deal. But I thought the numbers were
    too low when the deal was passed, and I continue to believe
    that today.
        As our Nation's top military leaders have said repeatedly,
    diplomacy and development, along with defense, are the key
    pillars of our national security strategy. By shortchanging two
    of the three legs of that national security stool, we undermine
    our ability to respond to crises, promote stability, and pursue
    a wide range of U.S. interests around the world. This will
    inevitably result in greater reliance on the military and end
    up costing us much more in the long run.
        Beyond the authorization levels, I have serious concerns
    about some of the policy provisions in this bill. On Pakistan,
    you tie all economic assistance to the certification in Kerry-
    Lugar that applied to security assistance, toughen the
    certification, and eliminate the waiver. I agree we need to get
    tough with Pakistan on security assistance, but I fundamentally
    disagree with your approach on economic aid. The key to long-
    term stability in Pakistan and the only way we will ever get
    Pakistan to change its behavior, is by strengthening its
    civilian institutions--not weakening them, as this bill will
    do.
        I have serious concerns about a number of provisions in the
    foreign assistance title, and I strongly object to the
    conclusion of the global gag rule, which we just learned about
    on Sunday night. I am also troubled by the authorization level
    for the peacekeeping account, which will put us back into
    arrears with the U.N., and oppose the cap on funding for the
    OAS, which I believe will only strengthen the hand of Hugo
    Chavez. I could go on and on about the other problematic
    provisions in the bill--and, unfortunately for the rest of you,
    I probably will during the course of the markup--but you get
    the point.
        Regrettably, I get the sense that what I already consider
    to be a bad bill is going to get much worse in this markup and
    on the floor. That will simply ensure that this is a one-House
    bill.
        Madam Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to make some
    sensible changes in the bill: Tough but workable waiver
    standards for the Middle East security assistance, and making
    technical changes to a number of other provisions. But, in the
    end, I remain strongly opposed to numerous provisions in the
    legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Smith?
        If members choose to make an opening statement, I will
    recognize them. You are not forced to do so.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Madam Speaker, you said everything so well, I
    will pass.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, everything we do here is in context
    of what is going on in our country right now. And let's just
    note, any money that we approve of spending today, what we are
    doing is asking for a policy of borrowing that money from China
    in order to give to someone else, so that our children can be
    in debt and pay back what we are giving to somebody else right
    now. If it is worth it, it is worth it. Well, sometimes you
    have to do things like that. But I think we should make sure we
    keep that in mind as we start spending our children's money.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. This is a bloody mess. Let's just get to
    work.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. I will pass.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. I will pass.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Griffin?
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Did I skip Poe? Judge Poe, I apologize.
        Ms. Buerkle, do you have any opening statement?
        Ms. Buerkle. No, thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Bless you, my child.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, for the record, I associate
    myself with the opening statement of our ranking member. And I
    look forward to the markup. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the bloody one by Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I just want to say that my reaction from reading it
    reminded me of some epic opening remarks before reviewing the
    Bush administration's international affairs budget request for
    Fiscal Year 2007. In a speech by one of our esteemed former
    colleagues, Chairman Henry Hyde, known as ``The Perils of the
    Golden Theory,'' Mr. Hyde told us about a paradox lying at the
    heart of America's relationship with the world:

            ``Massively engaging the world while living on an
            autonomous island in the global sea . . . breeds
            arrogance . . . self-delusion . . . and inevitably
            distorts perceptions of the world by insulating them in
            a soothing cocoon.''

        And I find that this legislation before us is a perfect
    example of what Chairman Hyde was warning us about, because, as
    our ranking member has indicated, the proposal consists of
    sweeping cuts to programs aimed at improving the security
    situation in global hotspots, including Lebanon, Pakistan,
    Yemen, and the Palestinian Authority. And it also proposes--the
    proposal instructs the administration to disengage from, or
    remove funding for international organizations, including the
    United Nations and the Organization of American States, in some
    cases bringing the United States into financial arrears.
        To me, that is not wise. And we need to make sure that we
    are working in a way that brings this world closer together so
    that we can have a better tomorrow than our today and
    yesterday.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. I have no comment. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Just briefly, you know, we are a great power, and a great
    power cannot retreat from its responsibilities. It is a false
    choice to say we simply cannot afford to invest in our
    diplomacy. The cuts being presented today I think will be
    seriously injurious to the interests of our country and to the
    ability of the United States as a great power to execute its
    diplomatic responsibilities. I believe that that is, as I said,
    a false choice, and it is one that I hope my colleagues will
    ponder carefully as we undertake this markup today.
        And I thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. I also just pass just to say that I do have a
    few amendments I hope to offer later to see if we can't reach
    some bipartisan agreement on a few different points. I think
    there will be broader questions, obviously, that will come up
    during the course of the day, but I, too, agree that it is a
    question of priorities and the degree to which we are a world
    power and engage and act as such.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Bass?
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I also have several amendments which I intend to offer, and
    I would associate myself with the remarks of our ranking
    member.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Keating?
        And Ms. Wilson.
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am extremely concerned about the general course of this
    legislation before us today. Of course, I am concerned about
    the cap on funding for the U.N. peacekeepers, the decision of
    the Mexico City language restricting choice for women, the
    Millennium Challenge Corporation's lessened ability to help
    people in poor countries, including Haiti. I am really
    concerned about Haiti and the U.N. peacekeepers.
        My concern with the legislation is that it will not allow
    the State Department to play a key role in national security.
    Two years ago, then-Chairman Berman said,

            ``The State Department and our other civilian foreign
            affairs agencies have a critical role to play in
            protecting U.S. national security. Diplomacy,
            development, and defense are the three key pillars of
            our U.S. national security policy. By wisely investing
            resources to strengthen our diplomatic capabilities, we
            can help prevent conflicts before they start and head
            off conditions that lead to failed states.''

        Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said,

            ``It has become clear that American civilian
            institutions of diplomacy and development have been
            chronically undermanned and under funded for far too
            long.''

        Let's support our troops, let's fight for the poor, let's
    get a bill that provides the Department of State with the
    resources it needs to succeed.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        We will now proceed to consider title I of the bill.
        The clerk will designate the title.
        Ms. Carroll. H.R. 2583, To authorize appropriations for the
    Department of State for Fiscal Year 2012, and for other
    purposes. In the House of Representatives, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
    introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
    Committee on Foreign Affairs. A bill to authorize----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, we will consider
    that the title is read.
        Are there any amendments to the title?
        Mr. Mack is recognized.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I first want to say,
    congratulations for bringing this bill forward and all of your
    hard work and dedication to the committee's work.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does the member have an
    amendment?
        Mr. Mack. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Mack of
    Florida. In section 102 of the bill (relating to----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We will consider the
    amendment as read.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does everyone have a copy of the
    Mack amendment at their desk?
        Mr. Berman. Reserving a point of order.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, yes.
        I will recognize the author for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And as my position as the chair of the Western Hemisphere,
    it has become clear to me that the OAS is an organization in
    Latin America that has failed. It is failing not only in the
    tradition and the values of America, but it has failed in its
    charter to defend freedom and democracy in the Western
    Hemisphere. It appears that, every time we turn around, the
    OAS, instead of supporting democracies, is supporting and
    coddling, if you will, the likes of Hugo Chavez.
        So what my amendment does is very simple. It restricts all
    funds to the OAS. And for the members on the committee who are
    concerned about saving money, this would save about $48.5
    million out of this authorization.
        Again, Madam Chair, it would be one thing if the OAS was a
    value-added partner in Latin America that actually stood for
    its charter and that took the hard stands to make sure that
    those that want to destroy freedom and democracy don't have an
    organization to use in that attempt. And I think that the OAS
    has been complicit in the continued down spiral of some of the
    countries in Latin America, disappointed that the OAS continues
    to turn its back on its own charter.
        And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield my time back to you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Mack.
        Do any other members seek recognition on the Mack
    amendment?
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition--I
    don't rise--I sit in opposition to the amendment. I speak in
    opposition to the amendment.
        This amendment wipes out all funding for the OAS. I was
    upset with the cut of $5 million in the base bill. This wipes
    it all out. There will be amendments to address that issue
    later on. I will be real quick on this.
        We have a treaty obligation to pay our assessed dues to the
    OAS. This is a unilateral act by this committee, were this
    amendment to be adopted, to abrogate that treaty obligation.
    This is the only regional organization that brings together the
    34 democratically-elected governments of the region, including
    the United States and Canada.
        The notion that we are going to defund the OAS, undermine
    the organization's ability to maintain rank-and-file staff
    critical to advancing its important work in key areas, the
    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, decrease our moral
    and political standing in the organization, avoid all this--I
    can't think of anything that Hugo Chavez would want more.
        I urge a no vote on this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Do other members wish to be recognized?
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mack, of course, has enveloped himself in understanding
    what is going on in Central and South America. He has obviously
    had some experiences with the Organization of American States
    which would suggest that the $48 million that we are borrowing
    from China in order to give to the Organization of American
    States may not be a good investment and may be working contrary
    to our interests, not only our interests in terms of
    responsible spending but also, perhaps, other interests.
        And I would ask Mr. Mack if he could--I would yield to him
    the balance of my time so he could explain to us exactly some
    of the things the OAS may be doing that make them not worthy of
    us borrowing money in order to give to that organization.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack is recognized.
        Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman.
        And to the point of the ranking member, if you have an
    organization that everyone is committed to that continues to
    fly in the face of the values of the United States and of its
    own charter, it is irresponsible of us to continue to fund such
    an organization that gets in the way of democracy, that gets in
    the way of the goals of the United States. I think a
    continuation of funding of the OAS sends the wrong message to
    Latin America. It sends a message that if you want to be a part
    of the ALBA nations, the OAS is a perfect place for you to come
    and move your agenda.
        So I would say to my side of the aisle that there hasn't
    been an example of the OAS supporting freedom and democracy.
    And I will give you an example. When the former President of
    Honduras tried to circumvent its own Constitution, it was the
    OAS and Hugo Chavez that attempted to help the President of
    Honduras to take over the country in a style only Hugo Chavez
    could support. So Chavez was flying on the plane, on the OAS
    plane, delivering ballots in Honduras against the Constitution
    of Honduras, and the ultimate removal of the President of
    Honduras.
        This organization is not supporting the ideals of America
    or freedom and democracy, and we cannot continue to support
    such an organization. I would suggest to the gentleman, the
    ranking member, that--why would we continue to fund an
    organization that is intent on destroying the exact things that
    this committee is working hard for in Latin America?
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, let me just note, $48.5 million,
    well, let's let Mr. Chavez pay for it. I mean, he is spending
    $48 million here and there to undermine our interests, putting
    money into revolutionary movements. Why should we finance all
    of this? And let's let Mr. Chavez pick up that----
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, yes, I would.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. The fact is that there is--I thought there was
    only one, but if we pass this amendment maybe there are two
    governments that are actively and systematically trying to
    weaken the OAS. That one government was Venezuela. Why? Because
    it is the only regional organization that has called Chavez on
    the carpet repeatedly on democracy, on human rights, on free
    expression.
        We are joining his side of this debate. He keeps trying to
    set up alternative organizations to the OAS. We are doing his
    work for him.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much for that
    insight.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Ackerman, I know that you would like to be recognized,
    but Mr. Connolly was quicker on the draw.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized, and then we will go----
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, I certainly would yield to
    Mr. Ackerman and then reclaim my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Be glad to.
        Mr. Ackerman is recognized.
        Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Very kind of you.
        I am sorry, Howard, I don't like Chavez. I've got to agree
    with Mr. Rohrabacher. These people are just not worthy of us. I
    mean, the whole world is not worthy of us. I mean, none of them
    are really worthy of us. I mean, we know what freedom is. They
    don't like freedom.
        I think I--you know, at the proper time I might just offer
    an amendment to just pull out of the world and put all this
    money into digging a moat around the United States and putting
    a big dome over the thing and----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does the gentleman have an
    amendment?
        Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. Keep us--I will see if I can
    have staff draft that.
        I mean, this thing is getting awful ridiculous. I mean, we
    have to borrow from the Chinese to help people in our own
    hemisphere? I mean, what are we degenerating in to? What are we
    becoming?
        Complaining that, you know, we are borrowing from the
    Chinese? Well, let me tell you something, the Chinese are
    investing more than $48.5 million in each and every one of
    those countries and all over the world. That is our real
    competition. We are competing on this planet for the hearts and
    minds of people who should be looking toward us because of the
    value that you claim we represent, and indeed we do, but we are
    not representing it to others.
        We should be extending our hand and trying to cooperate and
    bring them to a better place, the place that we see and the
    place that we know is a good place. They look to us for
    leadership and inspiration. And here we are, for a lousy $48.5
    million, willing to symbolically turn our back on our own
    hemisphere.
        And the people who look to us as brothers for a little bit
    of understanding and sympathy--and if we turn our backs on the
    people in our hemisphere, there is no hope. There is no hope
    for us winning the hearts and minds of people anywhere in
    places that are in trouble, where people are in distress, where
    they feel there is no hope for the future generations, and they
    will look to others who do help them and do want to extend that
    hand.
        This is folly. It is more than folly, it is dangerous. We
    are approaching the precipice of leaving this planet. And if
    that is what you want, that is what you are going to get. And
    you have the votes to do it; that is the frightening thing. But
    what you should be looking at is opportunities to be helpful,
    to make this world a better place. And what better place to
    start but in our own hemisphere?
        Forty-eight-point-five million dollars. If you want to do
    away with it, you have the power. Let's see what you do with
    it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton is recognized.
        I thought he was going to claim his own time. Would you
    like to have the full 5 minutes? I think he just ceded his
    spot.
        Mr. Connolly. I was just going to claim my own time, that
    is right, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Burton is recognized.
        Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield my time to
    Mr. Mack.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack is recognized.
        Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman.
        To my colleagues, this is no joke. We continue to fund an
    organization that does not support the ideals of America. We
    continue to fund an organization that is bent on being a
    roadblock to democracy in our hemisphere. This isn't a joke.
    This isn't putting a moat around the United States. And it is
    offensive that someone would make that analogy.
        Why would you continue to fund an organization that has no
    intentions on even ensuring its own charter? So, in effect,
    what you are doing is you are hurting the people of Latin
    America by supporting the OAS. You can't give an example of
    when the OAS has fought for democracy. It has done everything
    it can to be a roadblock for democracy. There have been more
    opportunities for the OAS to stand up for its own charter, and
    it has failed to do so.
        So I would suggest to other members, this is not a joke. If
    you want to continue to fund an organization that you can't
    defend other than saying, ``Well, we should put a moat around
    the United States,'' is laughable.
        I would suggest to the members that there is a better way,
    moving forward, in Latin America than the OAS. And that is the
    United States will stand with our friends and our allies, to
    support free-trade agreements, to pass free-trade agreements.
    If you really want to care--if you really care about the people
    of Latin America, then let our allies know that if you are a
    friend of the United States, that we will be a friend of yours.
    Stop blocking the free-trade agreements.
        That is the way to move forward in Latin America, not to
    continue to fund an organization that is destroying the
    opportunity for democracy. And that is what you will be doing
    if you do not support this amendment. You will support an
    organization that is destroying the hopes and dreams of Latin
    America. If this committee and if this Congress is serious
    about supporting our friends, we will pass the free-trade
    agreements, and we will defund the OAS.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton, would you like to----
        Mr. Burton. Yes, I will yield the balance of my time to Mr.
    Rohrabacher.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, just a note, that when $48 million
    that we will borrow from China in order to give and finance the
    Organization of American States is referred to as a lousy $48
    billion--or million--pardon me for mixing the M's and the B's
    there--a lousy $48 million, let me tell you what $48 million
    can do in my district.
        Forty-eight million dollars can take care of the needs of
    our veterans in my district who are coming back from the war
    and need help. And now we are in such a bad financial situation
    that we are struggling to come up with that money. Forty-eight
    million dollars could provide all of the schools in my district
    the--how do you say--taking care of their own--the maintenance
    of their facilities that they now are in desperate need of.
    That is what a lousy $48 million can do.
        Now, why are we borrowing money from China in order to put
    our children in debt when we have needs like that at home? And
    I take it that Mr. Mack is an expert. He is the chairman of the
    subcommittee, and so I am taking his concerns very seriously,
    rather than just looking at $48 million as just a lousy $48
    million. No, it is really an important $48 million.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Madam Chairman, I will yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I speak in
    opposition to this amendment.
        You know, we have just been presented with a lot of false
    choices. Somehow, support for an organization this country
    created and founded, an organization than stood with President
    Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis unanimously against the
    emplacement of nuclear-tipped missiles 90 miles from our
    border, an organization that has been useful on a multilateral
    basis to U.S. foreign policy and to our relationships in
    building democracy in this hemisphere is somehow tantamount to
    actually doing the opposite of all of those things. And, oh, by
    the way, it is a deficit-reduction measure.
        That is a false choice. This is a great country. The fact
    that any multilateral organization doesn't bend to our will 100
    percent is to be expected. That is why we roll up our sleeves
    and participate in the arena, in the international arena. This
    amendment is nothing but a retreat from our international
    responsibilities as a great power, with false arguments to back
    it up.
        This committee needs to stand tall. We are the Foreign
    Affairs Committee of the United States Congress. We are not
    going to tolerate any retreat by the United States in terms of
    its responsibilities, especially in our own backyard.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Rivera is recognized.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I think it has been made pretty clear by the sponsor of the
    amendment and by others that the OAS is simply an enemy to the
    interests of the United States and an enemy to the interests of
    hemispheric security. Not only that, they have been an ally to
    the enemies of freedom, the enemies of freedom and democracy in
    the hemisphere.
        A lot has changed since that unanimous vote in 1962, where,
    yes, the OAS did stand with the United States. But in
    contemporary events, we can see that there is a huge difference
    in the OAS. We see what happened in their treatment of the
    forces of democracy in Honduras. And we see what has happened
    with their treatment toward the forces and enemies of democracy
    and freedom in Cuba.
        Just in recent years, in recent times, the OAS has voted to
    allow Cuba, a nation that has been designated a sponsor of
    terrorism by the United States, voted to allow them back into
    the OAS. In fact, the person leading that charge, Mr. Insulza,
    Secretary of the OAS, was quoted as saying, ``One of the
    greatest sources of legitimacy of the Cuba system is Fidel
    Castro. And I say this with very much respect and an admiration
    for this individual.''
        Well, maybe Mr. Insulza didn't understand the reality of
    what is going on in Cuba: That there are no human rights, no
    civil liberties, no free elections. Maybe he didn't understand
    that the Castro dictatorship murdered four Americans in
    international airspace in 1996, unarmed civilians, murdered
    Americans, murdered in international airspace.
        Maybe he didn't understand the fact that Cuba is harboring
    fugitives from U.S. justice, including cop killers. And I know
    we have my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Sires,
    here, who could probably speak to that better than I can
    because it happened in his State--cop killers being harbored in
    Cuba by the Castro dictatorship. Fugitives from justice in the
    United States, dozens and dozens of them wanted by the FBI.
        Maybe Mr. Insulza and others in the OAS didn't realize that
    right now, as we speak, there is an American being held hostage
    in Cuba--an American citizen, Alan Gross, being held hostage by
    the Castro dictatorship.
        Or maybe Mr. Insulza didn't understand what is going on
    with the opposition movement, the human rights activists in
    Cuba, people like Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who was killed by the
    regime after being on a hunger strike. And just in recent days,
    in the last few weeks, his mother came here to Congress and
    demonstrated the blood-soaked shirt that her son was wearing
    when he was murdered by the Castro dictatorship.
        So when we talk about the treatment of the United States
    toward international organizations, really what we need to talk
    about is the treatment of these international organizations
    toward the interests of democracy and security in our
    hemisphere.
        It kind of reminds me of that scene in ``Animal House''
    where the college pledge is pledging the fraternity, and as
    part of the ceremony to become a member of the fraternity he
    has to get paddled, and every time he gets paddled, he says,
    ``Please, sir, may I have another?'' How much longer are we
    going to say to the OAS, ``Please, sir, may I have another?''
        I understand a little bit about Stockholm Syndrome, where
    the hostage becomes enamored with their persecutor. And I don't
    know if that is going on with this administration or with some
    who support involvement in the OAS, but maybe it is. But the
    time for the abuse is over.
        Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Rivera. I will in just a moment.
        The time for the abuse is over. What we need to do is
    engage. This is not isolationism. This is engaging our allies--
    with free trade, with supporting democratic reform, with
    supporting civil liberties in the hemisphere.
        When someone gives me the answer to exactly how the OAS is
    supporting our interests, supporting the interests of
    democracy, freedom, human rights, in the hemisphere, then
    perhaps we can consider funding the OAS.
        And I will yield my time for that answer.
        Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is recognized for 15
    seconds.
        Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
        The gentleman does know that Cuba is not a member of the
    OAS and gets none of its money, does he not?
        Mr. Rivera. They voted to allow the OAS--to allow Cuba into
    the OAS, and Cuba can become a member----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The time has expired. Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. No.
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Ackerman, I will yield to you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne, you can yield the time to
    Mr. Ackerman. But Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes. Each
    member is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair, we are each entitled to our
    opinion, and I do respect yours. And----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Wait.
        Mr. Payne, you had already given him the time?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, I yield a portion, a small portion.
        Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. And I appreciate your usual
    fairness, but I was making a point, and there were 10 seconds
    left, at least on my clock. I assume they are all synchronized.
    But I was just making the point that Cuba is not a member and
    does not become a member, cannot become a member, unless they
    become a democracy, which is what I think we all hope.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Reclaiming my time. And I will yield some time
    to Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. The OAS is our enemy? I don't know--we are
    really living in two different worlds.
        There has been no area of the world where the transition
    from military dictatorships and authoritarian rulers to
    democracy has been greater than in Latin America. Since 1962,
    Cuba has not been a member of OAS. Cuba can only come back in
    to the OAS if they accept the democratic principles of the OAS.
        The OAS has existed and worked during the entire time of
    this incredible transition. Remember what was going on in Chile
    and Argentina and Brazil and throughout--and Central America? A
    lot of us were here in the 1980s.
        This has not been a failure of American foreign policy;
    this has been a triumph of American foreign policy. Yes, we've
    still got a few bad actors there and we have to stay vigilant
    about them. But this is not a basis for leaving the OAS.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        I certainly oppose this amendment. I think it is very
    shortsighted.
        You know, we keep talking about Honduras and how this
    government went and took this--wrestled democracy back from
    this President. Yeah, they wrestled it back with the army with
    fixed bayonets taking him to the border and throwing him out of
    the country, which is usually a coup d'etat.
        However, we can forget that. That is past as prologue, so
    we are not going to deal with this tremendous democratic and
    judicial way that Hondurans dealt with the President. They sent
    him out of the country, with the army dropping him off at the
    border. So, so much for democracy in Honduras.
        Let me just say that I think that we are totally
    shortsighted. I agree, maybe it won't be a moat, but maybe it
    will be the great wall--China tried it--and we will be safe
    because we will keep everybody out.
        Our country has more people coming from OAS countries than
    any country in the world. We are going to turn our back on
    countries where our new Americans are coming to the U.S., where
    they will continue to have relationships. We are going to say,
    we don't really believe in being involved in this organization
    where your parents live because we are better than that, and
    therefore we are going to withdraw.
        I hope someone in Quebec doesn't say anything bad about the
    United States because I guess we will cut Canada off, you know,
    just build a wall around them too.
        We are about as fickle as--I could see anything being
    happened. Someone says something and we say, let's take our
    ball, because I own it, and let's run home and lock the door.
    It doesn't even make sense.
        You got Brazil now dealing with the new--we are talking
    about, open up free trade. Brazil is dealing with the South
    Africa-India deal, which Turkey is starting to get in, and we
    are going to be shut out. You know what? They are going to tell
    us, take our free-trade agreements, they don't need us when we
    continue to treat people in a paternalistic way, that we don't
    want to deal with you, you are right on our borders, but we
    don't like one or two persons in your group of states.
        So I think that we are going in the wrong direction. I
    always hear about it and I see all those great things that they
    could do in Mr. Rohrabacher's district, but those things have
    come up in the regular budget and they have been voted down.
    So, all of a sudden, we love fixing up schools and helping old
    women and feeding little children because we want to take the
    money that China is lending us away from those evil South
    American countries. You know, this may become very hilarious.
    It is better drama than you see on Broadway.
        I think my time has expired.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chabot is recognized.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to yield my time to the gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. Rivera.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you. Actually, I will just take a few
    seconds. I want to be clear about the facts, because we are all
    entitled to our opinion but not to different facts.
        The fact is that, in 2009, the OAS voted to provide for the
    Castro dictatorship's reintegration into the OAS system. And
    leading the charge for that was Secretary Insulza, who stated,
    ``I want to be clear: I want Cuba back in the inter-American
    system. I think it was a bad idea to remove Cuba in the first
    place.''
        This is unprecedented, never happened before. Of course,
    before that, since 1962, the Castro brothers were spreading
    revolution throughout Africa and Asia and Latin America. The
    Castro brothers were allowing Cuba to be used as a surrogate
    enemy stronghold of the Soviet Union--different times.
        In modern times, this is unprecedented, that the OAS would
    make these unilateral concessions to the Castro dictatorship--
    unilateral because there has been absolutely no movement
    whatsoever toward democratic reform, as outlined in the OAS
    charter, toward promoting human rights and civil liberties in
    Cuba, none whatsoever. And yet, unilaterally, the OAS Secretary
    and the Organization voted to give this concession to Cuba--a
    vote by the OAS, a unilateral concession to the terrorist
    dictatorship of the Castro brothers in Cuba.
        So, again, I would like someone on this panel to please
    address the question I posed earlier. What has the OAS done to
    promote freedom and democracy and to promote the interests of
    not only the United States but of freedom-loving people all
    over the hemisphere?
        And I will yield back to Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot [continuing]. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
        Number one, everything that I am hearing on the other side
    strikes of isolationism. That is what it is. You know, you can
    go and say that it is not, but everything that you are saying
    is saying that the United States wants to be isolated from
    everyone else, especially in our hemisphere.
        You make it sound as though the OAS is some organization
    that is just flying in the air. The OAS has members. It has a
    democratic process, also. And those members include our allies.
    I have not heard Colombia say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I
    have not heard Mexico say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I have
    not heard Peru say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I have not heard
    Brazil say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' I have not heard
    Argentina say, ``We don't want the OAS.'' All of these are
    allies of ours. They are all part of the OAS. They, each and
    every one of them, have a vote in the OAS. It is not some
    individual, by him or herself, that is a dictator that tells
    the OAS. It is our allies, the same ones you say you want to
    trade with, the same ones that we have agreements with. Those
    are our friends. And by saying that we don't want to support
    the OAS, we are, in fact, slapping them in the face. Those who
    support us the most, we are slapping them in the face.
        We say we want trade agreements? Well, the President said
    he wants a trade agreement. Pass TAA, and we will have those
    trade agreements done. We are ready to move.
        But to say that we are going to just turn our backs on all
    of our friends in this hemisphere after all that they have gone
    through. And when you look at the OAS, for example, the
    elections in Haiti, and when you look at how they helped with
    reference to these trade agreements, to formulate some of these
    trade agreements, to implement some of these trade agreements,
    these are the kinds of things that we need.
        It reminds me of what I said in my opening statement with
    reference to the words of the former chair, Henry Hyde, when he
    said, ``massively engaging the world while living on an
    autonomous island.'' That is what we are trying to do, live on
    an autonomous island in the global sea. What does it breed? It
    breeds arrogance and self-delusion. And if we cut off payment,
    our dues, or paying our dues, or forcing ourselves to go into
    arrears, what we are doing is we are becoming arrogant and
    self-delusional, which is not the way that we should be moving
    in this time on our own hemisphere, when we are talking about
    getting past the post-Cold War period and working closer
    together.
        You don't just throw away the whole barrel of apples
    because maybe there is one or two you don't like. We figure out
    how we fix it, how we work together. We work with our allies.
    There are votes that take place. That is what we should be
    talking about.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Meeks. When I finish, I will yield.
        What we need to be focused on is, how do we continue to
    work with our allies in this hemisphere? And without the OAS,
    we are saying to them, ``We don't want to work with you.''
        And I yield to the gentleman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Obviously, there is a difference as to the
    value of the OAS. Let me just note that bilateral approaches
    are not isolationist approaches. What we are talking about is a
    multilateral approach versus a bilateral approach.
        But if you do support a multilateral approach, which you
    currently do, and the OAS is an example of that, perhaps you
    could give us three examples of what the OAS has accomplished
    in the last 5 years that you think would be worthy of this $50-
    million-a-year investment in OAS.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Well, I will tell you one: The elections in
    Haiti, first of all. I think that was a good thing.
        I also believe when you had the craziness in the Honduras,
    you know, with what was going on back and forth, working with
    those nations and how we were putting that together, that is
    number two, you know, just right quickly off the top of my
    head.
        Number three, when we talked about--even when we were
    working with Peru, and their helping with the implementation of
    that trade agreement. The OAS was part of that also.
        I further would say that, despite what was said earlier,
    you know, when you talk about the nations coming together, even
    with regards to Cuba, they didn't say, let Cuba in. They said
    that Cuba had to adhere to the democratic charter. In other
    words, that puts pressure on Cuba to say that, ``You have to
    become a democracy. You want to be part of us? Then you have to
    have a democratic organization. If you don't have a democratic
    organization, you can't be a part of us at the OAS.''
        Those are three quick things that I can tell you right off
    the top of my head.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have been listening very carefully with these statements
    that have been made on this very important issue. I do want to
    say that I do have the utmost respect for the gentleman who
    offered the amendment. He is the chairman of our Subcommittee
    on the Western Hemisphere, for which I respect his opinions.
        As I was listening to the comments made, why we should not
    authorize $48.5 million to the funding of the OAS, I just have
    to respectfully disagree with my good friend, the chairman of
    our Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, for this one
    reason: I think it has been clearly recognized that our
    relationship with Latin America or the Western Hemisphere has
    been one of indifference. We have never really committed
    ourselves to the point where we really look at the Western
    Hemisphere not only as a very important ally in this part of
    the region of the world, but we never really seem to be serious
    enough in taking up the issues affecting hundreds of millions
    of people living in this part of the world.
        One thing that I want to share with my good friend, the
    chairman of our subcommittee, if we look at OAS as a regional
    organization the same way that we look at the United Nations, I
    cannot--OAS has an excellent report card saying that we have
    done everything in terms of our own expectations. Our
    membership in the United Nations is a classic example where
    members are not necessarily democracies. We have countries that
    are not democracies at all that are members, and we are members
    of this global organization, the United Nations.
        We talk about--treat this issue clearly and in a way that
    is of an equal basis, if I want to put it in those terms. And I
    have to agree with my good friend from New York that we ought
    to take Chairman Hyde's statement and observation very
    seriously about what exactly is the position or what role the
    United States has to play with our global community.
        I say we ought to continue the engagement process. We may
    not necessarily agree with some of the policies or positions
    taken by some of our friends who are members of the OAS, but
    that is part of the deliberative process as a member of a
    regional organization like the OAS, the same way that we are
    members of the United Nations but we don't necessarily agree
    with some of the positions taken by some of the countries that
    are members of the United Nations.
        So I suggest to my good friend, this proposed amendment
    really is almost like, ``It is either my way or the highway,
    buddy.'' And I don't think that is really the approach that we
    should take in terms of how we should be treating other members
    of a regional organization like the OAS. And for that matter, I
    respectfully have to object to my good friend's proposed
    amendment.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Burton. Madam Chairman? Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Are you yielding back, Mr.
    Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I gladly yield to my good friend from
    Indiana.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton is recognized.
        Mr. Burton. I was just wondering if it would be in order to
    move the previous question. We have a lot of amendments, and we
    have been on this one for well over an hour.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think that--thank you, Mr.
    Faleomavaega. We will----
        Mr. Burton. I will withdraw that, but I just think moving
    on the previous question is not a bad idea.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Please withdraw that.
        Mr. Faleomavaega, would you yield back your time?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And I do apologize to Mr. McCaul. It was our turn at bat,
    and I had not seen you.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So I apologize. And you are
    recognized.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you. And no apology necessary.
        I yield to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. And I thank the gentleman.
        A few observations.
        No one is suggesting isolation. And that is just a fantasy
    that some are putting up on the other side. In fact, what we
    are saying is, let's engage with our allies and our friends,
    but let's not continue to support an organization that is
    perpetuating some countries' ability to destroy democracy.
        So we can have relations with Colombia and Panama. We could
    pass free-trade agreements right now. One of my friends on the
    other side said, ``Well, if we would just do the TAA.'' Every
    time we get close on the free-trade agreements, the President
    or somebody comes up with another hurdle that has to be
    crossed.
        My friends on the other side really, I think, are confused
    about what is happening here. We are not saying, let's not
    engage in our hemisphere. What we are saying is, let's not
    continue to support an organization that doesn't want to help
    us in engagement in our hemisphere.
        I continue to say to my friends that you can't point to an
    example of when the OAS, in recent times, has supported the
    ideals of democracy in our hemisphere. My good friend used the
    example of Honduras. Let me remind you, it was Insulza who was
    helping distribute ballots to Honduras. It was the OAS that was
    helping Zelaya to try to take over the Constitution and the
    country. Their Constitution clearly said that you cannot do a
    referendum, yet the OAS was helping to do just that. So the
    example that my friend used is an exact example of the
    opposite, of why we shouldn't be continuing to support the OAS.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman----
        Mr. Mack. Let's strengthen our relationships with our
    allies. Let's pass the free-trade agreements. Let's support our
    allies in their missions for their democracy and their freedom.
    But let's not continue to fund an organization that is bent on
    destroying any hope for democracy in Latin America.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman from Texas yield?
        Mr. Mack. And, with that, I would----
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman from Texas yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. I yield.
        Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
        And I was wondering if--the gentleman from Florida could
    correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is the OAS is
    the only regional organization that has ever, and frequently,
    criticized Venezuela under Hugo Chavez for their human rights
    treatment.
        I was wondering if the gentleman could tell me if I am
    wrong in believing that the Truth Commission of Honduras just
    declared what the Honduran military did a coup, as was
    described by the gentleman from New Jersey.
        And I am wondering if the gentleman from Florida could tell
    me whether I am wrong in believing that the OAS is the one
    that, through its own mediation and intervention, stopped the
    outbreak of a war between Costa Rica and Nicaragua and got the
    dispute referred to the International Court of Justice for
    resolution there--as three specific examples, the kind that Mr.
    Rohrabacher asked about, of positive work.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So it is Mr. McCaul's time.
        Mr. Berman. Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And if Mr. McCaul will allow Mr.
    Mack to answer.
        Mr. McCaul. And I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack, 1 minute.
        Mr. Mack. I thank you.
        Again, I think it is kind of funny. Just because a
    commission is called the Truth Commission doesn't mean that
    there is any truth with it. Just because you call it the Truth
    Commission doesn't make it true.
        What is interesting about the Truth Commission, there was
    one big lie in the Truth Commission, and that was calling it a
    coup. And I remind my friends, it was Insulza and it was the
    OAS who was helping Zelaya, who, by the way, was attempting the
    real coup in Honduras by trying to take over that country and
    take away the right of its citizens to elect a President. It
    was----
        Mr. Berman. A preemptive coup.
        Mr. Mack [continuing]. It was the OAS who was helping in
    that. You can't point to an example of when the OAS is standing
    up for democracy in our hemisphere.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Mack. You yielded
    your second to Mr. McCaul.
        And, Mr. McCaul, your time is up.
        Mr. McCaul. My time has expired.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And we are ready to vote. But,
    first, does the ranking member withdraw his reservation?
        Mr. Engel. Madam Chair?
        Mr. Berman. I withdraw my reservation.
        Mr. Engel. Yeah, I move to strike the last word, Madam
    Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Engel is recognized.
        Mr. Engel. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        I think it is incumbent upon me, as the ranking member of
    the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and the former
    chairman of the subcommittee, to comment.
        Mr. Mack and I have worked very well together, both when I
    was chair and now that he is chair. And, in fact, we share a
    lot of the same principles, and we see the region the same way,
    I would say, 95 percent of the time. But I don't agree with
    this amendment, and let me just say why.
        If you take the countries together, if you say that we are
    going to do this, you know, you take Venezuela--countries like
    Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and now the United States, that is
    a strange-sounding list. Because if this passes, that is the
    list of countries in the region that want to weaken the OAS,
    the Organization of American States. And I think that is a
    mistake.
        I think that this elimination of funds for the OAS does
    more than just weaken the OAS; it plays into the hands of those
    countries in the region that wish to strengthen opposite-minded
    organizations, that wants to be against the United States.
        The OAS, with all its flaws--and I share some of the
    frustrations of Mr. Mack; he and I have talked about it a great
    deal--but it is still the only organization in the region that
    brings together all 34 democratically elected governments in
    the region. And let's see what would happen if funding were cut
    and the OAS were to collapse. As the strength of the OAS wanes,
    alternative regional organizations, such as UNASUR and ALBA,
    which are the Chavez-inspired leftist alliances and the Castro-
    inspired leftist alliances, they stand to gain. As the OAS goes
    down, those other organizations stand to gain.
        And these are organizations, by the way, which were
    deliberately formed to exclude the United States and Canada as
    members. That is the way they formed it. But it has Venezuela,
    Bolivia, and other less friendly nations.
        So I think this is a mistake, because I think what this
    will do, it will strengthen the hands of Hugo Chavez. It will
    collapse the OAS, over which the United States has much
    influence, and will make these other organizations, UNASUR and
    ALBA, the preeminent organizations, which we have no--virtually
    no influence, and make Chavez's organization the preeminent
    organization.
        So I just think that, while I share the frustrations and I
    think there are many, many ways we can let the OAS know that we
    think that it is not a perfect organization and we want to push
    it in the direction, I think that this is not the way to do it.
    Although my friend, Mr. Mack, knows that I respect him greatly.
    And, again, we work together on so many things.
        But I just think the OAS is the best game in town, as
    flawed as it may be. We have influence. Yes, we have spent
    money there, but that we have influence. Unfortunately or
    fortunately, money buys influence. We would have much less, in
    my opinion, if the OAS were weakened.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And let me just say to my friend and colleague, Mr. Mack,
    Chairman Mack, nobody has more respect for him. He has done
    yeoman's work not only on Cuba, but also on Honduras. His
    hearings, I think, have been extraordinary in shining a light
    on the misdeeds of the OAS vis-a-vis Honduras.
        I do rise, or will in speaking today, with a conditional
    no. I will vote no on his amendment, but it is a conditional
    no. I think he is sending a very serious shot across the bow of
    the Organization of American States. He is bringing light and
    scrutiny as never before to the OAS. And I think many of us are
    taking that second and long look at the OAS to try to determine
    whether or not it has truly lost its way irreparably.
        It also puts the OAS on notice that it needs to seriously
    reclaim its promotion of fundamental human rights and democracy
    and to cease its drift toward the socialist side of issues.
        Otherwise, I do believe, you know, if Mr. Mack, or Chairman
    Mack, brings his amendment back in the future, there would be
    much more support for it. But at this point, I will be a
    conditional ``no.''
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for making the
    strong and legitimate points about the OAS. He has legitimate
    concerns. And as the gentleman from New Jersey says, he has
    really shined a light on some of the problems there. But I
    think this is not the way to go with regard to this amendment,
    I would submit.
        And I am concerned about the trend with regard to
    international organizations, that when they are not doing
    exactly what we want, when they have their flaws, which are
    many, that we, instead of engaging and being there at the table
    like a great country with the power our ideas, with the
    strength of the partnership of our allies to make them better--
    that is, I think, when our country is at its best.
        And if we do go forward with this, I think we will see a
    weakened OAS, it will be worse, and I think alternative
    regional organizations could also be worse. Problems could also
    be more complex and more expensive.
        So I would respectfully submit that this is not the way to
    go. I appreciate the work the gentleman has done, but I would
    urge folks to vote no on this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Sires is recognized.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        First of all, let me thank you for including rights of
    religious minorities in Egypt and the recognition that we need
    to recognize minorities, religious minorities in Egypt.
        And in terms of my friend, Connie Mack, we share a great
    deal of ideas regarding the OAS. My biggest complaint with the
    OAS is the same thing with the U.N. commission. They do not
    speak up enough about the people that are being hurt in all
    these countries.
        The best part about this argument today, as I sat here and
    listened to everybody, is I think we articulated all the
    problems that are going on in Cuba better than we have done in
    the long time--the abuses that are going on, the beatings, the
    beatings of the Ladies in White that die and the people in
    prison. We have articulated those issues, and yet the OAS does
    not speak strongly enough about this or the abuses in any other
    country.
        I don't think that taking the money away from the OAS is
    the answer. I think they have to be revamped. I think they have
    to be more up front with all the other countries and talk about
    the abuses and the lack of democracy and the lack of respect
    for human rights in some of these countries. They don't do that
    strongly enough. They haven't done it for many, many years.
        That is the frustration that I share with my colleagues who
    don't want to vote for this money. It is in your charter, just
    like it is that we have to comply with our agreement, our
    contract to give them the $48 million. So if they don't comply
    with the charter on human rights, on abuses in all these
    countries, they have to change.
        And I thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am just looking around to see if
    anyone would like to be recognized.
        And, if not, Mr. Mack has requested a roll call vote.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Mr. Sherman?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
        Mr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Sherman is here.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman, you are not recorded.
        Mr. Sherman. I record a no vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, there are 22 ayes and 20 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to.
        Are there any other amendments on the desk?
        Mr. Berman. On title I?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. We are going title by
    title.
        Mr. Payne is recognized.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Which amendment, Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. The amendment on the contributions for
    international peacekeeping activities, 28.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Payne of
    New Jersey. In section 103, strike ``$1,735,382,277'' and
    insert ``$1,920,000,000''. In section 103, add at the end of
    the following:----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
    and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And let me say that I have listened over the years about
    criticisms and praises for international organizations, as we
    have just gone through on the OAS. However, I think that if it
    were not for international organizations, the world would be in
    a much worse place.
        And I would have to say that I think that one of the very
    strong aspects of the United Nations, an idea conceived by the
    USA first with the old League of Nations and then with the
    U.N., is that they have been able to minimize outright wars,
    have been able to negotiate in places where combatants might
    have gone to war. And I think that one of the strong
    contributions has been their use of peacekeeping around the
    world. And so, the resolution that I have here asks to restore
    the initial amount to $1,920,000,000 and strike the
    $1,735,000,000, which reduces the peacekeeping operation.
        When we were interviewing new Secretary-Generals for the
    United Nations, one of Ban Ki-Moon's only requests as he was
    being considered was that we continue to support peacekeeping,
    because he felt that peacekeeping was really the hallmark of
    the U.N., it was necessary, and it saved so many lives around
    the world.
        And with us reducing the peacekeeping amount, I think that
    we have--and we, at that time, agreed that we would continue to
    support peacekeeping since it was so vital. Other parts we had
    questions with--the political part, et cetera, et cetera--but
    peacekeeping was something that we did make an agreement with.
    I think that it would be unfair for us now to turn our back on
    our, really, sort of, the candidate that we supported because
    we thought he would do the best to reform the United Nations.
        So, over the past few years, the United States has returned
    to good financial standing at the U.N. by honoring its
    financial obligations and fully funding its peacekeeping dues.
    A full funding for the U.N. peacekeeping budget ensures that
    the world body can carry out its vital work, stabilizing
    conflict zones and promoting democratic governance.
        Peacekeeping missions have played an important role in
    international conflicts and bringing about international peace.
    Peacekeeping missions have continued to keep American soldiers
    out of numerous international conflicts, as well as save
    American taxpayer dollars in the long run, while maintaining
    focus on the United States' long-term foreign policy goals. As
    we know, peacekeepers are throughout the world--in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, places that we have a very strong interest. And
    because peacekeepers are there, it saves the United States our
    manpower and dollars.
        Recent negotiations have changed the amount necessary for
    the United States to provide for peacekeeping missions. One-
    point-nine-two billion is necessary for the United States to
    appropriate in order to fulfill its requirements to the United
    Nations peacekeeping missions.
        The measure also authorizes an additional $60 million for
    peacekeeping missions in Sudan. Current conflicts in Abyei,
    South Kordofan, and Blue Nile states have created an immediate
    need of attention from the international community and the U.N.
    peacekeeping. And had it not been for the U.S.'s interest in
    South Sudan with President Clinton and then with President Bush
    appointing Senator Danforth and so many of the supporters from
    the Republican side of the aisle, in particular in our U.S.
    Senate, with Democrats, perhaps South Sudan would not be a new
    nation. And I credit, you know, President Bush for continuing
    to push that forward, as President Obama.
        The United States has invested significant time and
    resources in that struggle. The U.S. votes for each and every
    U.N. peacekeeping mission on the Security Council; it should
    also pay them. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security
    Council, the U.S. plays a leading rule----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne [continuing]. In authorizing the peacekeeping.
        And if one of my colleagues, when our time comes, would
    yield me about 1 minute----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am sure they will.
        Mr. Payne [continuing]. I will be able to complete----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. First Henry Hyde is quoted, now Bush
    is being thanked.
        Mr. Payne. I am throwing you--you know, I am name-dropping.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And first off, I would like to point out that this would
    increase the level of authorized appropriations for U.S.
    assessed contributions to the U.N. peacekeeping to nearly $2
    billion.
        My good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Payne, on Africa,
    Global Health, and Human Rights, has made an impassioned plea
    to increase the amount authorized, not just to meet the
    request, which assumed a rate of assessment at 27.14 percent,
    but to increase it by an additional $60 million, so that we can
    pay for a peacekeeping mission that does not yet exist.
        While I am sympathetic to the need to secure the border
    regions between Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan--and the
    violence there has been deplorable--but I would like to point
    out to the author of this amendment that the administration's
    request for the Sudan mission that recently was terminated was
    well-padded.
        There is more than enough left over from the UNMIS request
    to cover the new mission in South Sudan and the mission in
    Abyei. We know that the United Nations currently is holding
    some $436 million in credits or overpayments for U.N.
    peacekeeping; $13.9 million of those credits are for Sudan.
    These credits can be used to offset any shortfalls that may
    arise due to the new needs in Sudan.
        Further, the administration's request included funding for
    the Somalia mission that has been moved to another account. The
    adjusted request factoring out of the Somalian mission is
    another $1.82 billion. Yet the amendment goes beyond and above
    the request by $160 million.
        I would like to point out that, in this budgetary
    environment, we simply cannot justify authorizing
    appropriations at levels above and beyond which even the U.N.
    is asking at levels which are beyond the statutory cap and at
    levels that assume needs that are not yet known.
        And so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I would like to yield my
    time to the gentleman from New Jersey.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        As I was getting ready to conclude, I do think that, first
    of all, the $60 million is a contingency fund. We are saying
    that we should it set aside; that if, indeed, it is necessary,
    that we would therefore move into that fund.
        And I certainly appreciate the interest and the accuracy of
    which the previous speaker spoke and her interest in trying to
    be just. And I do agree that we certainly have budgetary
    problems. I think this, though--U.N. peacekeeping--first of
    all, the U.S. votes for each and every U.N. peacekeeping
    mission on the Security Council since we have--that is one of
    the things the Security Council has, and we have the privilege
    of being one of the five countries on it. And so we have a
    special responsibility. Other members of the Security Council
    are paying their fair share.
        And as a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S.
    plays a leading role in authorizing and renewing peacekeeping
    missions. In fact, it was during, once again, the Bush
    administration that there was the largest growth in
    peacekeeping because of that administration's recognition that
    these missions serve our national interest and are cost-
    effective.
        No U.N. peacekeeping mission can be deployed if it is
    vetoed by the U.S. on the Security Council. Therefore, the U.S.
    authorizes every peacekeeping mission. And failure to pay our
    dues in full sends a negative message to countries who
    contribute troops to the U.N. peacekeeping mission. And, as you
    know, we do not contribute troops to peacekeeping
    organizations. They are all from other countries that put their
    persons into harm's way.
        When we fail to pay our peacekeeping dues, when we don't
    pay them in full, U.S. allies, such as India, Bangladesh, and
    Jordan, who each provide thousands of military and police
    personnel to the U.N. peacekeeping operations, do not receive
    adequate payment for their contributions.
        And so, I think that it is very important. I do know that
    we are under tough times, and I would hope that we would
    consider.
        I yield back my time to Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, reclaiming my time.
        I thank the gentleman for sharing with us some of the
    concerns as it relates to his proposal for the increase in our
    peacekeeping program with the United Nations.
        I would like to ask the gentleman, though, what would be
    the consequences if we don't provide this critically needed
    additional funding for the peacekeeping operations of the
    United Nations?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Well, right now, in Abyei, which is still a
    disputed region, South Kordofan, the Nuba Mountain region are
    still in dispute. The Government of Sudan has sent planes in.
    They are bombing, they are killing people. And the U.N. is
    willing to go there to be the buffer.
        I happened to have the privilege to attend the celebration
    in South Sudan. And Presidents of dozens and dozens and dozens
    of countries were there, all of them praising the United States
    of America, even some that are not our great friends, saying
    what we have done in such a humanitarian way, and the pride
    that the South Sudanese had on their independence, becoming the
    193rd country in the world, the 53rd country in Africa.
        So I yield back to the gentleman.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would also like to say to the
    gentleman, it is not so much the money but it is the principle.
        Mr. Payne. That is correct.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The fact that our country has got to
    continue the engagement process, especially with countries like
    South Sudan, who has just been liberated and brand-new. And
    with all the serious problems facing the continent of Africa, I
    ask the gentleman how serious we are at this point in juncture
    in our relationship, not just on a bilateral basis with a
    country like South Sudan but throughout all of Africa. And I
    would like to ask the gentleman--I have 29 seconds--the
    consequence, again, if we don't increase the funding.
        Mr. Payne. Well, the consequence could be that the
    Government of Sudan's indicted war criminal, al-Bashir, will
    then have rein to go back in and destroy much of what we have
    put our energy in. Like I said, this has been a bipartisan
    method from President Bush to President Clinton to President
    Obama, and I think it would be disastrous if we turned our back
    at this time.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman.
        I yield back, Madam.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        I am looking for frantic hand signals.
        And Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I just would like to remind everyone
    that, again, we are talking about borrowing money from China in
    order to provide services or benefits to people overseas.
    Hopefully, it provides benefit to our own people, as well.
        But let me just disagree with what we have just heard. This
    isn't just about the principle of the matter. This is about
    money. And we are borrowing money from China to expend it
    overseas, leaving our children in debt. And we better darn well
    think that this money is being well-spent and is important for
    the young people of our country.
        Now, $60 million is a lot of money in order for us to
    provide to the people of Sudan. And increasing our expenditures
    here for the United Nations from 173.5 to 192, well, that is an
    important--increasing that level.
        But, Mr. Payne, let me just note, when you said that,
    ``Well, as you know, the United States doesn't participate in
    peacekeeping, we don't put our people in harm's way,'' all of
    the things we do overseas are part of peacekeeping operations.
    We just don't have them under United Nations' command, as we
    shouldn't. We have thousands of people who have lost their
    lives trying to bring some type of acceptable government in
    Iraq. Six thousand people gave them their lives.
        No, we put our people in harm's way a lot. And we have
    nothing to be ashamed of, in terms of saying, ``No, we are not
    going to put them under United Nations' command.'' But I think
    that that is no less a sacrifice. Our people in Afghanistan who
    are losing their lives are no less sacrificing their lives for
    a general better world than are those people who are in
    Afghanistan under United Nations' command.
        Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
        Mr. Payne. No, I certainly couldn't agree with you more. We
    have people that have been in places around the world since the
    end of World War II. We are still in Germany and Japan and
    Okinawa. There is no question about it.
        And, secondly, I know that we have had many of our troops
    in harm's way. We lost 18 Rangers in Somalia. I was there a
    week or so before that happened and went back and, as a matter
    of fact, at that time even had my plane shot at, as it happened
    just a year or 2 ago. So I know that we do have people in
    harm's way, and I am not--in no way minimizing that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Payne. And so I think we are on the same accord. I am
    talking about the issues, that the world agrees, that we need
    to have some sort of peacekeeping apparatus.
        And so I appreciate giving me the opportunity to clarify my
    position.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher yields back.
        And Mr. Payne has asked for a recorded vote, so the clerk
    will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack--Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Please record me as an aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 21 noes
    and 17 ayes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment has not been adopted.
        And we will continue to our next amendment on this section.
        And I do note that Mr. Pence had walked in, but I will be
    starting the vote and we will end the vote once the clerk
    starts tallying. So I apologize for any members who come late,
    but otherwise we will never end. Thank you.
        Any other amendments on this?
        Mr. Poe. Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe is recognized.
        Mr. Poe. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. What number, Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. 164.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Poe of
    Texas. In section 102 of the bill, after the first dollar
    amount, insert ``(reduced by $395,453,750)''.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
    and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The United States donates, contributes approximately $5
    billion to $6 billion annually to the United Nations. Most of
    that money goes to peacekeeping activities; $1.5 billion of
    that is the U.N. regular budget. This amendment cuts 25 percent
    of that regular U.N. budget which the United States
    participates in, which is 22 percent--of all of the money that
    goes into that fund, the United States is responsible for 22
    percent of that. So it cuts 25 percent of that fund does not
    deal with peacekeeping funds at all.
        There are many reasons for this amendment. One of them is
    the problem with corruption in the United Nations and the tenor
    of the United Nations in its relationship with not just the
    United States but with Israel. There are examples of this: The
    United Nations pays for anti-Semitic textbooks to be given to
    Palestinian children. Even the former United Nations Secretary-
    General Boutros Boutros-Ghali once made this comment: ``Perhaps
    half of the U.N. workforce does nothing useful.'' That is from
    the U.N. former Secretary-General. I couldn't agree with him
    more on that assessment of the United Nations.
        It is time for the United States to promote getting rid of
    corruption in the United Nations. Also, the money that goes to
    the organizations in the United Nations like the Human Rights
    Council, made up of such stellar and stoic human rights
    advocates such as China and Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Syria.
    The United States and the Human Rights Council have been at
    odds over the years of their treatment of, especially, Israel.
        There are other examples. The United Nations in 2006
    created a task force to investigate fraud in its own
    organization, which was a great idea. The organization that did
    so found over $1 billion in tainted contracts. And so the
    United Nations, in honor of this organization they formed,
    disbanded it because it was finding corruption in the U.N. So
    they shut down an organization that was finding corruption in
    its own organization.
        So, after years of inaction and waste and fraud and abuse
    and scandal, the United States' unconditional funding has to
    stop. This is one way to get the attention of the U.N. This is
    limiting 25 percent of the regular fund. Once again, it does
    not affect, in any way, the peacekeeping contributions, which
    is the vast majority of the funds that the United States
    contributes to the U.N.
        And I will yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you, Judge Poe.
        The Chair withdraws the point of order and recognizes Mr.
    Berman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        This, in effect, is a 25 percent cut in our treaty-
    obligated dues assessment from the United Nations--25 percent.
    I admire the author for his restraint. We have unilaterally
    pulled out of the OAS, but here we are only going to
    shortchange them by what we owe by 25 percent.
        But the underlying point that my friend from Texas makes
    regarding waste and corruption and a bureaucracy that is
    bloated and inefficient, there have been--we could spend hours
    talking about efforts to deal with that issue. The only thing I
    would point out is nothing in this amendment seeks to deal with
    that issue. This is not an amendment that withdraws funds
    unless certain kinds of reforms take place. It is a unilateral
    cut in our treaty-obligated assessment.
        Now, I know we don't want the Supreme Court to consider
    international law, but I did think that Members of Congress
    considered treaties ratified by the Congress and the U.S.
    Senate to be obligations as much as any of the laws that we
    pass.
        And I just have to, once again, point out that whatever
    changes we would like to make in the U.N.--and heaven knows
    there are many--this is both an improper way to go about it and
    a way that will not achieve the goals that the gentleman has
    articulated.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Buerkle is recognized.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I just want to lend my support to this amendment. I think
    that this is the responsible thing to do. We have heard the
    gentleman from California talking about American taxpayers'
    dollars and us being good stewards of them. I think this is a
    good opportunity for us to make sure the money we are
    contributing to the U.N. is not used in a useless manner and we
    are good stewards of the American taxpayers' money.
        So I want to lend my support to this amendment. I think it
    is the right thing to do.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And Mr. Carnahan has an amendment that he would like to
    offer at this time. Mr. Carnahan is recognized----
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have an
    amendment to Mr. Poe's amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment offered by Mr. Carnahan to the
    amendment offered by Mr. Poe. Insert new subsection (b) and
    redesignate previous subsection(s) accordingly. Waiver. The
    Secretary may waive the above provision if the Secretary
    determines that any such reduction would harm any of the
    following activities funded through the United Nations Regular
    Budget in Iraq and Afghanistan: 1. Demining programs. 2. Police
    training program. 3. Narco-trafficking, poppy eradication, or
    other efforts to counteract illicit drugs.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Do all members have a copy of Mr. Carnahan's amendment?
        While that is being distributed, Mr. Carnahan is recognized
    to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This is an amendment to Mr. Poe's amendment cutting the
    U.N. assessed dues.
        I appreciate the work of my friend from Texas to push the
    U.N. to reform, and I hope he will accept this amendment in the
    spirit in which it is offered, to, again, be part of that push
    for reform, but at the same time continuing to look out for our
    national interest.
        I think the underlying amendment, by itself, in just having
    a dramatic reduction in our funding obligations, would
    jeopardize our national security interest and violate our
    treaty obligations, as was mentioned by the ranking member.
        While it is absolutely true there has been an increase in
    the U.N. regular budget over the last 10 years, the primary
    driver of the increase is the special political missions, or
    the SPMs. The two largest U.N. political missions which
    comprise most of the funding are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Political missions such as these focus on democracy assistance
    and institution-building and are funded out of the U.N. regular
    budget.
        It is these kinds of missions that are the kind of civilian
    surge that our military and intelligence experts advise us are
    needed as military operations are winding down. It also means
    that the U.S. pays only 22 percent of their cost and other
    nations pay 78 percent.
        My amendment would allow this provision to be waived if--
    and I want to emphasize ``if''--the Secretary determines that
    any such reduction would harm any of the following activities
    funded through the U.N. regular budget in Iraq and Afghanistan:
    Specifically, demining programs; police training programs;
    narcotrafficking, poppy eradication, or other efforts to
    counteract illicit drugs.
        This amendment I think will ensure our national security
    interests are protected, will also be sure that we honor our
    treaty obligations. And I hope my friend from Texas will,
    again, accept this in the spirit in which it is offered, to be
    sure we can continue those interests.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan.
        Does any member wish to be heard on the amendment to the
    amendment?
        Judge Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Madam Speaker, I have a question for Mr. Carnahan.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan, will you yield the
    time to Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Carnahan. Yes, I yield.
        Mr. Poe. It is my understanding that these three activities
    do not come out of this specific fund but they come out of the
    peacekeeping fund. Am I correct or incorrect about that?
        Mr. Carnahan. That is my understanding, as well.
        Mr. Poe. Reclaiming my time, the----
        Mr. Carnahan. I am sorry, I am being corrected. That is not
    the case.
        Mr. Poe. All right.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Poe. I will yield to the ranking member.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. I am quite sure that these specific programs
    come out of the regular budget of the U.N., not the
    peacekeeping budget. And I think that that is the purpose of
    putting this amendment to your amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Does anyone wish--Mr. Connolly, to be heard on the
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Certainly, I think that the amendment offered by our
    colleague from Missouri improves the underlying amendment, but
    it doesn't really address that underlying set of issues.
        The idea that the United States could, even with this
    waiver, cut 25 percent of its contribution to the multilateral
    body that we helped create would represent yet another
    strategic retreat by this committee and, if adopted as policy
    of the United States, by the United States of America from our
    multilateral obligations and from our willingness to engage
    with the rest of the world as a great power.
        And so I certainly will support my colleague's perfecting
    amendment, but I will not, sadly, be able to support Judge
    Poe's underlying amendment, because I think it is yet another
    example in this brief markup already of a stunning retreat from
    America's obligations and responsibilities as a world power.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Schmidt is recognized to speak on the amendment to the
    amendment.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
        Will the gentleman answer a question for me? Because I am a
    little confused.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Which gentleman are you referring
    to?
        Mrs. Schmidt. The gentleman that offered the amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Carnahan, yes.
        Can't the President waive this already? Isn't it in his
    power to do so, so this would be unnecessary?
        Mr. Carnahan. Not to my understanding. This amendment would
    just specifically allow this to be waived by the Secretary if
    the Secretary determines it would do harm to these activities
    that are being funded through the regular budget for Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chair, my confusion with this amendment
    is that we really don't know which account it really comes out
    of. We are assuming it comes out of a certain account. We don't
    know who has the authority to waive this. We are assuming that
    certain folks do and certain folks don't.
        And I think that maybe we should hold off on the amendment
    until we get better clarification, or I would just urge my
    colleagues to vote no.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is asking for time,
    Ms. Schmidt.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you yield?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Carnahan, let me see if we are reading
    this correctly. The way your amendment is written, if, indeed,
    the 25 percent reduction that Mr. Poe is suggesting in any way
    affects demining, police training, narcotrafficking,
    eradication, then the entire 25 percent is knocked out? Or just
    the 25--just the effect on those specific issues?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt, would you like to yield
    to Mr. Carnahan to answer Mr. Rohrabacher's question?
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Yes, I yield.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, I----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Could you rephrase the question?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Carnahan, your proposed amendment,
    would it--let's put it this way. You are talking about--Mr. Poe
    is talking about a 25 percent reduction, and you are saying
    that only the demining programs, police training programs, and
    narcotrafficking or other illicit drug programs, only if those
    are affected, the entire 25 percent reduction for everything
    else is not applicable? Or you are just saying that they may
    waive--the effect of this may be waived just on those specific
    programs?
        Mr. Carnahan. Yes, that is what the amendment does. And,
    again, we have identified those specific programs because they
    have been the primary driver of the increase in those special
    political missions.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. When you said ``yes,'' I am not quite sure
    what ``yes'' was. ``Yes'' means that the entire 25 percent
    reduction is eliminated if it affects these programs? Or is the
    only part that is eliminated is those parts of the 25 percent
    of these three programs?
        Mr. Carnahan. The former, that the 25 percent would be
    waived.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So the whole 25 percent. So, in other
    words, Mr. Poe's amendment is neutered totally, not just for
    these programs, if these programs are affected at all?
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I am just asking for information.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let me see. That is Ms. Schmidt's
    time that has been handed over. And, Mr. Berman, she will yield
    to you.
        Mr. Berman. I appreciate it.
        Through the gentlelady from Ohio, I would like to ask the
    gentleman from California, would he be willing to borrow from
    China to protect the demining programs, the police training
    programs, and the narcotrafficking programs in Iraq and
    Afghanistan?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. May I answer?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Yes, you may.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. The answer is no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Ms. Schmidt, do you yield back?
        Mrs. Schmidt. I yield back unless anyone else wants a
    portion of my time.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. If I could just clarify what we just----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Would you like Ms. Schmidt's time?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. She has 1 minute left.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So, let me clarify what we have just
    determined by this exchange, that your amendment, Mr. Carnahan,
    actually would just say eliminate all of what Mr. Poe is trying
    to do if, indeed, it has any impact on demining and police
    training, et cetera, rather than just it exempts those from the
    25 percent cut.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Again, I would direct the gentleman to the
    language of the amendment, that the Secretary may waive the
    above provision if the Secretary determines that such reduction
    would harm----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So, yes.
        Mr. Carnahan [continuing]. These listed activities.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So the answer--my reading of that is yes.
        Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Reclaiming her time, Ms. Schmidt is
    recognized, 15 seconds.
        Mrs. Schmidt. I think I got it. What you really want to do
    is kill Mr. Poe's amendment. Got it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt, do you yield your time?
        Mrs. Schmidt. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. She does.
        And seeing no further requests for time, we will now vote
    on the amendment offered by Mr. Carnahan, which is the
    amendment to Mr. Poe.
        So the clerk will call the roll on Mr. Carnahan's amendment
    to Mr. Poe's amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 16 ayes
    and 23 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        Now we go back to Mr. Poe's underlying amendment. Does
    anyone seek recognition to speak on the amendment, or shall we
    go for a vote?
        Thank you.
        A recorded vote has been requested on the Poe amendment.
    The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members have been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 23 ayes
    and 17 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to.
        Are there any other amendments to this section/title?
        Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have an
    amendment. It should be labeled 560 at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are going to hold a while the
    clerk will read the whole amendment while we get it passed out.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Carnahan
    of Missouri. Strike section 103(a).
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We are going to wait 1
    second while the amendment gets passed out.
        The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
    author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
        Mr. Carnahan is recognized.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This amendment
    would strike the statement of policy in section 103(a) in the
    bill that limits the U.S.'s contribution for U.N. peacekeeping
    operations to no more than 25 percent of the total of all
    assessed contributions for U.N. peacekeeping operations. The
    U.S. is currently assessed approximately 27 percent by
    negotiated amount.
        Paying our dues on time and in full is in our Nation's best
    interest. U.N. peacekeeping operations are cost effective. For
    example, a 2005 GAO study found that funding the U.S.
    peacekeeping force in Haiti was eight times less expensive than
    fielding a comparable U.S. force. These operations allow the
    U.S. to not send our military into conflict zones. They provide
    increased political influence at the U.N., and this cap is
    arbitrary.
        It has been waived nearly every year since it was
    instituted in 1994. From 1994 to 2011, bipartisan majorities
    have waived this cap in all but 3 years. From 2005 to 2007, the
    cap was not lifted, and the U.S. went into arrears. The
    practical effect was that countries who provided troops did
    receive payment for missions that the U.S. advocated for and
    authorized. It undermined our credibility, and it undermined
    the viability of peacekeeping missions and their ability to
    protect civilians.
        It is important to remember that an arbitrary cap is not
    necessary because no U.N. peacekeeping mission can be
    authorized and deployed and thus paid for if it is vetoed by
    the U.S. at the Security Council. And it is important to know
    that the U.S. renegotiates assessed rates with the U.N. every 3
    years, and the U.S. peacekeeping rate has dropped from 31
    percent down to 27 percent in the last 10 years.
        While this amendment only strikes the statement of policy
    in the underlying bill, it does not do anything to affect the
    underlying law. I urge support for this amendment and urge the
    committee to really review this underlying cap in the future.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do you yield back?
        Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        The Chair withdraws the point of order.
        Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the
    Carnahan amendment?
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
        Just briefly, Madam Chairman, I speak in favor of the
    amendment.
        I think again we have to avoid the false choice being
    presented to us that we cannot afford our own diplomacy.
    Peacekeeping saves billions of dollars for the United States.
    It allows us on a multilateral basis to do things we otherwise,
    frankly, could not do and could not afford on a bilateral
    basis.
        Henry Kissinger certainly didn't think about, well, I can
    only afford 25 percent and no more when he successful got the
    parties in the 1973 war, after the 1973 war, to disengage and
    to help persuade the United Nations to put peacekeeping forces
    in place in the Golan Heights, where they remain today keeping
    the peace, or the Sinai disengagement that ultimately led to
    the Camp David--successful Camp David Accord with Egypt
    recognizing Israel and the disengagement there.
        We must preserve flexibility, and we shouldn't have rigid
    strictures that limit the ability of our diplomats to
    successfully accomplish diplomacy in our Nation's interests on
    a multilateral basis. I yield back.
        Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
        Mr. Berman. I thank the distinguished gentleman for
    yielding. And I just agree with every point he made. But the
    one thing I would like to say to my friends on the other side,
    all right, you want to unilaterally--you want to lower the cap
    from 27 to 25 percent; you cut about $185 million from the
    peacekeeping budget. Mr. Connolly has laid out I think very
    clearly why from a fiscal point of view that is not a smart
    thing to do.
        But don't you at least then have some obligation to say
    which of these peacekeeping missions--we are helping to fund
    about 15 of them--which of these peacekeeping missions do you
    want to chop off, do we want to stop doing what we are doing in
    Haiti? Do we want to end the Sudan operation? In other words,
    you like to talk about 40 cents on the dollar, and you are
    right about the issue of the deficit, but then you have to make
    choices. So why don't you make the choices about which ones you
    don't think are necessary. Which are the priority peacekeeping
    missions? Which are the ones that aren't a priority? Some
    responsibility--when you are talking about unilaterally
    changing the formula for funding these operations, it seems to
    me obligates you to at least tell us whether it is the Sudan,
    whether it is the Congo, whether it is Haiti, which--whether it
    is the groups on the Lebanon-Israel border, which are the ones
    should we wipe out as a result of this change in the lay?
        And I yield back to my friend.
        Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. Who seeks--yes, I would yield to my
    distinguished colleague.
        Mr. Payne. Let me just continue on with Ranking Member
    Berman.
        I think that if indeed we are going to say that there has
    to be a reduction, just as we would do in any other kind of
    reduction, whether it is even in your household, you would
    decide whether you are going to fix the roof or just remodel
    the kitchen, I think that we ought to, since there is this
    drive to stop China from lending us money all of a sudden--I
    didn't know the only place we borrow money from is China, but
    China is the topic today--why don't we try then to prioritize,
    and then we could at least make some semblance of sense out of
    this, rather than just nonsensical where we just cut and let
    the chips sort of fall where they may. So I certainly support
    the amendment by the gentleman from Missouri.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Just to summarize all of these points, of course, very on
    point, I think it is also important, frankly, to say that
    without this multilateral peacekeeping operation, U.S.
    taxpayers would be footing the bill for more unilateral
    preemptive actions or even reactive actions all over the world,
    and we have already seen the folly of that model in Iraq and in
    other places as well. So, frankly, this is a bargain for the
    United States. It saves taxpayer dollars and allows us to do
    something we otherwise, frankly, could not could on a bilateral
    basis.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Ms. Buerkle is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would just like to remind my colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle that section 103 of this bill does not create a
    peacekeeping cap, but instead, it simply reiterates what is
    already in public law. I think we in this United States are in
    an economic crisis, and the American people can no longer bear
    to really--really to bear a disproportionate share of
    peacekeeping.
        So I think it is time for the United States Congress, as
    well as the United Nations, to abide by a law and commitments
    that have been made a decade ago. I am opposed to this
    amendment.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
        Does any member seek--Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        I would just note that this cap was first established by--
    in a partnership. One of the co-authors was Vice President
    Biden, I believe. In 1999 and maybe his judgment then was
    better than it is now, I don't know. I would have to ask. But
    in terms of answering Mr. Berman's specific point that we
    should be willing to be specific, I will wait until he can hear
    me answer him.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He can hear.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Berman, to answer your specific
    point--and I think it was a very justified point--that we
    should not be here talking in generalities, that we should be
    willing to be very specific. And the answer to your specific
    question is, yes, there are many places of the list that I
    would be very happy to and I believe my fellow Republicans
    would be very happy not to have intervention if it costs the
    American people money for that U.N. intervention. Yes, we would
    rather spend it at home doing those things that I reiterated
    that are important for our own people. That is the answer.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Not until I make the last point. That is
    that this cap, by eliminating it, would cost over an extra $100
    million. Maybe you would like to be specific as to where--what
    you are going to eliminate in order to come up with that $100
    million.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Well, let us start with that deduction for the
    jets----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. This is a United Nations budget.
        Mr. Berman. No, no. This is our budget.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Berman. This is our cap. This is not a United Nations
    cap. I mean, I have got a whole list I would be happy to give
    you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I happen to agree with getting rid of as
    many loopholes----
        Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman's appreciation of my
    point. And the only thing I would say is I look forward to his
    amendment. We have got a list of 15 peacekeeping missions. I
    believe some are more important than the others. Let us--I look
    forward to the amendment which tells us which ones to fund and
    which ones not to fund. And if none of them should be funded,
    then 25 percent is a ridiculous cap. It should be zero.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
        I said I would be very happy to work with the gentleman to
    come up with a list of areas not to intervene in order to save
    the taxpayers' money. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen A recorded vote has been requested by
    Mr. Carnahan and the clerk will call the roll.
        This is on the Carnahan amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes yes.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes yes.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Mack?
        Ms. Carroll. You are not recorded, sir.
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote, there are 18
    ayes and 23 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        Are there any other amendments to this title?
        Mr. Payne is recognized.
        Mr. Payne. I have an amendment----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Which one, Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Let us try 561, and then we will do all the 20
    others after that.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Payne of
    New Jersey. Amend section 103 to read as follows: Section 103.
    Statement of policy regarding peacekeeping operations
    contributions. (a) In General. Except as provided in subsection
    (b), it remains the policy of the United States pursuant to
    section 404(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
    Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.
    Code 287e note) that United States assessed contributions for a
    United Nations peacekeeping operation shall not exceed 25
    percent of the total of all assessed contributions for such
    operation. (b) Exception. Notwithstanding any other provision
    of law, United States assessed contributions for United Nations
    peacekeeping operations in the Republic of Sudan and the
    Republic of South Sudan are exempt from the percentage
    limitation referred to in subsection (a).----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Dispense with the reading.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members have the amendment on
    their desk.
        So, without objection, the Chair reserves a point of order
    and recognizes the author of amendment, Mr. Payne, for 5
    minutes to explain the amendment.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And as I indicated previously, I do believe that if indeed
    and since the amendment to reduce our contributions to the
    United Nations peacekeeping by several hundred million we, I
    believe, then should move forward in a way that we tend to at
    least hold several harmless--hold harmless some very important
    peacekeeping operations. It certainly does not alter the cap
    that has been passed by this committee. It simply says that
    there are some areas that currently need to have more support,
    that they need to be protected.
        There are different levels of peacekeeping and their
    importance. It is almost like in Dante's ``Inferno,'' there are
    seven levels of purgatory. So I would simply say that we ought
    to hold several of the peacekeeping operations harmless.
        And therefore, Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment,
    which would exempt U.N. peacekeeping operations in South Sudan
    and Abyei from proposed percentage limitations as referred to
    in subsection (a). The U.N. Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and
    the U.N. Interim Security Forces for Abyei (UNISFA) protects
    the U.S.-backed Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA, that we
    saw signed by--there and we celebrated with President Bush in
    2001 on the lawn of the White House and, as we all mentioned,
    the birth of a new nation, the 53rd in sub-Saharan Africa and
    193rd in the world. We think it is very important that at the
    inception--it is just like a new baby being born; there has to
    be intensive care. There needs to be a special kind of
    nurturing. There needs to be the support.
        And for us to allow a cap of peacekeeping to interfere with
    the many years, as you know, in the South Sudan situation, 4
    million people were displaced, 2 million people died back in
    1993 when I met Salva Kiir and the founder of the movement John
    Garang, I came back and offered a resolution to the Congress
    saying that the people of South Sudan should have the right of
    self-determination, which really was the first beginning to a
    new nation in South Sudan. I was on the battlefield with the
    South Sudanese Liberation Army, and they had just captured some
    vehicles from the north in Bashir's Army.
        So this amendment would ensure that the U.N. peacekeeping
    mission in Sudan are fully funded so they can continue to
    advance our interests. On July 9, 2011, dignitaries from around
    the world stood and watched South Sudan be born after 20 years
    of civil war, resulting in countless lives be lost to the
    conflict and starvation. The Bush administration played an
    active role in getting both sides to agree to the CPA. Peace
    isn't easy, so peacekeeping forces of UNMISS and UNICEF are on
    the ground to ensure that peace is kept.
        They are working to prevent border skirmishes and to disarm
    and demobilize ex-combatants. They are there to facilitate
    humanitarian aid and help to build a new nation's police and
    security forces. The World Health Organization and UNICEF are
    ensuring that the medical supplies are getting there to those
    who need it, and the U.N.--and I would certainly urge someone
    on my side to give me another minute as my time has expired.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the
    Payne amendment.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
        First off, I fully understand the importance of supporting
    security and stability in the Sudan. However, once we start
    making an exception for one mission, we have to start making an
    exception for all of them.
        The issue at stake is adhering to U.S. law, and U.S. law,
    as reflected in the historic Helms-Biden agreement, states that
    the maximum U.S. rate of assessment is 25 percent.
        Further, the U.S. certainly maintains over $13.8 million in
    unspent peacekeeping credits for the U.N. mission in Sudan,
    UNMISS. This means that the U.S. has overpaid our commitment by
    $13.8 million, and those assets would be readily available to
    fill any gaps if they occur.
        So while I appreciate the sensitivity and the importance of
    the issue raised with this amendment, we must remain mindful of
    our current economic crisis, and as such, I respectfully urge a
    no vote on this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I just want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey in
    offering this amendment.
        And in my humble opinion, Madam Chair, no one as a member
    of this committee has probably had more experience and a sense
    of expertise in dealing with issues affecting the people and
    the countries in Africa.
        At this time, I would like to turn my time over to the
    gentleman from New Jersey to elaborate further the importance
    of this amendment.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        And in all due respect, I am not sure that this amendment
    violates U.S. law. You have made a vote, which says that needs
    to be the 25 percent limit. And that is what the funding will
    be.
        All we are saying is that we should have a priority of
    keeping certain countries harmless, even with the amendment on
    the OAS. Many of the countries have been very, very fair and
    very supportive of the USA. However when we throw them all out
    together, we throw the baby out with the bath water. And I
    don't think that that is wise in personal life and certainly as
    we deal with the world.
        So what I am simply saying is that it would certainly be
    important that we ensure that the two peacekeeping operations
    in South Sudan, which does not alter, does not impact on the
    amount of funds that we are going to contribute to
    peacekeeping--that is what has been voted on, and as it leaves
    the House, that is what it is. And I just cannot understand why
    there would be so much opposition to a commonsense amendment
    that would simply say there definitely tends to be higher
    priority, even as we deal with communicable diseases.
        There are certain diseases that need more intensive care
    and attention than others. A common cold we don't deal with as
    we do perhaps the HIV virus.
        We ought to be able to prioritize without making it a sin
    that we are doing something when we are not altering the bottom
    line, so to speak. So I would even further mention that
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that U.N. peacekeeping
    is much more cost-effective than using American force, as we
    know.
        We are not even talking about that. We are simply saying
    that America doesn't have the forces to do these things. And so
    we are simply saying, let's just prioritize the countries.
    There are one or two others that I think fall into this
    category. So I would urge the other side to rethink your
    position.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman would like----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would gladly yield 30 seconds----
        Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mrs. Schmidt raised, and I think it was raised before, the
    issue of the law. And it is a very fair point.
        As a result of that deal, the cap statutorily was moved to
    25 percent. And then, of course, what happened, that was all
    part of a deal that had other previous arrearages being paid.
    It was a deal in the finest and ugliest sense of the word.
        And to show you how that deal was kept, in almost every
    year since that time, the appropriators waive the provision of
    that law and fund 27 percent. And that happened while George
    Bush was President and the Republican Party controlled both
    Houses of Congress because of the fact that we never managed to
    reduce our percent share through the international negotiations
    like we did do with our regular peacekeeping--with our regular
    dues obligation at the U.N., where we did negotiate a lower
    percentage.
        And so the consequence was in a couple of years where they
    didn't do that, later on, we just paid the arrearages for it,
    which will happen again.
        Here is the one--I understand your position and I think it
    is a legitimate position. We should pay a lower percentage. I
    think the right way to do it is negotiate it. But you are doing
    it this way.
        But what Mr. Payne is saying is really, let's prioritize.
    And here is a case where what is happening in the Sudan and
    given the story in Darfur and the story in South Sudan and the
    work under the Bush administration to deal with these issues,
    this is one place where let's fully fund our share, 27 percent.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Faleomavaega's time has expired.
        Does any other member--Mr. Connolly and then Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I find myself in the odd position in the sense of agreeing
    with my colleague, Mrs. Schmidt, from Ohio. I supported the
    gentleman's amendment to restore $60 million for peacekeeping
    in Sudan. I oppose an artificial rigid cap of peacekeeping
    operations at 25 percent.
        But as the gentleman from New Jersey has phrased it, he is
    asking us in this vote to actually express on the part of this
    committee a priority. I have trouble with that. I have trouble
    saying that the Sudan trumps everything, including UNIFIL,
    including U.N. troops on the Golan Heights, for example. I
    think they are all important. I think--and I made that case.
        And so I certainly will yield to the gentleman from New
    Jersey if he wish, but I have to say to him, I am not reassured
    by his explanation because I think he actually gave voice to
    exactly what bothers me about this amendment, that we are
    saying the Sudan is different, even though I support it, but it
    is so different that it is actually more important than some
    other, I think, very vital U.N. operations we support and to
    keep the peace, especially in the Middle East.
        So, with that, I would yield to my friend.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much to the gentleman, who is a
    very thoughtful, professor type.
        But let me just get back to reality. There are some
    missions that are more important, unfortunately, than others.
    That is why they have votes, and everyone that wants
    peacekeeping, that doesn't happen. Let me assure you one thing:
    I doubt very seriously if supporting South Sudan is going to
    impact on the Golan Heights. I don't think we have to worry
    about that. And so to use that as an example I think is less
    than--it is kind of not genuine.
        What I do say, and everyone is entitled to their opinion,
    that it is almost nonsensical to say there are not priorities.
    There are simply every--everyone is created equal, but
    everybody doesn't behave equally. So priorities are a way of
    life.
        I mean--and if we have unique situations--and I would just
    say unique situations, the birth of a new country, a country
    that has gone through some very horrific situation where
    democracy may have been restored when a tyrant has been in, I
    do think that a limited time for a country to be able to get on
    its feet is not in my opinion a very unusual request.
        I would yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I appreciate the remarks of my colleague, but I would
    remind him he is the one who actually just articulated, that,
    yes, I want to rank things; I want to express a hierarchy of
    priorities, and Sudan should be number one. That is what this
    amendment does. And I would remind my friend I already voted
    with his amendment for $60 million restoration for the Sudan.
    And I voted against an artificial 25 percent cap.
        But if we have to live within such a cap, I am troubled by
    saying this one uber alles. And I do think it does raise
    questions about other U.N. peacekeeping missions that are also
    of critical importance to U.S. interests and to world peace. So
    while I completely support the mission in the Sudan, I have
    trouble voting for an amendment that is tantamount to saying,
    but the Sudan is the most important.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson is recognized.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I will yield some time to my colleague from Ohio.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I agree with my good colleague from the other side of the
    aisle on continued--making priorities of how the U.N. should
    spend its money. If we carve out the Sudan, then we are going
    to have to carve out the Congo and then Haiti and so on and so
    on. And at the end of the day, my good friend Mr. Connolly is
    absolutely right; when you get to issues that have legitimate
    concerns as well as these, there may not be anything left for
    them. And so I think we have to say no to this, because it is
    not in our best interest to carve out a niche for one case over
    another, especially in a fluid environment where tomorrow the
    whole game may be a different play.
        Mr. Berman. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No. It would be Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. I yield back, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. I yield Mr. Payne 1 minute or so.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        I will yield to Mr. Berman for 1 minute.
        Mr. Berman. I accept.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you.
        The issue is joined. When it is tough to make--I disagree
    with Mr. Connolly on this one. I wish that the peacekeeping
    forces on the border between Syria and Israel were the glue
    that was ensuring that there would be peace; I don't think they
    are. There are differences in priorities.
        And Mrs. Schmidt, I believe your response is essentially,
    we have got to cut; it is tough to prioritize, so let us just
    cut across the board, not decide which peacekeeping mission is
    working better, which is more efficient; let's abdicate our
    responsibility as a Foreign Affairs Committee to make those
    kinds of miserable, tough decisions and let's just cut across
    the board.
        There is no doubt I am against the lowering of the cap, but
    if that is the way we are going and that is the way we are
    going, then I think what Mr. Payne is doing is an appropriate
    thing. It is asking the committee to make its judgment. If
    someone disagrees and thinks there are other ones, they can
    offer amendments to it, and we can have that debate. That is a
    fair debate to have. But across the board, without any
    judgments about the individual peacekeeping operations doesn't
    sound like a committee exercising its discretion to do the
    most--the smartest thing it could do with the reduced resources
    that we are giving to this.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Payne. Reclaiming my time.
        Okay. I give you 1 minute. And like I said, once again, I
    am a little puzzled by Mr. Connolly, who I am--surprisingly
    supports across-the-board cuts. I guess we then should put that
    into our domestic policies. I am shocked that someone would say
    that everyone should be cut the same or increased the same.
        I have always argued that across-the-board cuts were
    something that made no sense at all, primarily in the domestic
    arena. But everyone certainly is entitled and I have a lot of
    respect for Mr. Connolly, but I am sort of shocked at the
    simplistic across the board, just cut everybody equal, because
    we have to make a cut and that is the simplistic way to do it,
    to me seems asinine to me.
        We have had a special envoy. We don't do special envoys
    everywhere. But we had one for Northern Ireland. We had Mr.
    Mitchell, who was a special envoy. We made a special
    arrangement for him and gave him special powers, and guess
    what? As a result, we have a peace that has unfolded in the
    north of Ireland because we made it a priority. We put a
    special envoy there who worked with groups who had never talked
    to each other before.
        We have had special envoys in Israel to deal with the
    Palestinian-Israeli situation.
        To say you should just cut everything equally, that there
    are no priorities, that everything is equal to me--like I said,
    it is--I certainly respect everybody's opinion----
        Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Meeks' time.
        Mr. Connolly. My question was addressed to Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Let me just say something first. If I have any
    time left, I will yield.
        Cuts affect people or places or things differently. That is
    why I don't think that you can cut across the board. Cuts to
    some folks won't hurt them; some cuts to others can be
    devastating. And we must take that into consideration when--
    especially if you are talking about limiting--putting a cap on
    funds. So we have got to do the best we can with what we have.
        And when you have a scenario that we have had in the Sudan,
    which really had not been prioritized for I don't know how long
    with all of the lives that have been lost, then it would just
    seem to me that the time has come just to simply say, well,
    even to correct the wrong of our past, that we are going to
    look at this and prioritize it. And if there are other items
    that we need to prioritize, let's do that.
        But this--and to cut Sudan at such a critical time--I mean,
    the camera of history is on Sudan right now as a new nation is
    born. And to turn our back on it now, historically when folks
    look back on us, they will say, what kind of decision did you
    make? So we have got to make the kind of decision when we do
    cuts to make sure that it doesn't hurt the least fortunate.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        First of all, I think it should be underscored that
    peacekeeping caps are an attempt to promote burden sharing. It
    is not to cut off peacekeepers. It is to try to get countries,
    especially the European Union, to pick up a greater share of
    their--of the cost associated with peacekeeping.
        Peacekeeping--the peacekeeping burden in Africa, and I say
    this with great pride for the people of Africa, has
    increasingly been borne by the African Union and African Union
    troops. They are actually putting people in the field and doing
    a stellar performance in country after country, and they are in
    Congo--the largest peacekeeping force is in that nation, where
    things continue to be incredibly unstable and could quickly
    erode into even more bloodshed than there currently is today.
        With regards to this amendment, and I do support the
    amendment, I think with the emerging challenges of the newest
    nation on earth in Southern Sudan, the Republic of South Sudan,
    we are dealing with a situation where there is incredible
    volatility, especially in Abyei and in other places, and the
    ability to deploy immediately and without any kind of
    hesitation sufficient troops is paramount.
        So I would say that we need to have the capability--you
    know, caps are great. They have been waived in the past. I
    congratulate the gentlelady for putting a cap again to extend
    burden sharing to other countries that have the ability and the
    capacity to do so.
        But I think when you are talking about Sudan, which remains
    a tinder box of potential conflict, this I think is a prudent
    exception.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Connolly. Would the gentleman before he yields back
    yield me some time?
        Mr. Smith. I would be happy to.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank you because I wanted an opportunity
    to respond to my friend from New Jersey, the other friend from
    New Jersey. I think it is unfair to say to a colleague who
    raises a question about whether we want to make one country's
    peacekeeping operations more important than all others,
    irrespective of the circumstances, that that is tantamount to
    support for an across-the-board cut because I just voted for
    your amendment to restore $60 million to the Sudan. I opposed
    the 25 percent cap and supported the amendment in fact to lift
    it. So they are not the same. But if we, having failed in those
    votes and being asked then, okay, in picking 15 missions, let
    us make this one number one, respectfully, I raise questions
    about that.
        And I would say to my friend, Mr. Berman, you know I would
    agree that the U.N. missions in the Middle East have had
    different records. But I would argue that overall they have
    served a purpose, and I sure wouldn't want to defund them or
    have them withdraw in a volatile part of the world. So that is
    the nature of my concern, and I would hope that that nuance
    could be appreciated without being characterized in a way that
    does not in fact reflect my views.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Hearing
    no----
        Mrs. Schmidt. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. I would be happy to yield.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Again, my concern is carving this out because
    what--because I understand we are going to have more carve-outs
    offered. Why would we ask for an increase in the contributions
    to U.S. peacekeeping to support one over the other? And the
    fact is that we are talking about $436 million in overpayments
    that are already on the table that can be used if they believe
    that they need to be used for the Sudan or for Haiti or for any
    other thing. So I guess my question is to Mr. Payne and to
    anyone else, are we going to ask for any more carve-outs?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Smith's time.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Why Sudan over anyone else?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith yields to Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Well, I--yes, have some other carve-outs, too,
    and I assume they will be treated the same way. But I do think
    there is a priority. I would think that if the arguments made
    for South Sudan cannot be compelling enough to have
    consideration, I certainly question where the others will fall.
    And actually I do, to the gentleman, Mr. Connolly, appreciate
    the support for the other amendment, but I still contend and I
    am not criticizing him, he is--he has the 700,000 people to
    answer to like I do, and it is his opinion, and I respect it.
    The thing that disturbs me is that it seems that there should
    not be priorities and that things should be across the board, I
    still--however he says it, it is kind of an across-the-board
    cut support.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith's time has expired.
        Mr. Payne. And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And hearing no further requests for
    recognition, the question occurs on the amendment, a recorded
    vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Burton?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 18 ayes
    and 21 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        Before I call on the next amendment, the Chair would like
    to say that we will be having a floor vote soon, two votes. And
    we will break for those votes and come back. We won't have the
    second series of votes until 3 o'clock. And so our intent is
    to--if we don't have enough for a vote, we will roll the votes
    to a time certain when we come back after the second series of
    votes, so that people do not miss votes.
        Mr. Berman. Ma'am----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. There will be no votes between the
    first series and the second series, but the intent of the Chair
    is to continue with the debate on the amendments.
        Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. I don't know why I am--it sounds like what you
    are saying is very simple, and I am not--we are going to
    continue now until the first series of votes?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
        Mr. Berman. And then after the first series of votes, we
    are coming back?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
        Mr. Berman. And then----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We hope to have some amendments
    debated. No votes.
        Mr. Berman. No votes now. No votes between the first series
    of votes and the second series of votes?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Right. And we will be done around 4
    o'clock in the second series of votes, and we will be back.
        Mr. Berman. It was very simple. I was just very----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. Thank you for clarifying. I
    appreciate it.
        Are there any further amendments on this item?
        Ms. Bass. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Bass will--the clerk will
    designate--will read the amendment, please.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Bass of
    California. Amend section 103 to read as follows: Section 103.
    Statement of policy regarding peacekeeping operations
    contributions. (a) In General. Except as provided in subsection
    (b), it remains the policy of the United States, pursuant to
    section 404(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
    Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.
    Code 287e note) that United States assessed contributions for a
    United Nations peacekeeping operation shall not exceed 25
    percent of the total of all assessed contributions for such
    operation. (b) Exception. Notwithstanding any other provision
    of law, the United States assessed contributions for United
    Nations peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of
    Congo are exempt from the percentage limitation referred to in
    subsection (a).----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. With unanimous consent, we will
    dispense with the reading.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I believe that all members have the
    copy of the Bass amendment.
        The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
    authority of the amendment, Ms. Bass, for 5 minutes to explain
    her amendment.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This amendment really continues our conversation on
    priorities. It provides necessary funds for the U.N.
    peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is
    the largest U.N. mission in a very dangerous part of the world.
    It is currently being lead by former U.N. Ambassador to the
    DRC, Roger Meece. This amendment will ensure that the U.S.
    peacekeeping mission in the DRC is fully funded so the mission
    can continue to advance U.S. interests.
        The mission has been mandated to patrol an area the size of
    the United States from the Mississippi to the Atlantic with
    very poor infrastructure. The U.N. is improving its ability to
    protect civilians, especially those crimes against women. These
    efforts have been led by Special Representative Atul Khare of
    the U.N. peacekeeping operations and Margot Wallstrom, Special
    Representative for Sexual Violence and Conflict, a position
    that was spearheaded by the United States. This includes
    finding cost-effective ways to increase radio and telephone
    communications in remote areas, sending military and civilian
    protection teams to remote areas, and providing medical and
    psychosocial support to victims.
        The mission partnered with the DRC Government in February
    2010 to build five mineral trading centers in North and South
    Kivu. These centers will facilitate the tracing, control and
    regulation of mineral trading. The establishment of these
    centers will not only help curb the financing of conflict but
    also will help reduce smuggling, which often saps the national
    wealth.
        The U.S. and U.N. peacekeeping mission are working together
    to stimulate economic growth through agricultural and
    vocational programs. So far, six youth vocational schools have
    been built for students whose educations were interrupted due
    to the ongoing conflict.
        I also want to express my overall support of the United
    Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. Today's world
    conflicts are transnational, freely crossing borders to
    threaten entire regions and dragging people of many national
    allegiances into war. These types of complicated problems need
    multinational solutions to promote peace and security and help
    countries transition to stability. The U.N. peacekeepers play a
    critical role in these transitions by being the first line of
    defense to ensure the--to ensure the safety of civilians and
    promoting diplomacy.
        Despite peacekeeping operations' broad reach throughout the
    world, the international security provided by the peacekeepers
    is given at a relatively low cost to the United States.
    Peacekeeping missions deploy 100,000 international troops in 14
    countries on 5 continents, but the United States provides few
    troops, and other countries pick up about 75 percent of the
    cost. Because of the U.S.'s significant role and good standing
    within the U.N., the U.S. is able to have influential impact on
    the development, leadership and execution of peacekeeping
    operations without investing American lives on the ground.
        The United States needs to uphold its commitment to the
    U.N. and the rest of the world and continue to invest in global
    peace and security through U.N. peacekeeping operations. I ask
    you to continue our global leadership and continue to fund the
    peacekeeping operations and urge you to support this amendment
    to fund peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I
    yield----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass.
        And because we have been called to vote, the committee will
    temporarily recess and suspend until we come back from these
    two votes, and it would be great if the members would come
    back. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee is now back in order
    and we are resuming proceedings on the amendment by Ms. Bass.
    And before I recognize other members for their statements, I
    would like to ask unanimous consent that we make a technical
    correction--it is a different amendment, sorry, different
    amendment.
        Thank you, Ms. Bass.
        And which other member would like to be recognized?
        Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chairman, I won't keep this very long,
    but, again, we are carving out another section of this for
    another reason. And we can't continue down this path, because
    we will have made choices that in a year from now may be the
    wrong choices. And so I urge my colleagues to vote no on this
    amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back. Mr.
    Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Payne. Let me say that I support the amendment by the
    gentlelady from California. Once again, the general premise is
    that all situations are not equal; that in light of the fact
    that we are going to have a limitation, then that pushes us to
    therefore make more informed decisions.
        I won't belabor the point either, but it is very important
    that the DRC, a country that has had tremendous problems, has
    been assisted tremendously by the U.N., the sexual violence
    against women is just unbelievable, where our statistics make
    it perhaps one out of every three women has been sexually
    abused one way or the other. The U.N. has really moved in and
    has started to turn the trend around.
        It is a country that has tremendous resources that by the
    U.N. being there and putting some semblance of order so that
    the central government in Kinshasa can benefit from the
    tremendous mineral resources that are available in the DRC. As
    we all know, coltan, which is a mineral found practically
    solely in the DRC, is the mineral that goes into the cell
    phones. I am sure that there have been some financial gains by
    U.S. corporations with the invention of the cell phone. So
    there are definitely reasons why if that valuable resource
    could be channeled into the Government of Sudan by virtue of
    peacekeepers making order, then the standard of living could
    increase, the health care can improve, education can start, and
    that these resources can be used for the benefit of the
    residents of the DRC.
        And so I think it is an overall goal of trying to upgrade
    the standard of living throughout parts of sub-Saharan Africa,
    and so I support the gentlelady's amendment, and I will yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Do other members wish to be heard on the Bass amendment? If
    not, then we will postpone this vote. Based on the previous
    agreement that we had made, we will have a recorded vote when
    we come back.
        Are there any other amendments to this title?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Wilson
    of Florida. Amend section 103 to read as follows: Section 103.
    Statement of policy regarding peacekeeping operations
    contributions. (a) In General. Except as provided in subsection
    (b), it remains the policy of United States, pursuant to
    section 404(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
    Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.
    Code 287e note) that the United States assessed contributions
    for a United Nations peacekeeping operation shall not exceed 25
    percent of the total of all assessed contributions for such
    operation. (b) Exception. Notwithstanding any other provision
    of law, United States assessed contributions for United Nations
    peacekeeping operations in Haiti are exempt from the percentage
    limitation referred to in subsection (a).----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent we will
    consider the amendment as having been read, because I believe
    all of the members have a copy of the amendment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I would now like to recognize
    Ms. Wilson of Florida to explain her amendment.
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have been to Haiti in the past 3 months. I have seen the
    entire country. I have seen the tent cities, 1,400 tent cities.
    I have seen women and children in desperate situations; sexual
    assaults on women and children are a daily occurrence. The
    national penitentiary collapsed during the recent earthquake,
    so murderers, rapists and thieves all escaped and wreak havoc
    in Haiti. I shudder to think what would happen if Haiti did not
    have any U.N. peacekeepers there.
        The U.N. peacekeepers' mission in Haiti has played a vital
    role in helping this country get back on its feet after the
    devastating earthquake that killed 200,000 people and displaced
    nearly 1.5 million.
        Peacekeepers have been in Haiti since June 2004. There are
    8,702 troops, 3,550 police officers, 542 international
    civilians who are working there, 1,210 Haitians and 231
    volunteers from the United Nations. Since 2004, there have been
    160 fatalities among these peacekeepers.
        This amendment will ensure that the U.N. peacekeeping
    mission in Haiti is fully funded so the mission can continue to
    advance U.S. interests. The U.N. mission played a critical,
    important role in supporting the Haitian Government during the
    country's 2010, 2011 election process. It helped Haiti's
    Provisional Electoral Council administer the elections,
    providing logistical support, getting displaced voters to
    polling stations, and creating security plans to minimize
    violence.
        This election marks the first time in Haitian history that
    power had been transferred from one democratically elected
    President to another from the opposition. It has trained 10,000
    officers so far, and it is currently working to raise that
    figure to 14,000 by the end of 2011.
        The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Haiti has helped the other
    U.N. agencies, like UNICEF's efforts to educate more than
    720,000 children and 15,000 teachers across the country. In
    addition, the WFP is providing over 400,000 schoolchildren with
    meals every day.
        As a permanent veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security
    Council, the U.S. approves every peacekeeping mission. Over the
    last decade the number of U.N. peacekeeping missions has grown,
    with its largest growth in history during the George W. Bush
    administration. This is because these missions serve our
    national interests and are cost-effective. According to the
    GAO, U.N. peacekeeping is eight times less expensive than
    fielding a comparative U.S. military force. Further, Secretary
    of State Condoleezza Rice said that U.N. peacekeeping is much
    more cost-effective than using American forces, and, of course,
    America doesn't have the forces to do all of these peacekeeping
    missions. But somebody has to do them.
        I ask for your support of this amendment. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Wilson yields back.
        Mr. Mack is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I first want to thank
    Ms. Wilson for her continued commitment and passion for
    supporting the people of Haiti in these difficult times. And I
    also want to thank the chair of the committee for her strong,
    steadfast commitment to ensuring the people of Haiti get the
    things they need and the resources they need.
        However, I would like--also like to say, as the two
    amendments before this one, I think we need to be clear that
    the underlying provision of this amendment is not about Haiti
    or any other particular mission for that matter. It is about
    fiscal responsibility.
        The United States has made it, Congress has made it,
    abundantly clear that we support the efforts of Haiti to
    recover from the tragedy of last year's earthquake. In fact, we
    provided nearly $2 billion in assistance to the nation since
    last January. I also believe that there is roughly $7 million
    that are available through the U.N. for Haiti that have not
    been spent.
        So I just want to make it clear that this is not a question
    about the commitment of this committee or Congress to Haiti.
    And I respectfully urge a no vote on the amendment. And I yield
    back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        And I rise in support of the amendment. It is about Haiti.
    We can have a disagreement about how much we should be spending
    on peacekeeping, but we know not just the incredibly
    humanitarian issues raised by the disasters, natural and
    manmade, that have occurred in Haiti, the state of the people
    there, the national security implications of what is happening
    in Haiti before us, the issues of refugees and immigrants, and
    when you decide to take the peacekeeping cap from $1.9 billion
    to $1.7 billion and don't prioritize, you impact on life in
    Haiti, just as the author of the amendment, the gentlelady from
    Florida, pointed out in describing exactly what is going on
    there and what these peacekeepers are doing.
        I think--and what is the alternative? Well, because Haiti
    is so important to us, because the case is so compelling, we
    will now pay 100 percent rather than 27 percent of operations
    to help Haiti survive and turn things around, or not?
        Somewhere there should be responsibility for which of these
    missions are highest priority when we cut this money without
    having renegotiated the percentages among all the countries who
    participate in the peacekeeping. This is 27 cents, or, after
    the amendment that has passed, 25 cents of each dollar, and
    that is a lot better than 100 percent of each dollar.
        And I would argue in the case Haiti would rank very high on
    my list of priorities for where we should not be pulling back
    from our commitments, especially when they produce so much
    greater from other countries in terms of the good that they are
    doing. So I call--I urge the support for this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Berman yields back.
        Mrs. Schmidt of Ohio is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I really don't
    want to belabor the point, but I do want to point out some
    things. No one is more committed to Haiti than the Members of
    Congress, the President, in fact the citizens of the United
    States. And we are not talking about getting rid of our
    support. We fully support our presence in the stabilization and
    recovery of Haiti, and we continue to do this time and time
    again.
        The underlying provision does not eliminate the MINUSTAH,
    which is the U.N. initiative for Haiti. The U.S. would still be
    authorized to provide nearly $200 million in support. This is
    on top of the $300 million the U.S. is providing to Haiti on a
    bilateral basis to choose to support the rule of law and
    governance in Haiti, which, as my good friend from Florida
    said, is part of the $2 billion that Congress has already
    appropriated for Haiti since last January.
        So the U.S. is clearly committed to Haiti, as am I. But
    that is not what this amendment is about. Madam Chair, if we
    continue to carve out every mission under peacekeeping, the
    U.N. will continue to take advantage of our generosity and
    raise our level of assessment until we finally put our foot
    down and say, no more. And this is what we did in 2005. And
    while the cap was in effect, our rate of assessment dropped
    from 28 percent to 25.6 percent.
        When the leadership of the last Congress decided to
    arbitrarily raise the cap above and beyond what the U.N. itself
    was asking for, we virtually invited them to raise our rate of
    assessment, which they did this year.
        This is about getting us back on track and respecting U.S.
    law. And so, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
    amendment. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Payne. I rise in support of the amendment.
        Once again, I do think that as we are dealing with the
    capping of funds available, I still contend the basic premise
    that I have mentioned before, that there needs to therefore be
    an order of priority. I think it only makes sense that we tend
    to prioritize when we have scarce resources, and the fact that
    Haiti is so close to our borders, it makes it essential,
    because many of us remember when the boat people were coming
    over, and people were drowning at sea and in shark-infested
    water and ships turning over, and the U.S. Navy had to spend
    tremendous resources rescuing people, and attempted to put a
    blockade in, and the tremendous amount of resources spent on
    that operation exceeded probably what we will spend in 5 years
    in a peacekeeping operation. And so sometimes a stitch in time
    saves nine, my grandmother used to say. If you tend to then put
    preventive situations in, you therefore can prevent larger
    problems from happening.
        And U.S. has really been, as you know, so involved in
    Haiti. I went back to Haiti with President Aristide when he was
    restored during the Clinton administration. I was there when
    the U.S. went in militarily. I was there when the U.S. came out
    militarily. I was there when the U.N. went in initially. I was
    there when they restored democracy to Haiti.
        And so it is just the right thing to do. They are close to
    us in our Nation. We have many, as you know, Haitian Americans
    in throughout the United States, not only in Florida, where, of
    course, you all have tremendous numbers, but in New Jersey and
    New York and in other parts of our country.
        I do believe that things are getting better. I believe we
    actually have started a daily service to Port au Prince from
    Newark, which is a great step forward because there was limited
    air transport to Haiti. You had to go to New York to catch a
    flight.
        So I think that this makes sense. I certainly support the
    gentlelady, Congresswoman Wilson, who even prior to coming to
    the U.S. Congress spent a lot of her time in the State assembly
    and in her activities in Florida fighting for the cause of the
    Haitian people. And I commend her for this amendment and urge
    the support.
        I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Fortenberry is recognized.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to express appreciation to Ms. Wilson for her deep
    concern about Haiti. I was there on election day last year as a
    part of a group of--Members of Congress as a group were
    observing the integrity of the election, and like so many
    Members I have a deep concern about that country, which is
    really on the doorstep of our own neighborhood and has been
    mired in such deep poverty and structural governance
    difficulties for so long. I think many of us share the concern.
        I do for a moment want to go back to the commentary made by
    Mrs. Schmidt, and Mr. Connolly, as well as Mr. Payne in the
    debate that occurred prior to this debate right now. I think
    some excellent and constructive points were made about the
    problem of trying to carve out countries, prioritizing one over
    the other with somewhat limited information in this particular
    process, yet at the same time all situations are not the same.
    And do we take advantage of the moment to actually determine
    whether some slight increase of resources for one particular
    area of the world as balanced against other areas of the world
    that may not have as pressing of a need at the moment is
    particularly germane. I think Mr. Payne made that argument, and
    yet Mrs. Schmidt and Mr. Connolly made equally as good
    arguments about this problem of going country by country and
    carving it out.
        I would like to point out that we have a process by which
    the administration notifies our committee before the U.N.
    Security Council acts on any change of a mission and commits
    troop levels. They notify our committee, and there is an
    implied consent if we don't do anything.
        We also have an appropriations process where I think it
    would behoove all of us to become perhaps more informed, where
    we go line by line and actually commit a dollar figure to these
    various missions.
        So with that said, maybe after all of this particular
    hearing on the State authorization is done, if we want to
    strengthen our ability to have more direct oversight so that we
    have better information in a more timely fashion, some of us
    could creatively think about that so that we can determine
    whether or not we want to prioritize one country or region over
    another given the particular sensitivity of that situation in
    the moment. That is why I voted for Mr. Payne's amendment on
    the Sudan earlier, taking advantage of this moment, although it
    is limited, in terms of a comprehensive discussion about that
    particular situation. It is particularly sensitive and
    potentially volatile, and peacekeeping forces there will affect
    a five-country region.
        But it is a real dilemma to start going country by country
    and carving things out. So again, as a constructive comment,
    Madam Chair, perhaps if some of us want to think creatively
    about a process later that puts us more in the midst of direct
    oversight or better exercising what is already in place, I
    would simply offer that and yield back my time.
        Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He has yielded back his time.
    Perhaps Mr. Faleomavaega could.
        Mr. Payne. I thought I caught him in time before he yielded
    back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield my time
    to Mr. Payne.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized.
        Mr. Payne. I just want to commend the gentleman for the
    suggestion that perhaps in the future we could sit down, if the
    chairperson and ranking member would think it prudent. Perhaps
    a small group of us from both sides of the aisle could have
    some conversation about how do we deal with the dilemma that
    faces us. We may not come up with a conclusion, but I think we
    could share the opportunity to discuss the issues and try to
    understand the rationale that people--and I would like to maybe
    carve out about 8 hours from Mr. Connolly to explain the
    situation. But however, but we--seriously, getting back to the
    serious part, if we could have some conversation, it could be
    formal or informal, even though I don't think it has to be a
    formal committee. And I yield back to Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would also like to commend Mr.
    Fortenberry for his very constructive observations in terms of
    what has been proposed so far. And I think what really is not
    so much to say which is a higher priority, the problem is that
    they are all important and part of our national interest in
    these countries that if they are unstable, we may end up having
    to pay more than what we are doing now by providing the
    necessary funding to do this peacekeeping forces to stabilize
    these countries.
        So with that, I want to thank Mr. Fortenberry for a very
    thoughtful and constructive observation on this issue.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any other speakers wish to be
    recognized?
        Mr. Rivera is recognized on the Wilson amendment.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to recognize
    Congresswoman Wilson's efforts on this behalf. I served with
    Congresswoman Wilson for 8 years in the State legislature in
    Florida, and I witnessed firsthand her passion on this issue
    and her activism on this issue.
        I know last year, early last year, I participated in a
    visit to Haiti right after the earthquake. And Congresswoman
    Wilson, then-State Senator Wilson, helped to coordinate and
    facilitate that trip where we took food and medicine and
    humanitarian supplies to orphanages and to hospitals in Haiti.
    And I remember discussing that trip with Congresswoman Wilson.
    I know more recently Congresswoman Wilson has discussed with me
    her visit to Haiti and where she certainly understands the
    conditions on the ground in Haiti and what that country needs
    right now in terms of assistance from the United States.
        I think I can address this issue of distinguishing between
    countries where peacekeeping efforts might be considered, and I
    think one of the thresholds that we could apply is the issue of
    our national interest in terms of where we would carve out or
    make exceptions for a peacekeeping force. For example, I know
    we talk about the drug war in Mexico here in Congress. Many
    times we talk about the fact that it is right at our border,
    and that it is in our national interest to deal with that issue
    in Mexico because it can spill over into our borders. There may
    be drug wars in Russia or Ukraine or other parts of the world,
    but I know we have a specific national interest in dealing with
    that drug war at our border.
        We also have a crisis in Haiti at our border, at our
    doorstep. And Congresswoman Wilson has made this argument so
    articulately on many occasions. We have a situation that is
    brewing right on the borders of the United States. And I think
    if there is ever somewhere where we can make an exception or
    see where our national interests is at stake, it is when it
    hits so close to home on our doorstep.
        So if anybody understands the issue of Haiti, the
    implications for bilateral relations between the United States
    and Haiti, it is Congresswoman Wilson. So I would encourage my
    fellow members to vote in favor of this good amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the gentleman yields back.
        Seeing no other members who seek recognition, and based
    upon our previous agreement, a recorded vote has been
    requested. And we will roll that vote until the second series
    of votes is over on the House floor.
        Do other members have amendments on this section?
        Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Speaker. I move to strike the last
    word.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. You are recognized.
        Mr. Berman. I am only aware of one amendment on this side
    left on title I, and I believe that the purpose of my seeking
    to strike the last word in order to get unanimous consent for
    that offer to return has already been dealt with, and so I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. Does anyone have an amendment
    on the desk? Mr. Higgins perhaps?
        Mr. Higgins has an amendment. The clerk will read the
    amendment.
        Mr. Higgins.
        Ms. Carroll. Which amendment, Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. 17.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Higgins
    of New York. In section 104(3), strike ``$7,237,000'' and
    insert ``$8,000,000''.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will wait a second until everyone
    gets a copy of the amendment.
        And I believe that all the members have a copy of the
    Higgins amendment, and he is now recognized for 5 minutes to
    explain the amendment.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My amendment would restore critical funding to the
    International Joint Commission to Fiscal Year 2011 levels of $8
    million from the current level proposed of $7.3 million.
    Restoring $750,000 in funding to the International Joint
    Commission would allow it to fully continue its important
    efforts along our country's northern border with Canada.
        The International Joint Commission was founded under the
    1909 boundary waters treaty between the United States and
    Canadian Governments to manage waterways along our shared
    border. The Great Lakes is the centerpiece of the Commission's
    efforts. The Commission has been instrumental in addressing
    issues of water quality in the region, specifically along Lake
    Erie in my congressional district. The Commission also has the
    authority to approve the construction of dams and hydroelectric
    power plants, as well as studying variations in water levels
    across the Great Lakes seaway system.
        Water quality and water levels in the Great Lakes are an
    important issue to the communities of western New York that I
    represent as they have a direct and economic and environmental
    impact on these communities.
        Just last week we were successful in fighting a bill before
    the Ohio Governor that would have allowed 5 million gallons of
    water drained from Lake Erie every day. We argued that this is
    a violation of the Great Lakes Compact.
        As the value of water in the Great Lakes rises, those who
    desire it, we must have an effective safeguard in place to
    police it and ensure that it remains a resource for those
    living in the Great Lakes Basin. Now is not time to cut funding
    for the Commission after it has been so instrumental in
    improving water quality in the Great Lakes. I urge my
    colleagues to support this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And the gentleman yields back.
        Do other members seek recognition?
        Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chairman, this looks like this is a
    straight funding increase. And correct me if I am wrong--and
    the 2012 level is $7,237,000, and the gentleman would request
    it to go to $8 million.
        My concern is that these boundaries, waterways and
    fisheries have a longstanding treaty and the agreement-based
    organizations between the U.S. and allies are on our borders.
    These Commissions address important border water and fisheries,
    but the authorization levels in the current bill serve as a
    cost-cutting measure, saving the American taxpayers over $31
    million compared to the FY 2010 funding levels, and that there
    has been some question about how those moneys have been spent
    in the FY 2010 levels. And I just think that this is a very
    prudent way to go and look at this, and I support the
    underlying bill and the $7,237,000 request and not the $8
    million increase.
        At a time when we are really counting pennies in
    Washington, and at a time when the American public is asking us
    to do so; at a time when the American public is looking at
    foreign aid, foreign assistance, foreign budgets, foreign
    appropriations and asking us why are we even doing this; when
    it is hard enough for us to really administer to the wants,
    wishes and needs back home, I think what we have done here is
    craft a bill that goes after what we need to have accomplished
    with foreign aid, but in a very prudent and responsible way.
    And if we continue to ratchet this back up, we are going to be
    exactly where the public doesn't want us to be: Overspending
    their taxpayer dollars at a time when we should be doing it in
    a very prudent and efficient way.
        And so while I respect the gentleman for his amendment, I
    would ask this body to say no, because we have a financial
    responsibility to the folks in our Nation, and we have to
    address that. And I think this bill clearly does that while
    also addressing the needs of foreign aid.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I yield my time to the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Higgins, the author of the amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Higgins.
        Mr. Higgins. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I would just say that in response, that Great Lakes water
    resources represent about 20 percent of the world's freshwater
    supply. And we saw with the situation in Ohio last week that
    despite eight States and two Provinces of Canada coming
    together to do a Great Lakes Compact, the desperate need for
    freshwater threatens the compact and thus that great resource.
        And it seems to me that this is a very little amount of
    money within the context of what is at stake here. An
    additional $750,000 is not a waste of money. It is an
    investment in protecting and preserving the great resource of
    the Great Lakes.
        So I would yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Burton is recognized.
        Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This amount that is in the bill is what the administration
    requested for Fiscal Year 2012, and so the President has
    already asked for this amount of money. I don't know why we
    would want to increase it, with all due respect to my
    colleague. The administration is agreeable to what is already
    in the bill.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Seeing no other requests for time, and based on our
    previous agreement, a recorded vote has been requested, and the
    vote will be put into place after the second series of votes on
    the floor.
        Do any other members seek recognition on an amendment that
    they might have?
        Mr. Higgins is recognized.
        Mr. Higgins. Madam Chair, I have another amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Higgins
    of New York. In section 104(4), strike ``$31,291,000'' and
    insert ``$38,900,000''.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will briefly suspend while the
    amendment is given out, and then we will at the appropriate
    time call upon Mr. Higgins to explain.
        All the members having received a copy of the amendment,
    the Chair recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My amendment would restore funding to the International
    Fisheries Commissions to $38.9 million from the current
    proposed funding level of $31.3 million.
        This amendment would increase funding for these important
    Commissions, but would still represent a nearly 25 percent cut
    from funding levels for Fiscal Year 2011.
        The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the largest Commission
    funded through this program, is a critical resource for
    ensuring that the largest freshwater lake system in the world
    is healthy and thriving. The Great Lakes are vital economic
    environmental resources for the communities I represent, and
    the environmental health of those lakes is crucial to our
    Nation's future. In fact, the Great Lakes fisheries and
    recreational boating industries represent over $23 billion to
    the economy, supporting over 75,000 jobs.
        The Commission continues to address the environmental
    challenges imposed by invasive species that run the risk of
    destabilizing the entire marine habitat. Controlling these
    invasive species has been essential to restoring the Great
    Lakes fisheries, and adequate funding for control methods are
    needed to ensure that these invasive species populations do not
    proliferate, resulting in ecological and economic harm to the
    Great Lakes fisheries.
        Furthermore, the challenges of the Commission loom as the
    prospect for the entrance of Asian carp into the Great Lakes
    system. This poses the largest threat in recent memory to the
    health of the Great Lakes.
        Now is not the time to cut funding to these crucial
    institutions. Approving my amendment would allow the Great
    Lakes Fishery Commission and others to carry out their
    important tasks.
        I urge the committee to support my amendment to provide
    adequate funding for these Commissions, and I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chair, in the interest of time, I won't
    go into the fact that the American public wants us to do more
    with less and to really examine the way we are expending
    foreign aid, but I would like to point out that the $31,291,000
    is the administration's budget request, and what my gentle
    friend from New York is asking is that we actually increase
    what the administration is already asking. Quite frankly, I
    think we have been more than generous to keep it at their
    level. And so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this
    amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
        Do any members seek recognition? If not, we will call those
    votes. We will call for a recorded vote at the specific time
    when we come back.
        And I would just like to note that because I had said there
    will be no votes during this time, and I then asked for a
    recorded vote, if when we come back you ask for your amendment
    not to have a recorded vote, that would be fine. I am not
    forcing you to have a recorded vote, but I can't do it any
    other way, so I have to call for a recorded vote. Feel free to
    let go of that request. Thank you.
        Do any other members have an amendment on this section or
    title?
        Yippee.
        We will now proceed to consider title II of the bill. The
    clerk will designate the title.
        Ms. Carroll. Title II--Department of State Authorities and
    Activities.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Are there any amendments
    to this title?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at
    the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Wilson, and then we
    will go--Ms. Wilson, amendment--do you need to clarify which
    amendment?
        Ms. Carroll. I do not have that amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Is it the one on Tibet? I have seen
    that.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Wilson
    of Florida. At the end of section 212 the following: (d)
    Bilateral assistance. Section 616 of the Tibetan Policy Act of
    2002 is amended--(1) in subsection (a), in the second sentence,
    by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``subsection
    (e)''; (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (d)''
    and inserting ``subsection (e)''; (3) in subsection (c), by
    striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (e)'';
    (4), by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and (5)
    by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
    ``(d) United States Assistance. The President shall provide
    grants to nongovernmental organizations to support sustainable
    economic development, cultural and historical preservation,
    health care, education, and environmental sustainability
    projects for Tibetan communities in the Tibet Autonomous Region
    and in other Tibetan communities in China, in accordance with
    the principles specified in subsection (e)----''
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent that the
    amendment be considered as read.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And Ms. Wilson is recognized for 5
    minutes to explain her amendment.
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I rise to speak in support of my amendment that will merely
    authorize what has already been appropriated, funding for
    nongovernmental organizations to provide support to the Tibetan
    communities in China.
        In 2000 Congress established a program to provide grants to
    nongovernmental organizations to support activities which
    preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
    development and environmental conservation in Tibetan
    communities, and in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, and in other
    Tibetan communities in China. This program was first
    administered by the Office of the Special Coordinator at the
    State Department and run by USAID since 2003. The U.S.-based
    grantees are the bridge funds, Winrock and the Tibet Poverty
    Alleviation Fund. It is my understanding that the program has
    strong support of USAID leadership, including Administrator
    Shah.
        Adoption of my amendment sends an important political
    signal about U.S. interests in preserving the unique Tibetan
    identity. Legislatively this program has been funded annually
    in the foreign operations appropriations bill with bipartisan
    support.
        The program is currently funded at $7.4 million. The steady
    state level for the next 3 years--for the last 3 years, the
    budget request is for $5 million. However, this program has
    never been authorized. A provision authorizing the program was
    included in H.R. 2410, section 237, which passed the House in
    2009. It was also included in H.R. 2475, the Republican
    alternative introduced by our current chairwoman Ileana Ros-
    Lehtinen. This amendment is the same exact language passed in
    2009.
        This amendment would authorize a program funded for more
    than a decade by the Appropriations Committee, strengthening
    the jurisdiction of HFAC. Better yet, the amendment neither
    authorizes a specific amount, nor sets them as may be
    necessary. It merely authorizes the program. I ask for your
    support of this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
        I would like to tell Ms. Wilson that you were so correct in
    the way that you explained your amendment. The money is already
    being used. This is to authorize it. We have no opposition on
    our side. But based on what I had said that we would be rolling
    amendments until a later time, although we are prepared to
    accept your amendment, I will ask for a recorded vote. But feel
    free to unrequest that, and then we will accept it as soon as
    we get back into regular order.
        So you are waiving? Well, wonderful. Then we accept the
    amendment. Thank you very much for waiving, and without
    objection the amendment is considered as having been adopted.
    Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
        Mr. Mack has an amendment at the desk.
        Ms. Carroll. Number 32, Mr. Mack?
        Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Mack of Florida.
    Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2012. At the
    appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: Section
    [blank]. Sense of Congress Regarding Keystone XL pipeline. It
    is the sense of Congress that--(1) the delay of the Secretary
    of State to authorize the Presidential Permit for the Keystone
    XL pipeline has adversely affected the United States economy
    and weakened United States national security; (2) according to
    the Energy Information Administration, in 2010, the United
    States imported 2,321 barrels per day from Canada; 3) Canada,
    as a democratic ally, offers a stable source of energy for the
    United States; (4) support of this pipeline is contingent
    upon----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent that the
    amendment be considered as read.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And all the members have a copy of
    the amendment, and Mr. Mack is recognized for 5 minutes to
    explain his amendment.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will try to be
    brief.
        The Keystone XL pipeline is really waiting just one permit,
    and that permit sits with the Secretary of State. And what this
    amendment does is to urge the Secretary to sign off on a permit
    that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward.
        And why is this a foreign--why is this in front of our
    committee? Right now we get about 900,000 barrels of oil a day
    from Hugo Chavez. The Keystone XL pipeline would deliver around
    830,000 barrels per day. And the significance of this is we
    could help a friend and ally in Canada and strengthen our
    relationship with Canada instead of continuing to buy oil from
    Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
        There have been numerous studies done on the environmental
    impacts, and those studies have come back very strong on both
    occasions. And I believe that the Secretary of State is
    positioned to support this Keystone XL pipeline, and merely
    what this amendment does is it urges her to sign off on the
    Presidential Permit. And with that, I will yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman. And I might put this perhaps
    ultimately in the form of a question to the author of the
    resolution. As I understand it, this Keystone pipeline would
    terminate in the Port of New Orleans; is that correct?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Mack. Yes, it would.
        Mr. Connolly. One of the concerns I have--I thank my
    colleague, Madam Chairman--is that by not terminating, say, in
    Oklahoma, by terminating in the export-oriented Port of New
    Orleans, it suggests that by permitting this pipeline, we
    aren't necessarily improving domestic access to Canadian oil.
    We are facilitating the export of Canadian shale oil. And while
    that may be a good public policy, I don't know that it
    addresses the concerns the gentleman raised, legitimate
    concerns, about improving domestic access to energy sources and
    eliminating our reliance on foreign oil, especially Venezuelan.
    And with that I would be happy to yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman
    for the question.
        This would bring the Canadian oil to the refineries and to
    ensure that we are able to refine the product for domestic use.
        But there is no doubt that we continue to buy oil at
    roughly 900,000 barrels a day from Venezuela, and with this
    pipeline, we would no longer need to buy our oil from Chavez.
    One other, if you allow me. The oil that we get from Chavez is
    a heavy crude oil, and there are only a few places in the world
    where it can be refined. One of those places is in the U.S. The
    oil that would be coming from Canada is that same heavy crude
    oil. So you can understand then if we don't buy that oil from
    Chavez, it is going to be harder for him to sell it to someone
    because of the refinery capacity.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank you.
        Reclaiming my time. I am not going to oppose my colleague's
    resolution, but I just say to him that I think this legitimate
    source of concern that with the best of intentions--not his,
    but the country's--that we end up facilitating the export of
    this oil rather than for domestic consumption. And so when we
    do address this issue on the floor, I am going to have an
    amendment that would make contingent the approval of this
    permit on the fact that the certification that the bulk of the
    oil produced would be for domestic consumption, not for export,
    and hopefully my colleague would see his way clear to
    supporting such an amendment when it comes to the floor.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to compliment the gentleman from
    Florida for introducing this amendment. And I recall that we
    had a similar hearing on the matter about how much we import
    the oil that comes from Mr. Chavez in Venezuela. And it is my
    understanding I think we are purchasing from Mr. Chavez about
    $113 million a day of the oil that we import from Venezuela.
    That comes to about $14.6 billion that we are giving to Mr.
    Chavez if we are going to look at in terms of the pricing. And
    so I certainly want to thank my good friend from Florida for
    offering this amendment, and I do support this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I
    certainly agree with my friend Mr. Faleomavaega, but on the
    other hand, I am sure he would share my concern that we not
    find ourselves unwittingly facilitating the export of this oil
    when the goal here is to lessen our reliance on foreign
    imported oil, especially Venezuela under the Chavez regime. So
    I just want to make sure that if we get this pipeline, and with
    the risks attendant, that it does the intended, it meets the
    intended goal which is for domestic consumption, not for
    export.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This is a very difficult issue for me in that this pipeline
    will go straight across a very environmentally sensitive area
    of Nebraska. The committee may be wondering why we are dealing
    with this. Mr. Mack rightly points out that the State
    Department interestingly has jurisdiction over it because it
    involves an international treaty. The State Department is also
    in the process of doing a rigorous environmental assessment.
        There is a very significant debate happening in Nebraska as
    to whether this pipeline is appropriately sited. There is
    another Keystone pipeline already in the eastern part of the
    State located in my district where the soil is basically a
    clay-type soil. Out west it is a sandy soil, it would run over
    the Ogallala aquifer, again a highly sensitive area for
    environmental purposes. So it is my opinion that the State
    Department needs to take its time to make sure that whatever
    siting is agreed to is done so in a manner that is
    environmentally responsible.
        So in good conscience, I am going to have to oppose this,
    although I agree with the underlying premise that we do need to
    be strengthening our partnership with the Canadians in looking
    for appropriate ways to use that resource in our own
    hemisphere.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any other members wish to be
    recognized on this amendment?
        Mr. Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again unfortunately,
    I have to oppose my good friend from Florida. I will do so in a
    calm voice this time. Listening to some of the argument--in
    fact, I can understand some of the strong arguments that Mr.
    Mack made in favor of it. But it is probably unwise to do--and
    let me explain why real quickly. In the last year or so, we
    have seen a nuclear meltdown in Japan, and a colossal oil spill
    in the Gulf of Mexico. Both of which are due, in large part, to
    inadequate regulation and government oversight. So considering
    the scale of these disasters, I find it perplexing that some
    think we should short-circuit the process which is making the
    pipeline safer. It is not just members of this side of the
    aisle that say the State Department and the EPA review is
    making the Keystone XL pipeline safer. It also comes from David
    Goldwyn, a Republican witness who Chairman Mack called to
    testify at a hearing of the pipeline, I believe. He stated
    that--and I quote,

            ``The environmental impacts are important. The United
            States is required under EPA to consider them. In fact,
            the pipeline is safer because of comments that we have
            received in the process, that the U.S. Department of
            State has received.''

        And you have heard right, even Keystone XL pipeline
    supporters are saying the review process is working. So what is
    the rush? Why rush now? The State Department has committed to
    completing its review by the end of the year, and there is no
    inside information or anything of that nature. But if I was
    betting, I would wager that the State Department is going to
    approve this pipeline.
        Mr. Mack. Would you yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks, Mr. Mack, would like to--
    --
        Mr. Meeks. Yes.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you. And I wouldn't disagree with a portion
    of your statement. But I am not sure that maybe you are
    speaking to a time past, because we have now--this is the
    second review of the State Department. So the State Department
    got an environmental study not once but twice. So there has
    been ample time for the review of this. And, in fact, this
    pipeline will be built to a higher standard than any other
    pipeline. So I think, the concerns that you raise are
    legitimate, and certainly having dialogue is a good thing. But
    we have already had two now reviews, environmental reviews, to
    the State Department.
        So I think a lot of the concerns that you bring up were
    valid but now the reviews have been in. They have had ample
    opportunity to review those reviews. And I agree with you, I
    think that they are going to sign off on this presidential
    permit. And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Reclaiming my time and just saying quickly, all
    I am saying is I believe that it is going to please what, it is
    going to happen fairly quickly. We have to make sure that we
    don't have the colossal mistakes again.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Will you yield me some time, Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Yes.
        Mr. Fortenberry. It is important to point out that by
    taking extra time for this environmental review, there have
    been changes made to actually strengthen the safety
    considerations involved here in siting this pipeline. Now,
    there are other issues still left undetermined. So I would
    agree that there shouldn't--this body should not constrain a
    thorough environmental assessment particularly given that as it
    has gone on, we have had Keystone pipeline leakage.
        We have had other pipelines in the area leak as well. So to
    ensure there is a thorough and rigorous environmental process
    without an artificial truncation with pressure from this body,
    I think it is in the best interest of moving this forward in
    the best way for environmental stewardship. I yield back to the
    gentleman.
        Mr. Meeks. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We have just been called
    for votes but maybe we can dispense with this amendment. We
    have Mr. Duncan and Mr. Sires, and now Mr. Berman. Let us see
    if we can get through it. Mr. Duncan is recognized.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to echo
    the comments of my friend from Florida. We have to look at who
    we are buying the oil from. Who are we relying on for American
    energy resources. It is Middle Eastern countries. A lot of
    times it is Venezuela who Hugo Chavez is not our friend. Canada
    is our friend. They are a longstanding ally. Why do we continue
    to depend on Middle Eastern energy sources controlled by a
    cartel who is intent and concerned about their own pocketbooks
    and not the pocketbooks of Americans, not the pocketbooks of
    people in my district who are having to take a $100 bill out to
    buy the same gasoline that they paid $20 or $30 for just a
    short time ago.
        So the Keystone XL pipeline will help meet America's energy
    needs from a friendly source. And I want to echo that the
    reason that it is terminating in Louisiana is because that is
    where our refineries are in this country, along the Gulf Coast
    where a majority of our sources of energy are.
        So in order to bring the crude oil there and have it
    refined into products that we can use as Americans has to be
    refined, and the refineries are there on the Gulf Coast. So let
    us buy from a friendly country. I want to thank my colleague on
    the upper dais for putting this amendment up. Something I
    firmly believe that we need to encourage the Secretary of State
    to sign off on this and I yield back the balance.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan. And
    Mr. Sires is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I support
    Congressman Mack's effort to get this pipeline done. I support
    it because I think we need it for domestic use. I would be
    supporting Congressman Connolly's effort to make sure that the
    oil that is imported from Canada is used domestically. I would
    hate to see us running a risk of having this pipe go through
    this country and not reap the rewards. I supported it in the
    committee with you and I think it is a good thing for this
    country that we import our oil from a friendly country like
    Canada. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Mr.
    Wilson is recognized.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. And I am grateful to be
    joining with my colleague from Pennsylvania also in support of
    this amendment, and my colleague from South Carolina and
    Florida, not only is Canada a great ally of the United States,
    but this is creating jobs in South Carolina and in the United
    States, specifically, the earth mover tires that are used in
    the recovery of oil which will be in this pipeline are made in
    Lexington, South Carolina. So hundreds of jobs are created
    because of our relationship with Canada, and so I just see this
    as a positive move at a crucial time where we have record
    unemployment. I yield the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do any other
    members seek--Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Berman. Yes. Just very quickly. I am actually very
    sympathetic to this project with the one caveat that I want to
    know what the consequences are on some of the issues that are
    being looked at. In other words, if this is okay generally, the
    notion that we can get a huge amount of our domestic energy
    from Canada rather than from the Middle East is a tremendous
    positive in reducing our reliance there. If you were to change
    your words to the ``Secretary of State should promptly make a
    decision on whether or not to authorize'' because--what I
    cannot answer, I don't have the experience, the background to
    know--is there something about this that is so detrimental to
    our interests that my instinctive desire to see it happen I
    should think--that is what is going on. I am told the
    administration is going to decide this by the end of the year.
    I'd just hate to put aside their process. Going with your gut
    is sometimes a very good idea, but I think we have a process in
    place and if it isn't taking too long and if we can get the
    resolution within the next few months, we can move ahead on
    this. I guess if you were to recast this, which my guess is you
    aren't going to, to call for a quick decision by the Secretary,
    I'd support it.
        Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield down here?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Duncan. Sure. Can you assure us that the administration
    is going to make the right decision and approve the XL
    pipeline?
        Mr. Berman. I can assure you that they will make a prompt
    decision based on the movement of the head of a gentleman in
    the second row. In other words----
        Mr. Duncan. We are encouraging her to make the right
    decision.
        Mr. Berman. In other words, some of this is just a little
    bit fact-based, and again, it is not religion. And I like the
    argument for it, and I think if it could work, it is a great
    answer to a very significant problem. Not a total answer, but a
    significant answer to a great problem. But I still would like
    to have a few facts that I am not capable of ascertaining on my
    own. That is all.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Never let a gang of brutal facts get
    in the way of a beautiful theory. Mr. Mack, your amendments
    stir up a lot of debate. I like that. But seeing no other
    people who would like to be recognized on this amendment, a
    roll call vote has been asked for and our committee will
    suspend for this next series of floor votes and we will come
    back to vote on all of the roll call votes that have been
    requested, and the committee is in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
    Thank you so much. As we had previously agreed, we will keep
    debating and we will start voting at 4 o'clock. That way we can
    debate and give proper attention to every member who has an
    amendment. We are on title II. When we left off, Mr. Mack had
    finished his amendment. And so--because we are not going to
    vote--I will ask, do any members have amendments on this
    section/title. Mr. Higgins is recognized.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment. I
    will offer it and withdraw it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The clerk will read the
    amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Higgins
    of New York. At the appropriate place in the bill insert the
    following: Section 215. Payment of passport fees. (a) In
    General. Section 1(a) of the act of June 4, 1920 (22 U.S. Code
    214(a)), is amended, in the first sentence, by
    striking, quote,  deg. ``into the Treasury of the
    United States'' and inserting, quote, deg. ``to the
    Department of State''. (b) Retention of Fees. Any amount
    collected by the Department of State in Fiscal Year 2012 and
    each fiscal year thereafter as a fee for visas, passports, or
    other consular services may be credited as an offsetting
    collection to the appropriate Department of State
    appropriation,----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Move to consider the amendment as
    read, because all of the members have a copy of the amendment
    by now. The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
    author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment. Mr. Higgins.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My amendment would
    have the effect of reducing passport fees to reflect the actual
    cost of the passport program. Currently, over half of the fees
    and surcharges collected by the Department of State are
    returned to the Treasury as general revenues, meaning the cost
    of passports does not correspond with the cost to the
    government for providing passports. This amendment would
    require the State Department to set the passport fees no higher
    than the cost of administering the passport program. As a
    result of the new documentation requirements under the Western
    Hemisphere travel initiative, over 240,000 passports have been
    issued in Erie and Chautauqua counties since 2007.
    Approximately 20 percent of the total population largely to
    comply with the Western Hemisphere travel initiative.
        A family of four looking to get passports to go to Canada
    could pay upwards of $500 before they even cross the border. We
    must do everything we can to decrease the cost of passports,
    not find ways to get more money out of citizens who forced to
    spend thousands of dollars just to maintain a quality of life.
    Crossing the border to Canada should be convenient and not a
    burden. I would urge the committee to support my amendment. And
    I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
    herself for 5 minutes. As we had discussed in the break, Mr.
    Higgins, your amendment also references appropriations language
    which is not permissible in authorizing legislation under rule
    XXI. So I would ask the gentleman if he was prepared to
    withdraw at this time.
        Mr. Higgins. I am.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is withdrawing his
    amendment. If the clerk would so note. And I withdraw my point
    of order. Thank you so much, Mr. Higgins, for that. I ask the
    members if they have any amendments on this title. Mr. Berman
    is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chair, I know that the gentleman
    from Florida, Mr. Deutch, has some amendments to title II, do
    any of the other members of the committee who are not here--
    that is not a good question.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. You could present the amendment for
    Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Berman. And I also have an amendment that we are
    reworking. So we are just finishing the drafting of it. Mr.
    Deutch had at least one or two amendments on this.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I would ask the clerk, how many
    amendments do you have from Mr. Deutch listed under title II?
    Two amendments?
        Ms. Carroll. We have two Deutch amendments for title II.
        Mr. Berman. Do you have any other ones for title II?
        Ms. Carroll. No, that is all we have.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman, would you like to
    present the amendments for Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Berman. The only other way would be to move--if we--
    through unanimous consent for those specific amendments and the
    one--well, here is----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Deutchette.
        Mr. Berman, you will do a wonderful job presenting these
    amendments.
        Mr. Berman. I know about as much as I do with my own
    amendments.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Berman. How about Amendment No. 621.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. On behalf of Mr. Deutch.
        Ms. Carroll. On behalf of Mr. Deutch. At the end of title
    II, section [blank]. Bureau on Counterterrorism. (a)
    Establishment. There is established in the Department of State
    a Bureau of Counterterrorism----
        Mr. Berman. I ask unanimous consent that the reading be
    dispensed with.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Granted. But let us just wait one
    moment until everybody gets the amendment. That is why I let
    her read. Will you suspend?
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Berman. I withdraw my unanimous consent request. Madam
    Chairman? Since the resolution I actually do know something
    about is at the desk----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I will ask the clerk to delay
    consideration of the Deutch amendment as presented by Mr.
    Berman, and let us go with the Berman amendment that is at the
    desk. Without objection. If the clerk will report the Berman
    amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Ma'am, the amendments are not ready right now.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. They are coming right off the
    printer as we speak, I am sure.
        Mr. Berman. I thought that was just the clump of papers
    that were handed to you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is multiple pages and they are
    not stapled.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So we have it here. We can copy it.
    It is the sense of Congress----
        Mr. Berman. It is copied, but it is not stapled.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is fine. Just start reading. If
    the clerk would--start reading the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman.
    At the end of title II, insert the following: Section 200.
    Sense----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 208?
        Ms. Carroll. It is 208, sense of Congress regarding Turkey.
    It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State, in all
    official contacts with Turkish leaders and other Turkish
    officials, should emphasize that Turkey should--(1) end all
    forms of religious discrimination; (2) allow the rightful
    church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without
    hindrance or restriction, to organize and administer prayer
    services, religious education, clerical training, appointments,
    and succession, religious community gatherings, social
    services, including ministry to the needs of the poor and
    infirm, and other religious activities; (3) return to their
    rightful owners all Christian churches and other places of
    worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics,
    holy sites, and other religious properties, including movable
    properties, such as artwork, manuscripts, vestments, vessels,
    and other artifacts; and (4) allow the rightful Christian
    church and lay owners of Christian church properties, without
    hindrance or restriction, to preserve, reconstruct, and repair,
    as they see fit, all Christian churches and other places of
    worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics,
    holy sites, and other religious properties within Turkey.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent that the
    reading be dispensed with, even though you had actually
    finished the reading. You are good. And I think every member
    now has a copy of the amendment. And Mr. Berman is recognized
    for 5 minutes to explain his sense of Congress amendment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Berman. Yes. Madam Chairman, I would ask unanimous
    consent that the--208, No. 208 be stricken and we just--and
    section 2. It would just be section 2.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. This
    amendment incorporates with a slight change in the initial
    paragraph in order to worm it into title II the result causes
    from H. Res. 306, a bipartisan resolution that the gentleman
    from California, Mr. Royce, and I have introduced that has 34
    co-sponsors and I am offering this amendment with Mr.
    Cicilline. This amendment is simple in its directness but
    profound in his implications.
        The Christian communities of Turkey, once populous and
    prosperous, have long been victims of discrimination and are
    now reduced to a mere handful. Whereas, well over 2 million
    Christians lived in Anatolia a century ago, today there are
    only a few thousand, and yet although Christians are less than
    1 percent of Turkey's population today and clearly constitute
    no threat to the majority, the various Christian communities
    remain the victims of unthinkable discrimination. Their
    churches have been desecrated, their properties confiscated and
    they are denied the right to practice their religion as they
    see fit or to train their clergy. Through this amendment, we
    are asking that Turkey rectify this terrible situation. Much of
    the worst damage to and confiscation of Christian properties
    was done in the earlier decades of the Turkish Republic, but it
    continues to some extent today.
        And Christians suffer other forms of discrimination as
    well. Every church in Turkey suffers petty harassment at a
    minimum. Forced to apply to central authorities for
    authorization to do any types of repairs or construction,
    requests that often linger for months and years without
    government action. Moreover, Turkey recognizes certain
    Christian groups as legitimate but not others. If you belong to
    one of the unauthorized groups, such as the evangelicals, you
    can't even build a church. The amendment calls on Turkey to
    make good on past transgressions and allow true freedom of
    religion to achieve the standards of Democratic behavior to
    which it says, and to which I believe it aspires.
        We want Turkey to allow its Christian citizens to worship
    exactly as they want and to allow them to train their clergy
    exactly as they want. We want Christians to have the right to
    preserve, reconstruct and repair their churches and other
    communal buildings without hindrance or petty harassment as in
    the case of all other democracies. We want our Turkey to return
    confiscated property to Christian communities and at a minimum
    to provide compensation for properties that can't be recovered.
        In short, we want Christian communities in Turkey to enjoy
    the same rights and privileges that religious minorities enjoy
    in this country. That is not too much to ask. In fact, that is
    the minimum we must ask if Turkey is ever to join the ranks of
    the world's fully free nations. I urge all members to support
    the amendment and I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Thank you.
    And I would like to recognize Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes to
    speak on this amendment.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I won't take the 5 minutes, Ms. Chairman.
    But I want to thank the ranking member for offering the
    amendment. I encourage support of this very important
    amendment. It is imperative that the Turkish Government take
    immediate steps to address serious concerns regarding its
    treatment of believers of certain religions and reform its
    policies to allow those denominations the freedom to worship,
    congregate and preserve their religious sites and to return
    those--to those organizations the properties that they have
    previously held. And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. The
    gentleman yields back.
        Voice. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I had already seen--I don't know who
    is saying my name, but Mr. Sherman had already gotten my
    attention. So there are some folks over here. Mr. Sherman is
    recognized.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I rise in strong support of this
    amendment and am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 306 on which it
    is based. The adoption of this amendment would add a powerful
    voice, the voice of the United States Congress in the defense
    of religious freedom for Christians in present day Turkey and
    reinforce the traditional leadership of Congress in defending
    freedom of faith around the world. This amendment is urgently
    needed to address the vast destruction of Christian religious
    heritage as a result of the Turkish Government's theft,
    desecration and disregard of ancient Christian holy sites and
    churches, many holding great significance to the world
    Christian community. The U.S. Commission on International
    Religious Freedom raises the following alarm in its 2011
    report. The Turkish Government continues to impose serious
    limitation on freedom of religion or belief, thereby
    threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority
    religious groups in Turkey. This amendment honors our heritage
    as a Nation dedicated to religious liberty.
        For example, in January 2011, President Obama noted,
    bearing witness to those who are persecuted or attacked because
    of their faith is essential to who we are as Americans. While
    President Bush declared in 2009 no human freedom is more
    fundamental than the right to worship in accordance with one's
    conscience. Churches in Turkey have been desecrated. The
    adoption of this amendment would help bring the attention of
    the world to the Christian communities within Turkey which
    remain highly vulnerable and are forced to endure restrictions
    on their right to practice their faith. For example, of the
    2,000 Armenian churches which existed in the early 1900s, less
    than 100 remain standing and functioning today. The U.S.
    Commission on International Religious Freedom has, for 3
    straight years, placed Turkey on their watch list.
        In 2009, Bartholmew I, the ecumenical Christian orthodox
    patriarch of Constantinople, appeared on CBS' ``60 Minutes''
    and reported that Turkey's Christians were second class
    citizens and that he personally felt crucified by a state that
    wanted to see his church die out. Christian property is
    routinely confiscated through discriminatory laws. The U.S.
    Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported, and
    I quote, ``Over the past 5 decades, the Turkish state has using
    convoluted regulations and undemocratic laws to confiscate
    hundreds of religious minority properties, primarily those
    belonging to the Greek orthodox community, as well as Armenian
    orthodox, Catholics and Jews.'' The state has closed seminaries
    denying these communities the right to train their clergy.
        The Turkish Supreme Court issued a ruling just this year
    transferring ownership of a substantial part of the ancient
    Syriac monastery of Mor Gabriel dating from the 4th century
    A.D., transferring that property to the Turkish state.
        I think that it is important that we pass this amendment
    and I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much to the gentleman
    from California. The order I have for speakers who have
    requested time. Mr. Burton, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Royce, Mr.
    Cicilline and Mr. Duncan. So we will go with Mr. Burton. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Burton. First of all, Madam Speaker, I support the
    resolution. I think everybody on the dais believes in religious
    freedom and believes that those who have religious views should
    be able to express them freely in a free society. So I support
    this. As a matter of fact, my wife and I have met with the
    patriarch over in Turkey and have had a chance to talk to him
    personally. There is just no question that there are questions
    about religious freedom over there. However, the one thing that
    I hope that we will realize as we discuss this and realize the
    problems that do exist in Turkey today.
        We also realize that they are a NATO ally and a lot of
    these problems have gone back for 70, 80, 90, 100 years. And
    while those problems, to a large degree still exist, we have to
    realize that Turkey is a NATO ally, and while we are talking
    about religious freedom and people's right, we also have to
    realize that there are a lot of positives in having a good
    relationship with Turkey.
        So while I support this resolution and support religious
    freedom, I think it is extremely important that we don't go
    overboard in criticizing Turkey because it could have a bad
    impact on the problems that we have in the Middle East right
    now. Turkey is a NATO ally. They have been a conduit for us
    getting supplies into Afghanistan and helping our allies and to
    just beat them over the head on this issue to a larger degree
    than what has already been done seems to me to be a little bit
    excessive. But I do support the amendment. I do support
    religious freedom and I hope that this amendment does pass.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Burton yields back.
    Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
    thank Mr. Berman for crafting language to put before us that is
    consensus language and that obviously, I think, all of us can
    rally behind. Religious freedom is a Tenet of American
    philosophy. It is a cardinal American value. In fact, with
    Thomas Jefferson, a native of my State of Virginia was
    contemplating his gravestone, it was the Tenets on religious
    freedom, not the presidency, that he wanted on his tombstone.
    He thought it was that important.
        So obviously, it is appropriate for an American Congress to
    reiterate those Tenets and urge them on others. I would echo
    what our friend Indiana just said. In this context we also have
    to remember the importance and the criticality of the
    relationship of a NATO ally and a country that with which we
    have very important ties and relationships, and I think the
    language drafted by Mr. Berman strikes a careful balance,
    making the point while avoiding perhaps other entanglements and
    other appointments that could be made in some other form and
    agenda. And I thank him for that and look forward to supporting
    the language. And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Royce of
    California is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Royce. Yes, Madam Chairman. The reason we are bringing
    forward this amendment today, the reason that Ranking Member
    Howard Berman and I have introduced legislation on this issue,
    is because this is an issue that is ongoing in Turkey. And as
    discussed--imagine a situation in which you have a country
    where you had literally millions of people of many faiths and
    over the last few generations, we have reached the point today
    where the Baha'i and the Christians and the Jews in Turkey are
    less than 1 percent of the population.
        And in tandem with that, the personal experiences that we
    have had in discussions with people that we have gotten to know
    today who will try to practice religious freedom in Turkey and
    have come under these constraints, constraints that frankly
    have led to a situation where 2,000 churches are now 200 in
    Turkey. A situation where no longer if you are a religious
    minority can you effectively practice your religion because in
    order to practice, you have got to be able to study, you have
    got to have clergy teach your religion and if you can't
    overcome the barriers to that, how are you going to keep that
    religion alive? If those religious needs are not met, if we
    don't speak out, if we don't--as the United States of America,
    if we don't speak up for this principle, what do we think is
    going to happen ultimately to those religious minority groups?
        They are going to decline eventually. If this continues,
    they are going to disappear. And that is why this resolution
    urges Turkey to fulfill its obligation. The United States
    Commission on International Religious Freedom points this out
    repeatedly, Turkey is identified as a country among the world's
    top violators of religious freedom, despite it being a
    signatory of the universal declaration of human rights.
        So we urge Turkey to fulfill its obligation, allow clergy
    to train and students to study Christianity and other religions
    there, return all confiscated church properties that were
    stolen, frankly, provide religious minorities with the right to
    own property, repair the damage that Turkey has caused with
    these minority groups and allow people to practice their faith
    freely.
        And lastly, and most importantly, provide churches with
    legal status and rights because until these churches, until the
    Baha'i, until the Jews, until the Christians, until the Greek
    orthodox have the legal status in Turkey, we are going to see
    the winding down of a situation where they are now less than 1
    percent. We are going to watch as they fear to even repair--you
    cannot, on some of these--on some of these churches there is a
    desire to put a cross back up on the church. On some of these
    Greeks orthodox churches. Why not allow that? If it is a
    secular society, why not allow the parish to do that.
        People fear discrimination there. They fear that
    discrimination while they study, while they practice, while
    they are trying to teach their religion, and this goes to that
    issue.
        And let me close by saying this. The United States has a
    vested interest in protecting religious freedom because by
    threatening the vitality and survival of minority religious
    communities, that threatens the fundamental freedoms that this
    country was founded upon. That is why we have an obligation, I
    think, and the entire international community has an obligation
    to speak out now before it is too late, and these religions are
    finally gone. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman from California yields
    back. The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The respect for
    the full exercise of religious freedom is really central to who
    we are as Americans and central to the values and the ideals
    that we promote all over the world, and I am proud to be an
    original co-sponsor of the House Resolution 306, and I thank
    Mr. Berman the courtesy in allowing me to cosponsor this
    amendment and for his extraordinary leadership.
        As a strong supporter of religious freedom, we have a
    responsibility as a Congress to speak to this issue and really
    a moral obligation to talk about what is happening in Turkey.
    Christian communities in Turkey have long suffered from the
    destruction and confiscation of their holy sites, the forced
    closure of their theological schools and restrictions on their
    right to worship according to their conscience. There are
    reports that Christians are prevented from praying in their own
    churches. Continued prosecution of the vulnerable Christian
    minority in Turkey threatens the survival of their religious
    tradition. The adoption of this amendment would support their
    struggle for religious freedom, a value central to basic human
    dignity and a basic civil right. My home State, the State of
    Rhode Island, was founded by Roger Williams, on the principle
    of religious liberty and freedom. And I am proud to support Mr.
    Berman's amendment in that spirit. I urge my colleagues to do
    the same and vote yes on this amendment. I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman for yielding
    back. Mr. Duncan is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I just want to
    thank the colleagues that put this language together. I am one
    of the signers of the letter to President Obama. I think there
    were 214 of those signers the last count I had. So this is an
    issue that is important to a lot of us. I want to point out
    that on June 12th of this year, I was in Turkey when they had
    the parliamentarian elections. And it is interesting to note,
    and I would like to have in the record here today that Turkey
    elected its first Christian to the Turkish Parliament, Erol
    Dora, Turkey's first Christian, part of the AKP party that took
    over. And so I think it is interesting to note that we are
    seeing some change hopefully in Turkey. But as a patriotic
    American that understands the first amendment rights that we
    have here and that we should be the country that promotes
    religious freedom, not just in Turkey but worldwide, to give
    folks around the world the opportunities that we have to
    worship as we wish, as Christians or any other religious
    organization, the freedoms that we have in this country should
    be promoted worldwide.
        So I want to commend my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Royce,
    and Mr. Berman for their efforts on this to call on Turkey to
    end religious discrimination, to cease all constrictions on
    gatherings for religious prayer and education and return stolen
    church property that you have heard about already.
        So I want to urge my colleagues to get behind this
    amendment, to sign onto the letter to the President if you
    haven't already and get behind this issue. And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Duncan, for
    yielding back. And Mr. Engel is recognized and another speaker
    that I have is Meeks, Carnahan and Rohrabacher. We will go to
    you afterward. Thank you. If you could hold on, Mr.
    Rohrabacher. Would you like to go now? No, sorry. We had a
    Republican. Sorry. We have got to go to--and we want to go to
    Mr. Engel. We wish, we desire, we really need to go to Eliot.
        Mr. Engel. I am not letting my classmate Dana Rohrabacher
    jump ahead of me. He comes before R in the alphabet you know.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Beauty before beast.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I rise in
    strong support of this resolution, this amendment today. And,
    you know, sometimes we get bills before us that are complicated
    to understand and you have got to read them several times, you
    have got to look at memos, you have got to see what they do and
    then you hope you have a good knowledge of what they do. I read
    this amendment. It is really easy. It is really simple. And I
    don't think anybody should oppose it, no matter where they
    stand with regard to Turkey or anything else like that. I would
    like to just read it because I think it is important. It simply
    is a statement of Congress regarding Turkey and it says that
    Congress urges the Government of Turkey to honor its
    obligations under international treaties and human rights law
    to, one, end all forms of religious discrimination and, two
    allow the rightful church and lay owners of Christian church
    properties without hindrance or restriction to organize and
    administer prayer services, religious education, clerical
    training, appointments and succession, religious community
    gatherings, social services, including ministry to the needs of
    the poor and infirm and other religious activities.
        Well, no one could find any fault with that. Three, return
    to their rightful owners all Christian churches and other
    places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments,
    relics, holy sites and other religious properties, including
    movable properties such as artwork, manuscripts, vestments,
    vessels and other artifacts, and finally, allow the rightful
    Christian church and lay owners of Christian church properties
    without hindrance or restriction to preserve, reconstruct and
    repair as they see fit all Christian churches and other places
    of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, monuments, relics,
    holy sites and other religious properties within Turkey.
        I don't find one thing objectionable in what I have just
    read. I would ask any country to do that. In fact, many of you
    know that one of my crusades here in the 23 years that I have
    been here has been independence for Kosovo, to try to fight for
    independence of Kosovo because the majority of people who live
    in that country, 95 percent of them are Kosovo Albanians, the
    majority of whom are Muslim. And as much and as fervent as I
    have been of Kosovo independence and still am and have been to
    the country many, many times, from day one, I have said that we
    must take great pains to make sure that the monastery, the
    Serbian orthodox monasteries in Kosovo are not desecrated or
    taken care of, that the church needs to be insured that
    everything that pertains to the church is under its control,
    there needs to be freedom of worship, that there needs to be
    all of these things. I don't find that inconsistent with any of
    the principles in terms of Kosovo independence which I
    wholeheartedly support or any of the principles here.
        Yes, Turkey is an ally in NATO, and we recognize that. I
    wish they would frankly act a little more like an ally of the
    United States than they have lately. They really have gone
    astray and gone away frankly from--their foreign minister has
    set out a policy of Islamicism and has moved away from the
    European Union and the West and the United States and has
    behaved very poorly with the flotilla and Israel and the whole
    bit, but that is beside the fact.
        The fact is, who could be against safeguarding the right of
    Christians in Turkey to worship and the right of churches to
    keep their properties. Now, I have gotten notice from both the
    Armenian National Committee of America, the Armenian Assembly
    of America are saying that and I find that completely
    persuasive.
        So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, a
    bipartisan amendment and with good cause to support this
    amendment. I am in favor of religious freedom for all people
    and certainly for Christians in Turkey. And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, the gentleman
    from New York. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher,
    is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And I am in support
    of this amendment, but I would like to ask Mr. Berman, the
    author of the amendment----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Several questions if I could.
    Mr. Berman, this amendment is aimed at promoting religious
    freedom in Turkey. Where would you rank Turkey in terms of
    other Muslim countries in terms of freedom of religion?
        Mr. Berman. Countries of the world?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And the world, yes. I mean, yes, the
    planet, the world, not Mars----
        Mr. Berman. You seem to limit it to Muslim countries. Is
    there a different standard?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you agree with me that Turkey is a
    relatively free country as compared to other countries that
    have such large Muslim populations?
        Mr. Berman. Could I answer the question with a question?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if you don't want to answer my
    question.
        Mr. Berman. Why do you keep limiting this to Muslim
    countries?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Because Turkey finds itself in a part of
    the world not surrounded by Western democracies, but instead,
    bordering many countries that have, perhaps, less freedom than
    the Turks do, yet we have in front of us, yes, an amendment
    that is accurate, but it is aimed at perhaps the freest country
    in the region. I am trying to understand why.
        Mr. Berman. It is not my intention to hold Turkey to the
    particular standard you have chosen to articulate. Turkey is a
    modern country that is a member of NATO that is a candidate for
    EU members that is a close ally on which we have many important
    relationships. But in this particular area, their practices for
    many years after--in the post----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Berman [continuing]. Ottoman period have been
    atrocious.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time. Obviously there is a
    double standard being put to use here clearly. Now, I agree
    with everybody here. I am going to vote for this because it is
    true. The same reason I vote for the Armenian genocide
    resolution and these other things that have happened with
    Turkey in the past. If they are true, I vote for them and this
    is true. But that doesn't mean there isn't a double standard
    that is being used against Turkey. I will----
        Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No. Let me go on for one moment. We all
    know this. People come into my office all the time. Jews will
    come into my office and say, ``What have you done for Israel?''
    and Irishmen will come in and say, ``What have you done to help
    us in Ireland to promote peace?''
        And of course, the Greeks and the Armenians come in saying,
    ``What have you done to hurt Turkey?'' For Pete's sake, the
    bottom-line is we are supposed to be--yes, we will stand up for
    the principle, and that is what is in this amendment, that is
    why I will vote for it. But we have a terrible double standard
    when it comes to Turkey. And the Armenians and the Greeks, yes,
    they have legitimate concerns, but that doesn't mean we have to
    be inconsistent and always express those concerns and make
    Turkey feel that we are singling them out from all the other
    Muslim countries who have a worse record than Turkey has.
        If we want to drive them in the opposite direction, that is
    what we are doing. By doing things like this, we are not
    promoting freedom in Turkey. We are making them think that we
    are singling them out and have a total double standard.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
        Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
        Give me a break. There are many ills in this world. There
    are many governments that are not living by standards, I
    think--involved a fundamental commitment to universal human
    rights. This resolution, which you have defined as accurate----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct.
        Mr. Berman [continuing]. And something that you will
    support, you are sort of working yourself into a rage that I am
    offering something that you think is accurate----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, I----
        Mr. Berman [continuing]. Because there are other evils in
    the world.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Reclaiming my time----
        Mr. Berman. The gentleman from California----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher reclaims his time.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time.
        No, you could have had on this--we suggested that our
    leaders of our Government, the Secretary of State and others,
    when meeting with people from that region, including Turkey and
    naming several other countries, should talk about freedom of
    religion and all these other things.
        Mr. Berman. I agree.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Instead, you didn't put that in there. You
    just singled out----
        Mr. Berman. I also didn't put who is borrowing money----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher has his time----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. That he has not
    yielded.
        Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        You know, I rise in support of this amendment because it is
    the right thing to do. Religion--and once we learn to be
    tolerant of religion, different than ours especially, we will
    be there a lot better and safer place. And we have to encourage
    all to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to practice
    his or her religion of choice, and they should not be
    discriminated against because of his or her religion.
        Now, clearly, in this particular instance, Turkey, in my
    estimation, has shown some forward progress and flexibility--
    for example, in the nationality of the patriarch. And I hope
    that an agreeable solution can be found on the Halki seminary,
    perhaps as incorporated under a Turkish university of the Greek
    Orthodox community's choosing. But more can and should be done.
    And I thank the ranking member for his language in this bill,
    so that it makes it--so that it brings us all together.
        And I think that is what the key is. The key is trying to
    figure out--because religion is a way of life. And a religion
    shouldn't be something, no matter what your religion, that
    separates us or to make us not like one another. It should be,
    you have the freedom of the way of life and the freedom of the
    belief that you have.
        And I would just, you know, give a cautionary note, as we
    do talk to other countries, et cetera, we in the United States
    need to also take a check at ourselves. When I look at the
    debate that we have had in New York about whether or not
    Muslims can build a mosque in New York City or not, practicing
    their religious freedom, whether or not--and I hear the debate,
    people questioning whether or not the President of the United
    States is a Muslim or not, as if that should be considered. He
    is not, but his religion should not preclude him from being the
    President of the United States, as people are talking about
    here.
        So it is easy to look out and talk to other people about
    what they should do--and we should, because if you stay silent
    when you know something is wrong, then you are allowing it
    continue. So we have to be vocal about it. But we also have to
    make sure--we don't live in a glass house. We have to make sure
    that our house is also taken care of, because people are
    looking at us also. And when you look at people burning the
    Koran or other things of that nature, we are talking about
    their religion.
        So we have to lead by example in the United States also.
    And I think, by and large, we have. But I just get concerned
    when I hear the kinds of issues and the long debates that we
    have had about even the President's--whether he is a Christian
    or whether he is not. And he has stated over and over what his
    beliefs were, but we doubt it, as if it would be something
    negative if he was.
        For me, you know--and I am a devout Christian. We talked
    about--someone just mentioned that--and in Turkey, they
    finally--they elected a Christian. Well, it took us a long
    time; just recently we elected two Muslims to the United States
    Congress. It just happened--not, you know, 4 years ago, that
    hadn't happened.
        So there is progress that is being made on all sides, and I
    think that is a good thing. And I think that we have to make
    sure that--you know, in the words of Dr. King, Dr. King said,
    ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' And
    so, if we allow religious discrimination anywhere, then it is a
    threat to practicing religion everywhere, and it affects all of
    us.
        And so, Mr. Berman, again, thank you for writing an
    amendment that we can all agree upon so that we can get this
    message across. And, hopefully, we can all make this place that
    we call ``Earth'' a more tolerable and a better place, as we
    all practice our individual religion.
        Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Meeks. I yield.
        Mr. Ackerman. I thank the gentleman very much.
        Well said.
        I just can't help but laughing. It is really extraordinary
    that we take out all this time to fight about something we
    agree upon, and to do it with such venom.
        You know, Turkey certainly stands not without blemish, but
    they are among the closer countries to us in that area, which
    causes one some concern and gives us an additional ability to
    have--what friends would say, we have a call upon each other
    and a right to say to our friends and very, very important
    player in the region that there are things that you could do to
    burnish your image and look like the country that you hope to
    be; this is one of those areas.
        There is no double standard. We are just talking about
    Turkey in this amendment. Bring up any country in any amendment
    that you want, and if there are problems with human rights or
    religious freedoms, I think we would all be willing to support
    that amendment.
        But let's try to at least agree on the things we know we
    agree on, instead of just picking each other apart because we
    are sitting on different sides of the aisle. This thing is
    getting ridiculous here.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields.
        Who had the time? Mr. Meeks? Does Mr. Meeks yield?
        Mr. Meeks. Yeah, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Yes, we are loving it to death. Never has an amendment so
    loved been so controversial.
        Mr. Smith, then Mr. Carnahan, then Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Smith. I will be very brief, Madam Chair. Just to point
    out that this is a very timely and, I think, a very important
    amendment.
        You know, the May edition, just-released edition of the
    Commission on International Religious Freedom, points out that
    the Turkish Government continues to impose serious limitations
    on freedom of religion or belief, threatening the continued
    vitality and survival of the minority religious communities in
    Turkey. They have also pointed out that, when Turkey was placed
    on the Commission's watch list in 2009, the issues related to
    religious freedom have deteriorated to this end. So the glide
    slope is in the wrong direction in Turkey, not the right
    direction. And that goes equally for both the Christians and
    the rising tide of anti-Semitism.
        I chair the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
    Europe and never miss an opportunity to raise this with our
    counterparts in the Turkish Parliament, both Christians and
    Jews, who are increasingly put at risk--and that, of course,
    would include the Orthodox and the Armenians.
        So I think it is timely and it is always, I think,
    appropriate to raise this issue in the hopes of providing
    additional freedoms and respect for this fundamental human
    right.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much to the gentleman
    from New Jersey. He yields back.
        And Mr. Carnahan is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I want to thank Mr. Berman and Mr. Royce for putting
    together this balanced amendment, but also that includes frank
    language but also language that I think can unify us around our
    common values instead of dividing us.
        Last year, our subcommittee had a briefing on the status of
    religious freedom around the world. This is a key element and a
    key measure for us to have included in our relations around the
    world. It is a key indicator for free and developing societies.
        Turkey has been a longtime ally and friend, and so we can
    and should speak frankly to them about this. We should
    recognize progress they have made, but we should also urge them
    to do more. They have been a key NATO ally. They are a key
    world economy. And they are especially today a key example of a
    moderate, Muslim, democratic country. During this vital time of
    transition for so many Muslim countries across the Middle East
    and North Africa, they are a model in many respects for how
    those countries can succeed. So we need them at the table. We
    need to continue to urge them to do more.
        And to the broader question that many have raised here
    today, Chairman Smith spoke about the International Commission
    on Religious Freedom, the annual reports that they come out
    with each year. It is important that we look at those, measure
    that progress, not just in Turkey, but in other countries
    around the globe.
        So, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman.
        And Mr. Poe of Texas is recognized because that is just the
    way it is.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I do support the amendment, but I do have the same concerns
    that Mr. Rohrabacher from California has. It seems to be
    traditional in the United States we are always harder on our
    allies and our friends than we are on our enemies for some
    reason. And I think we should have an equal standard and make
    sure that we promote religious liberty and freedom everywhere,
    not just in certain specific countries.
        I was with the gentleman from South Carolina and Mr.
    Carnahan of Missouri when the free elections took place in
    Turkey, and I do believe they are making progress. I commend
    them for the progress that they are making, and I would hope
    that we would commend them where they are doing good. We should
    look to the future with Turkey. They are an ally of the United
    States, and support religious freedom everywhere, including in
    the United States.
        And, with that, I will yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the amendment. And we will have a recorded vote on
    that amendment, but we will now proceed in the order that I had
    stated.
        Pursuant to committee rule 4 and the prior announcement of
    the Chair, recorded votes will now take place on the following
    amendments that were postponed and will be taken now in this
    order: First, we will have the amendment offered by Ms. Bass to
    section 103, regarding peacekeeping contributions and the
    Democratic Republic of Congo. The second amendment, offered by
    Ms. Wilson of Florida, to section 103, regarding peacekeeping
    contributions and Haiti. The third vote will be Amendment No.
    17 offered by Mr. Higgins, raising the funding level for the
    International Joint Commission. The fourth vote will be the
    Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Higgins, raising the funding
    level for the International Fisheries Commission. The fifth
    vote will be the amendment offered by Mr. Mack regarding the
    pipeline. And the last vote--not the last vote of today, but
    the last vote in this series will be the amendment just offered
    by Mr. Berman, loved by all, on the sense of Congress regarding
    Turkey.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. In all fairness, because we were rewriting it
    to get it into title II, it is a Berman-Cicilline amendment.
    And I just----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let the record so reflect, with
    unanimous consent.
        Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Will it be the Berman-
    Cicilline-Ackerman amendment?
        Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair, I just wanted to clarify that it
    is the amendment, not Mr. Berman, that is loved by all.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Both, both, both. Please. Cherished,
    admired, respected, revered, feared.
        So the clerk--are we all--I don't want to confuse anyone.
    Are we clear on the votes that will take place?
        The first vote will be the amendment offered by Ms. Bass to
    section 103, regarding peacekeeping contributions and the
    Democratic Republic of the Congo.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        Mr. Paul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
        Mr. Pence?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? Mr.
    Pence?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 18 ayes
    and 25 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        The next vote is on the amendment offered by Ms. Wilson of
    Florida to section 103, regarding peacekeeping contributions in
    Haiti.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton? Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        Mr. Paul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
        Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes no.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Wilson, are you recorded?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Madam Chair, how am I
    recorded?
        Ms. Carroll. You are not recorded, sir.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. I seek to vote no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will call the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 19 ayes
    and 25 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Thank you. We will now move to Amendment No. 17, offered by
    Mr. Higgins, raising the funding level for the International
    Joint Commission.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        Mr. Paul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
        Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? Mr.
    Deutch?
        Mrs. Schmidt. One more. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 19 ayes
    and 25 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        We will now move to Mr. Higgins' No. 16 amendment, raising
    the funding level for the International Fisheries Commission.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        Mr. Paul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
        Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? Mr.
    Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members have been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 20 ayes
    and 24 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        We will now proceed to the amendment offered by Mr. Mack,
    regarding the Keystone XL pipeline.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul?
        Mr. Paul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes aye.
        Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes yes.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 30 ayes
    and 14 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to.
        Our last rolled vote is the amendment offered by Mr. Berman
    on the sense of Congress regarding Turkey.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul?
        Mr. Paul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul votes no.
        Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Pass.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Ayes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 43 ayes
    and 1 no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to.
        We will now go back to regular order.
        And, Mr. Deutch, we have two amendments that you have
    offered under title II. And if you would like to offer your
    amendments at this time.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Amendment 621 is what we are on. Madam Chair, I think this
    has been distributed.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        And we all have a copy of it. Let's just make sure we all
    do. It is Bureau of Counterterrorism.
        Mr. Deutch is recognized to explain his amendment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Deutch. Madam Chairman, this amendment would authorize
    a new Bureau of Counterterrorism. It is based on a
    recommendation of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
    Review to elevate the position of the coordinator for
    counterterrorism.
        Madam Chairman, when the Office of Counterterrorism was
    first created during the Reagan years, counterterrorism was an
    important yet relatively peripheral issue in the Department.
    That has changed dramatically in the last 20 years.
        Elevating the office to a bureau accomplishes two goals:
    First, it strengthens the position of the coordinator, enabling
    that individual to serve as a more effective leader of U.S.
    counterterrorism activities. Statutorily, the coordinator for
    counterterrorism is supposed to coordinate all U.S. Government
    counterterrorism activities, but, in practice, it does not work
    that way. Creating a bureau puts the coordinator on the same
    footing as his colleagues at the Department of Defense and the
    Department of Homeland Security. It gives him a more expansive
    role in the State Department.
        Second, converting to a bureau would have allow the
    coordinator to strengthen States' involvement in new, powerful
    counterterrorism activities, such as multilateral and bilateral
    diplomacy to advance U.S. counterterrorism goals, building the
    capacity of foreign partners to fight terror, and coordinating
    public diplomacy and military information support programs.
        Since 9/11, we have seen the role of the Department of
    Defense evolve dramatically. That department now fights not
    only terrorists but battles the underlying conditions that lead
    to terror. The Department of Defense speaks of ``influencing
    the global environment and eroding support for extremist
    ideologies.''
        I view these as fundamental functions of the Department of
    State and USAID. And I view the coordinator for
    counterterrorism as a point person in the Department's efforts
    to coordinate these activities. Just as DoD's role has changed,
    so, too, should that of the coordinator for counterterrorism to
    reflect this expanded mission.
        I am aware that, although many on this committee support
    the counterterrorism efforts of the Department, there are
    concerns about establishing a new bureau. And yet I support the
    fundamental recommendation of the QDDR to establish a bureau
    and, given the imminent threats faced by the United States,
    want to see this bureau established as soon as practicable. For
    that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch.
        Do other members seek recognition to speak on the
    amendment?
        Mr. Royce is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Royce. Yes, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the
    gentleman's focus here on counterterrorism, but I have a couple
    of concerns about this amendment.
        And I am not convinced that making the office of the
    special coordinator for counterterrorism a bureau would make
    its activities any more effective. I think that is the
    conceptual point we need to concern ourselves with. It is an
    office today, and it is an office because it is supposed to
    coordinate programs. It is not supposed to implement them. Its
    responsibility is to coordinate programs, which is exactly what
    offices do, and that is why it is an office.
        And I just haven't heard enough about why we should move
    away from the coordinator model, which is what is suggested
    here. And if you think about it, also, it is the person doing
    the job that makes the difference when it comes to
    effectiveness, not the title. But the basic job here is the job
    of the bureau.
        Now, let's take the second point. If the administration
    feels that this is important, then they already have the
    authority to create a bureau here. The problem is that they
    have other priorities, right? The State Department's numbers of
    bureaus are capped at 29, and right now they have--I think it
    is 27, right? Twenty-seven bureaus. They can't create a Bureau
    of Counterterrorism because they have given preference to
    creating a new Bureau for Conflict Stabilization and a new
    Bureau for Energy Resources. And the bottom line is, that is
    the administration's choice. So I would feel better about this
    amendment if it struck one of these new or even several of
    these currently existing bureaus.
        But the base bill--and let's think about what we are doing
    with the base bill here--the base bill has a provision
    requiring the President to send Congress a feasibility study to
    eliminate duplicative bureaus and offices and positions. So the
    administration has already made its decision here. What we are
    trying to do is get more efficiency out of the bureaucracy. So
    let's get that information, and then we can make a better
    choice about where in the bureaucracy counterterrorism should
    be housed.
        And one thing I am certain about is that the State
    Department does not need 30 assistant secretaries, which would
    be the practical result of this amendment if we do not
    basically reduce other bureaus at State. And, frankly, it goes
    against the intention of the underlying bill here, which is to
    get that feasibility study to eliminate duplicative bureaus,
    offices, and positions. As I say, if the administration wanted
    to do this, they could do it.
        So I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I rise in support of the amendment and yield my time to the
    sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. I thank the ranking member.
        In response to the gentleman from California, three points.
        First, the idea of eliminating duplicative bureaus is one
    that I think we can all support, but there is no suggestion
    that there is a duplicative bureau that deals with
    counterterrorism. In fact, there is no bureau that deals with
    counterterrorism. That is the purpose of this amendment.
        Secondly, in response to the suggestion that simply
    changing the title won't have an effect, I would again restate
    that, by creating an Assistant Secretary of State for
    Counterterrorism, we would be putting that person at State on
    the same level as his counterparts at DoD and the Department of
    Homeland Security, exactly the position that person should
    hold, given the responsibilities that come with that job.
        And, finally, if this is merely a problem with the number,
    the number of assistant secretaries, the number of bureaus as
    currently capped, I would gladly entertain a secondary
    amendment to my amendment to increase that cap by one so that
    we could accomplish it that way.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Royce. Would the gentleman yield before----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Royce [continuing]. He yields back?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch, would you like to yield?
        Mr. Deutch. Gladly. Gladly. I yield.
        Mr. Royce. Mr. Deutch, when you were responding to my
    points, again, the point I was making is that it is an office,
    rather than a bureau, because the function here, the
    responsibility, is to coordinate programs. It doesn't have the
    function of implementing programs. It is not, in fact, a
    bureau. That is why it is set up that way. That is probably why
    the administration has not made it a bureau.
        So I would just suggest that--that point I would just
    reiterate. And your amendment might seek, in keeping with the
    underlying bill, to cut the number of bureaus and then let the
    administration make the choice of how it wants to reorganize.
        I yield.
        Mr. Deutch. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Reclaiming my time, I would simply point out that the role
    of--currently the role of coordinator, ultimately the role of
    Assistant Secretary, is not merely to coordinate programs but
    to lead the fight at State Department in the counterterrorism
    area.
        And I would urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
        And I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, would the gentleman yield before he
    yields back?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly----
        Mr. Deutch. I would gladly yield to the gentleman from
    Virginia.
        Mr. Connolly. You know, I am struck, Mr. Deutch, by the
    fact that, in the culture of the State Department--and I take
    to heart our colleague from California, Mr. Royce's words. But,
    on the other hand, as a longtime observer of the State
    Department and somebody who used to, on the staff level, write
    these authorization bills in the other body, what has always
    struck me is that, you know, hierarchy and status, in a sense,
    are everything, and that by elevating counterterrorism to
    bureau status we have made a statement in terms of elevating
    the issue and insisting on more coordination and making sure
    that this has equal status with other functions within the
    State Department as opposed to sort of the stovepipe mentality
    that this is somebody else's assignment at the clerical level.
        And it strikes me that that is really, in many ways, what
    you are getting at, Mr. Deutch, if I understand your amendment.
    Would that be correct?
        Mr. Deutch. That is correct. That is exactly what we are
    getting at in this amendment.
        Again, this office was created during the Reagan years.
    Counterterrorism was hardly--played hardly the role that it
    does today. That added stature that would come, as the
    gentleman from Virginia points out, is exactly what is
    necessary to put this officer on the same footing as his
    colleagues at Defense and Homeland Security.
        Mr. Connolly. And as I recall, Mr. Deutch, actually, the
    State Department had some issues in terms of coordination and
    the passing on of intelligence prior to 9/11 in terms of,
    frankly, monitoring al-Qaeda. And, you know, obviously, since
    9/11 we have made counterterrorism a priority. But ensuring
    that it is enshrined as a priority for the State Department and
    that, hopefully, those problems of the past are no longer with
    us is also encompassed in the intent of your amendment.
        Would that also be correct?
        Mr. Deutch. That is correct. And I appreciate the gentleman
    from Virginia pointing that out.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague for yielding.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. McCaul is recognized.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield to the
    gentleman from California, Mr. Royce.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. I thank Mr. McCaul for yielding.
        Well, the suggestion I was going to make to Mr. Deutch, in
    keeping with the legislation here, how about a secondary
    amendment to eliminate a bureau that already exists? You would
    keep it at 29. We need to make choices, but in so doing at
    least we keep with the intention of the legislation.
        As I already reiterated, the administration could do this
    if it wanted to. Let us make the choice. Let's keep it at 29
    but dictate the elimination of 1 bureau and put this on the
    list.
        I think that is a credible suggestion for a secondary
    amendment, which you might want to consider accepting.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I am
    not--this is not, I don't believe, a--this is not an issue of
    whether or not we have too many bureaus. This is a question of
    whether fighting counterterrorism deserves added importance.
        Mr. Royce. But keep in mind that one of the things we are
    doing with the legislation is we are making a choice. This is
    about the need to make choices. If you make that choice and we
    do that with a secondary amendment, you can achieve your goal,
    even though the administration has not elevated it to that
    position.
        I would just suggest that to you for your contemplation. It
    is an idea. It is not a bad one.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. And I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I
    am not prepared to engage in an evaluation of the various
    bureaus to determine whether one should be reduced. I believe
    the issue is important enough that elevating----
        Mr. Royce. But----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. But returning to my time, it is an issue of
    making choices. Because a new bureau is going to cost money.
    The administration has not made that choice. If we make that
    choice, let's do it, but let's continue to cap it at 29. We can
    do that.
        And let me yield to the----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Royce [continuing]. Gentleman from Indiana.
        Mr. Burton. I would like to know how they came up with 29
    bureaus. I mean, why is it not 25? Why is it not 35? Where did
    this number, 29, come? Does anybody know?
        Mr. Royce. Well, probably for the reason--reclaiming my
    time--for the reason that it is not 1,000. At some point, you
    have to control the size of the bureaucracy because the
    bureaucracy becomes unwieldy. And just as we know that too many
    Cabinet positions creates a certain roadblock toward the
    ability to operate efficiently, so it is with bureaus. And
    there is an attempt to keep this within the confines not only
    of a budget but also of being able to operate effectively. You
    build a bureaucracy too large and you----
        Mr. Burton. Well, if the gentleman would yield further.
        Mr. Royce. Yes.
        Mr. Burton. I am not questioning whether or not it should
    be 29 or 28. I was just curious about----
        Mr. Royce. Right.
        Mr. Burton [continuing]. Where this number originated,
    because it seems to be stuck on 29. Was that legislated?
        Mr. Royce. Yes. Congress authorized it, and we did it in
    order to keep this from proliferating to the hundreds.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. McCaul, do you yield back?
        Mr. McCaul. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does any other member seek
    recognition on this amendment?
        If not, the clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cardoza votes aye.
        Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Votes aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. I vote no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Just one moment, ma'am.
        Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 18 ayes and 20 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        Mr. Deutch, did you have another amendment on this title?
        Mr. Deutch. I do, Madam Chair, Amendment 29.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Deutch
    of Florida. At the end of title II, section [blank]. Report on
    Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy of
    the Department of State. (a) Report. Not later than 3 months
    after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of
    State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
    House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations
    of the Senate a report on the resources and effectiveness of
    the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy
    of the Department of State. (b) Contents----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I ask unanimous consent to dispense
    with the reading.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
    and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment. Mr. Deutch is recognized.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        It has been 1 year since Congress passed the Comprehensive
    Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. This
    legislation, the most robust sanctions package to date, coupled
    with the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 and a
    newly strengthened sanctions package from the European Union,
    gave us the tools to create a targeted international sanctions
    regime aimed at bringing maximum economic pressure on the
    Iranian regime to halt its illicit nuclear program.
        In the year since the President signed CISADA into law, the
    Iranian regime has continued to advance its nuclear weapons
    program, with the latest report from the IAEA identifying
    possible military dimensions to the Iranian program and plans
    to triple highly enriched uranium production. In addition to
    its flagrant violation of international nuclear
    nonproliferation laws and sanctions policy, the regime has
    continued to be the leading sponsor of terrorist organizations
    like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
        For the past year, members of this committee, including the
    chairman and ranking member, both of whom have been so
    committed to this issue, have lamented over the lack of
    implementation and enforcement of CISADA. We have questioned
    countless witnesses about the lack of sanctions on major energy
    companies and the seemingly slow progress of investigations. We
    have cited news reports of developing deals and new investments
    in the Iranian energy sector and wonder why no determinations
    were made and sanctions imposed.
        Madam Chairman, in a subcommittee hearing just weeks ago,
    the Director of the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic
    Sanctions Policy, the office within the State Department
    charged with initiating and conducting investigations into
    sanctions violations, sat before many of us on this full
    committee and confirmed that his office has three and a half
    full-time staff devoted to these efforts--three and a half
    full-time staffers to determine the validity of thousands of
    news reports, documents, and statements about the thousands of
    energy firms potentially operating or looking to operate in
    Iran. Many Members of Congress, Madam Chairman, have five times
    as many staff members.
        As we look to pass new legislation in the coming months
    that would further tighten our existing sanctions policy, we
    must make sure the United States Government has the necessary
    resources to properly execute these laws. This amendment
    requires that a report be issued on the ability of the Office
    of Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy to
    effectively carry out its duties given its current resources.
    It will provide an assessments of how additional resources
    would enhance the efforts of the office, and it will also
    address what has continued to be a troubling issue for many of
    us--the pace of investigations--by providing an analysis of the
    potential impact of increased personnel, contracting authority,
    and resources for the Office of Terrorism Finance and Economic
    Sanctions Policy on the timeframe for a typical investigation's
    initiation, performance, conclusion, and resolution.
        If we are serious about stopping the threat to national and
    international security posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, then we
    must not only continue to create the most stringent framework
    of targeted, biting sanctions, but we must ensure that we are
    providing the necessary tools to implement and enforce these
    laws to their fullest extent.
        Madam Chairman, this is a de minimis report that would not
    be scored by the CBO. Any cost can be offset by the repeals
    listed in section 1 of this legislation. And I urge your
    support of this amendment.
        I thank the members, and I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Deutch of
    Florida, for your amendment.
        And Mr. Burton is recognized.
        Mr. Burton. Well, I see that the committee is possibly
    going to accept this amendment. I was just going to state that
    I think it makes a lot of sense.
        I think Mr. Deutch is correct; if we are going to impose
    sanctions, we need to know when and how we are going to impose
    them. And we need the personnel that can study the issue and
    make a decision as quickly as possible.
        So I think it is a good amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        The gentleman yields back. Seeing no other recognition for
    time, then we will perhaps have a voice vote.
        Yes, sir?
        Mr. Burton. I move we accept the amendment unanimously.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. And I move that that
    be done, without objection. My magic wand.
        Thank you. Yippee.
        Mr. Deutch, any more amendments on title II?
        Does any other member have amendments to title II of the
    bill?
        Having no further amendments on that title, we will then
    proceed to title III. The clerk will designate the title.
        And before you do so, Madam Clerk, I would like to ask
    unanimous consent from the members that, pursuant to rule 4, I
    am announcing that from 6:30 to 8 o'clock p.m., any recorded
    votes will be rolled until at least 8 o'clock p.m. However,
    debate and voice votes will continue during that time.
        So recorded votes will be rolled until at least 8 o'clock,
    but we will continue to debate the amendments. You must be
    present to win. You must be present to lose. No tickee, no
    laundry. If you are not here, you can't present it, or you can
    have someone else present it for you. But we will continue with
    our business.
        Mr. Berman. Reserving----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. I am just reserving the right to object. I
    don't intend to, but--so we are now starting title III. We will
    proceed with amendments for title III.
        To the extent the amendments are considered and a roll call
    is requested, that process will take place at that time until
    6:30. And then at 6:30, from that point on, amendments that are
    taken up, if a roll call is requested, that roll call will be
    postponed.
        I thought it was going to be until 8:30. Because Georgetown
    is a long way from here. No----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 8:15.
        Mr. Berman. 8:15. Okay, 8:15.
        But if we finish a title during that time and a person is
    not here to offer their amendment, they lose their chance to
    offer that amendment. That is my understanding of your----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is correct. If the gentleman
    would yield. Or you can have a member offer it on your behalf.
        Mr. Berman. Just so it is not me.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So, to be clear, once again,
    pursuant to rule 4, I am announcing that we will not have
    recorded votes from 6:30 to 8:15. And we will have voice votes.
    And you must be present or have a friend present your amendment
    because we will move by section and title, and if you are not
    here, we are not going back in time.
        So thank you. It shall be done. And with that, we were
    about to enter the title III, and we had the clerk designating
    the title.
        Madam Clerk.
        Ms. Carroll. Title III--Organization and Personnel
    Authorities.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Are there any amendments to this
    title?
        Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
    Fortenberry of Nebraska. At the end of title III, insert the
    following: Section 311. Diaspora Affairs. (a) Statement of
    Policy--it shall be the policy of the State Department Bureau
    of Population, Refugees, and Migration to track resettled
    refugee patterns, migrations, and educational and skill set
    accumulations in the United States with the goal of engaging
    new Americans for the purpose of facilitating U.S. national
    security, humanitarian, and economic goals in their home
    countries.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The Chair reserves a
    point of order. The amendment is still being given out.
        The Chair recognizes the author to explain the amendment,
    Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It is my understanding there is a point of order problem
    here as well as a jurisdictional issue, so I am going to
    withdraw the amendment momentarily, but I do want to speak to
    the issue since I think it is a possible idea that some of us
    may want to consider moving in another measure.
        Madam Chair, the Nebraska delegation for about almost the
    last 70 years on a weekly basis, when we are all in Washington,
    gets together for a breakfast. And any Nebraskans who are in
    town can join us, and that even includes U.S. Senators. And we
    have a good lively discussion with our constituents. And
    recently a young man who was a Sudanese refugee, a new
    American, who actually grew up from childhood in Nebraska and
    went to the University of Nebraska in Omaha, came to that
    breakfast and told us after that referendum in Southern Sudan,
    he went back to the village where his family had come from and
    began his project of digging a well for the people there.
        I say that simply because it wasn't until the registration
    began for the Southern Sudanese referendum earlier this year
    that it was realized that the largest population of Southern
    Sudanese refugees in the United States is in my home State of
    Nebraska. Many of these refugees came to America over the years
    during the course of the violence in the former Sudan and were
    settled in communities across the country, but for various
    reasons, such as migratory patterns, jobs, family and tribal
    linkages, a vast number of refugees made their home in
    Nebraska.
        Following the referendum until Southern Sudan's official
    independence on July 9th, my office learned there was not any
    type of focus on following the progress of new Americans,
    refugees, in our country.
        Furthermore, as many refugees in Nebraska inquired as to
    how they could help their former home establish independence
    and work toward becoming a strong and viable nation, I learned
    that refugees with in-demand technical skills and educations
    were not being called upon to assist U.S. development and aid
    efforts in South Sudan.
        Many refugees from other places throughout the world desire
    the opportunity to make a difference in their former homes when
    U.S. diplomacy creates the opportunity for peace and new
    beginnings.
        This amendment would have, if we had considered it, would
    have made it policy of the State Department Bureau of
    Population, Refugees, and Migration to track resettled refugee
    patterns, migrations, educational and skill set accumulations
    in the United States with the goal of engaging these new
    Americans for the purpose of facilitating U.S. national
    security, humanitarian and economic pursuits in their former
    countries.
        I know many refugee doctors and engineers and others with
    technical skills that could help in development efforts are
    eager to make such a difference. We should use their linguistic
    and educational talents, as well as cultural familiarity.
        And again, I understand there is a point of order with this
    amendment, and I am prepared to withdraw it, but I did want to
    use the time to talk about what I hope could be a constructive
    idea that we may consider in another measure.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Is the gentleman prepared to withdraw his amendment?
        Mr. Fortenberry. I withdraw my amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        Are there any other amendments to this title? Does any
    other member have an amendment? Hearing no further amendments
    to this title, we will proceed to title IV.
        The clerk will designate the title.
        Ms. Carroll. Title IV--Foreign Assistance.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Are there any amendments to this
    title?
        Mr. Poe is recognized.
        Mr. Poe. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Which number Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Number 156.
        Ms. Carroll. Number 156, amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by
    Mr. Poe of Texas and Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. At the end
    of title IV, add the following: Section 4xx. Internet Web site
    to make publicly available comprehensive, timely, comparable,
    and accessible information on United States foreign assistance
    programs. (a) Establishment; Publication and Updates. Not later
    than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this act, the
    President shall establish and maintain an Internet Web site to
    make publicly available comprehensive, timely, comparable, and
    accessible information on United States foreign assistance
    programs. The head of each Federal department or agency that
    administers such programs shall on a regular basis publish and
    update on the Web site such information with respect to the
    programs of the department or agency.----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think all the members now have a
    copy of the amendment offered by Mr. Poe of Texas and Mr.
    Duncan of South Carolina.
        Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am honored to introduce this with my good friend from
    South Carolina, Mr. Duncan. This amendment is a transparency
    amendment. It requires the President to post all foreign aid
    programs online. In January of this year, January 11, USAID
    launched the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, a public online
    resource that allows users to examine, research and track
    government foreign assistance investments in an accessible and
    easy-to-understand format. But USAID itself said the site is
    incomplete and only includes programs from two of the 25
    Federal agencies that administer aid and no performance metrics
    posted for any foreign aid program.
        In a recent study by the Brookings Institute and the Center
    for Global Development, the United States ranked 22nd out of 31
    countries when it came to transparency in foreign aid programs.
    There are hundreds of foreign aid programs run by the United
    States, but without transparency, there is no accountability.
        This amendment is a simple amendment, and with the
    amendment, everyone from someone cooking dinner in the kitchen
    table to the independent watchdog investigator can know where
    our foreign aid is going and what it is accomplishing or what
    it is not accomplishing.
        And I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Poe, for
    yielding back. Do other members wish to be heard on Mr. Poe and
    Mr. Duncan's amendment?
        Mr. Duncan. Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This is a simple issue of transparency. I think the
    American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being
    spent. So I strongly believe in the need for more transparency
    in reporting standards.
        We have so many Federal agencies that give foreign
    assistance, and both the American people and policy makers need
    a uniform standard by which to determine whether our foreign
    assistance is effective.
        I believe this amendment will help us better determine what
    programs are working, what programs need tweaking and really
    what programs need to be cut out altogether. We are $14
    trillion in debt, but part of the problem with foreign
    assistance is that American taxpayers do not have a way to
    monitor how Federal agencies use the funds they receive from
    the government. It is difficult to know exactly where the money
    is going and determine whether or not it is being used
    effectively in our national interests. Large percentages of
    U.S. foreign assistance are being used to pay administrative
    costs at organizations and companies who deliver U.S. foreign
    assistance.
        President Obama has said Western consultants and
    administrative costs end up gobbling up huge percentages of our
    aid overall. That was in a July 2, 2009 interview.
        And so I urge the passage of this amendment, and let's give
    real transparency to the American people about how their tax
    dollars are being spent.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I rise in
    support of this amendment. This is one of several good Poe
    amendments.
        I may have a different view on other amendments, but this
    is one of the important issues I think in a reform of our
    foreign assistance program, and that is improving transparency.
    I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mrs. Ellmers is recognized.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I would just like to congratulate my colleagues, Mr. Poe
    and Mr. Duncan, on this great amendment. I think at a time now,
    as we have all discussed, in the economic stance that we are in
    right now, this is just a perfect way of our being able to
    track the moneys that are being responsibilities.
        We have all discussed many times here today that with
    foreign aid and U.N. funds, that there are inefficiencies that
    exist and we acknowledge that. And this would be one of those
    great ways that we could watch and see with our own eyes
    through the Web site or through a Web site how these things are
    being spent. The transparency and accountability would be a
    great improvement.
        And again, I thank my colleagues.
        And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And seeing no further requests for recognition, the
    question occurs on the amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Mr. Berman is recognized for an amendment.
        Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chairman, amendment 042 is at the
    desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman
    of California. Page 27, strike line 7 and all that follows
    through page 28, line 17, and insert the following: (a)
    Findings. Congress finds the following: (1) In an increasing
    interdependent world, the health, prosperity, freedom, and
    security of the people of the United States are strengthened
    when the people of all countries can enjoy these same
    advantages; (2) United States foreign assistance should be
    designed to build the capacity of other countries to meet the
    needs of their people and to conduct themselves responsibly in
    the international system; (3) Foreign assistance is not only a
    reflection of the values, generosity, and goodwill of the
    people of the United States, but also an essential means for
    achieving the United States foreign policy, economic, and
    national security objectives.
        (b) Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the United
    States to help build and sustain an international community
    composed of states that meet basic human needs, resolve
    conflicts peacefully, respect fundamental freedoms, cooperate
    to address issues that transcend national boundaries, use
    wisely the world's limited resources in a sustainable manner,
    and work toward the achievement of economic well-being for all
    people.
        (c) Goals and Assistance. United States foreign assistance
    should be designed to achieve the following interrelated and
    mutually-reinforcing goals: (1) Reduce global poverty and
    alleviate human suffering. (2) Advance peace and mitigate
    crises. (3) Support human rights and democracy. (4) Build and
    reinforce strategic partnerships. (5) Combat transnational
    threats. (6) Sustain global environment. (7) Expand prosperity
    through trade and investment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Berman. Well thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        This is one of the unfortunate aspects of not knowing that
    we would be doing a foreign assistance title until Saturday
    night. I think we might have been able to work through a lot of
    these things, but I would ask both the chairman and my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take a look at
    this because this is not a got-you amendment. This is not an
    effort to make some political point. It is a statement that
    deals with what the goals of United States assistance should
    be.
        This relates to title IV, foreign assistance. Foreign
    assistance is a very broad topic. It doesn't just mean
    development assistance. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
    covers everything from foreign military sales to antiterrorism
    assistance, nonproliferation and export-control assistance,
    international narcotics control, humanitarian and disaster
    assistance, democracy and human rights programs, OPIC, the
    Trade and Development Agency and a number of other accounts and
    programs. The whole annual foreign operations appropriation
    bill also covers all these areas.
        Now if you look at the base text of the bill, there is a
    fine statement in section 401, but it is a very narrow and
    constrained view of the goals of foreign assistance. I agree
    with every word in there, but it fails to deal with the large
    sweep of what foreign assistance is all about.
        So when we are talking about the goals of United States
    assistance, they ought to be very broad goals; things like
    supporting human rights and democracy, advancing peace and
    mitigating crises, reducing global poverty and alleviating
    human suffering. Even if section 401 were only referring to
    development assistance, it is still extremely narrow in its
    conception. Development assistance seeks to promote food
    security, advance health, expand education, improve access to
    clean water and sanitation, foster equal opportunities for
    women and so forth.
        To rectify this problem, I am proposing a simple substitute
    that lays out a few broad findings about the reasons for
    providing foreign assistance, makes a general policy statement
    and lists seven overall goals of assistance, including the ones
    mentioned specifically in the base bill.
        For example, ``build and reinforce strategic partnerships''
    covers things like maintaining Israel's qualitative military
    edge. There are a lot of provisions in this legislation that
    are doing it. This is not just development assistance. There
    is, as I mentioned before, a whole variety of types of
    assistance. ``Combat transnational threats'' would encompass
    programs like counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and
    counterproliferation.
        I look forward to having a debate some time when we can
    begin considering a complete overhaul of our foreign assistance
    program. But I would ask my colleagues, I think these fit
    better as the goals of our foreign assistance program and would
    ask you to seriously consider supporting this amendment, even
    though I am the author of it. And again, it is just a more
    overarching perspective on what our goals are, qualitative
    military edge for Israel is not about public-private
    partnerships to produce economic development. It is about
    something else. It is important. We want to do it;
    counterproliferation, counterterrorism, and counternarcotics.
    Yes, I am a full subscriber to the notion that the true way to
    sustainable growth and stability is through private
    partnerships in the economic sphere, as well as trade,
    investment, and developing the private sector of these
    countries. But it is not the only thing.
        And so, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time
    and ask you to consider supporting this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman yields.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        I would like to ask my good friend from California, on page
    2, where it says, ``respect fundamental freedoms,'' would he be
    willing to substitute ``fundamental freedoms,'' which are not
    defined, to ``basic human rights,'' which have clear definition
    in international fora, human rights treaties and the like?
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the other
    treaties that have been passed and ratified by the United
    States have clear definitions. I don't know what ``fundamental
    freedom'' means.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith would like to know.
        Mr. Berman. So the gentleman yields to me?
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Yes.
        Mr. Berman. You are suggesting a more precise and definable
    term is ``fundamental human rights'' rather than ``fundamental
    freedoms''?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct. I think it strengthens it.
    There is a----
        Mr. Berman. I am not sure I understand why you say that,
    but on good faith, I am willing to accept your suggestion if
    you think that might motivate you to be supportive of what we
    are trying to do.
        Mr. Smith. It will.
        Mr. Berman. In that case, I would ask unanimous consent, if
    I might, on your time to amend my amendment to substitute
    ``fundamental human rights'' for ``fundamental freedoms.''
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield, Mr.
    Berman, would you consider using your amendment as an addition
    to the base text rather than in lieu of the base text
    when deg.which we have, and our staff can work on the
    proper wording so that you don't have two sections of findings
    but rather blend them together? Because at first blush, I would
    say that it does not appear to do any harm, but I would feel
    more comfortable, having just been handed this to----
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is your time.
        Mr. Smith. I yield to Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. If I could make one slight amendment to your
    suggestion, because I think it is appropriate we start with the
    broader, overarching, now amended goals and then include
    exactly as you have it, your findings and policy statement.
    Because it makes more sense to do the more overarching one
    first and then get specifically into your quotes regarding the
    help to enhance lives of poor people and those specific
    provisions.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I do understand what you are saying.
    And I would be fine with it. I think our side would be fine
    with it. Mr. Smith would like to have that change and----
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Berman asked unanimous consent so I think
    that----
        Mr. Berman. I would seek unanimous consent to substitute on
    page----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Page 27.
        Mr. Berman. But on the amendment, page----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Page 2, line 6, Goals of Assistance.
    No. 3, support human rights and democracy.
        Mr. Berman. Respect fundamental freedom, respect
    fundamental human rights, and if I could add to that unanimous
    consent that, instead of as a substitute for the base text,
    this provision become the first part of the base text.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I think the staff understands
    the changes that we are making. And I assure our side of the
    aisle that it is not a huge change and tracks our line of
    thinking on the bill and on the findings and on the goals of
    foreign assistance.
        With that understanding, I know that our staff will work on
    any technical changes and if the gentleman would kindly
    withdraw his amendment for just a little while, while we
    redraft it so that everyone is clear on what we are about to
    vote on. And then we will move on to the next amendment, but we
    will redraft it. Would that be all right with the gentleman?
        Mr. Berman. That is fine.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Mack is recognized.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you and I--just to, I guess inquiry, so it
    says here that the United States' foreign assistance should be
    designed to help build the capacity of other countries to meet
    the needs of their people and to conduct themselves responsibly
    in the international system. Shouldn't the purpose of foreign
    assistance be to meet the needs of and the goals of the U.S.,
    of the people of the U.S., of the United States?
        Mr. Berman. It is my firm, firm belief, if I may respond,
    that it is----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. By seeking to achieve those goals, that we
    serve the interests of the American people in reducing the
    consequences of conflict, extreme poverty, natural disasters,
    refugee flows, those all serve American interests. By
    definition, I believe this is on behalf of the American people.
    Otherwise, how could I support foreign assistance?
        So I take your point, but I think that is assumed in the
    whole fabric of our foreign assistance program; there is no
    point to doing this with taxpayer money unless we think we are
    serving the interests of our constituents. I am not----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. At this point, Mr. Mack, we only
    have a few seconds, we will rework this amendment. We will keep
    that in consideration, and we will come back to the committee
    with a revised amendment.
        Mr. Berman. I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw
    without prejudice.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Consider it done. Thank you.
        Any other amendments to this title? Do we have any other
    members have an amendment? Mr. Manzullo.
        Mr. Manzullo. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Manzullo
    of Illinois. At the appropriate place in the bill insert the
    following: Section [blank]. Prohibition on funding for
    Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) program. (a) Prohibition.
    No funds available to the United States Agency for
    International Development (USAID) may be used to carry out the
    Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) program or any successor
    program. (b) Effective Date. This section shall take effect on
    the date of the enactment of this act and shall apply with
    respect to funds available to USAID for the DIV program or any
    successor program that are unobligated on or after such date of
    enactment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are still handing the amendment
    out.
        Mr. Manzullo is recognized for 5 minutes as the author to
    explain his amendment.
        Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This amendment is narrowly focused on eliminating a truly
    duplicative and wasteful program at the U.S. Agency for
    International Development. The Development Innovation Ventures
    (DIV) program, created only last year, provides grants up to $6
    million to conduct research and development activities that
    ``promote development outcomes.'' Recipients of these grants
    could be foreign governments or domestic or foreign
    individuals, companies, or NGOs. A recipient may end up using
    the money to develop a product in the U.S., even if that
    product is never used for a foreign aid purpose. The program
    adds at least 10 new employees to the Federal payroll in 2012,
    and it adds more than $30 million a year to the deficit.
        Research conducted by my office shows that this program
    duplicates existing work by the Energy Department, NIH, Defense
    Department, and the private sector. Creating new government
    programs, particularly under current fiscal conditions, must
    occur only as a last resort. DIV fails this basic test. It does
    nothing to promote economic recovery in the U.S., create jobs
    or even boost national security.
        Furthermore, it is questionable whether DIV will even help
    improve the livelihood of those in the developing world. The
    President's fiscal commission criticized the creation of more
    programs among multiple agencies to address the same concerns.
    DIV currently funds a variety of projects with questionable
    outcomes, such as a grant to develop an affordable hydrogen
    fuel cell bicycle called the E-bike. The technology behind the
    E-bike already exists and has a number of private-sector
    investors, including large multinational corporations. When
    that bike is developed, we have no guarantee it is even going
    to end up overseas. The money goes to a domestic inventor and
    company. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    appropriated $41.9 million to the Department of Energy for
    hydrogen fuel research, including miniaturization and
    portability applications.
        Other projects supported by DIV include a $99,992 grant to
    study the effectiveness of using cell phones to monitor
    election results in foreign countries and a $173,000 grant to
    study the use of smart phone technology to combat absenteeism
    in health care in India.
        According to USAID, the DIV program provides grants in
    three separate stages: Stage one is $100,000; stage two, up to
    $1 million; and believe it or not, stage three projects are
    funded up to $15 million. These are peer grants. Thus, a
    project like the E-bike can receive $15 million of Federal
    funding, regardless of the fact that the Energy Department is
    funding an almost identical program.
        Let me read to you from the official publication of some of
    the programs that DIV puts on. It says DIV funding will also
    support, and I am reading from the State Department bulletin,

            ``USAID innovation fellows and innovation solution-
            seeking sessions. Professor Mike Kremer of Harvard's
            economic department has been recruited as the first
            innovation fellow and scientific director of DIV.
            Innovation conferences will bring together development
            experts from academia, the private sector and USAID to
            brainstorm and develop innovative ideas for potential
            seed funding and scaling up of critical innovations.''

        It is interesting that the next program in their bulletin
    is the science and technology program that spends an additional
    $22 million.
        Madam Chair, we are at a point in America today where we
    don't need additional programs. If the members would take a
    look at the handout that we passed out with the red ribbon
    across the top, you will see the duplicative programs that
    USAID is funding under this program. We need to strike it. I
    spoke with the Director of USAID. He is a very nice fellow, but
    as I examine the programs, many of these, if not most, have
    absolutely no relationship to the foreign aid purpose that the
    taxpayers pay so heavily in this country.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo yields back.
        Do any members seek recognition on this amendment?
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the
    amendment.
        Innovative technology is exactly the kind of thing we want
    to encourage USAID to be investing in. This is a program that
    helps U.S. companies and creates U.S. jobs. While it is not
    restricted to American applicants, Development and Innovation
    Ventures' first round of grants went to U.S. firms and
    organizations located all around the country. There is all this
    new technology out there that could be harnessed to make game-
    changing breakthroughs so that we can save money and improve
    results.
        Do we really want to be opposing an innovative idea to do
    things better with new technologies than we have done? Think
    back to the green revolution. It didn't come out of thin air.
    One of the great advances based on innovative technology
    happened because agencies like USAID were out there investing
    in research and development that was specifically designed to
    address development challenges.
        That is what this program is for. It is a small amount of
    money and not new money. The gentleman, whom you praise, the
    new Director of USAID, has reallocated $30 million from
    existing USAID resources. They are taking steps to make sure
    this program does not duplicate R&D programs in other agencies.
    They are very sensitive to the notion that we don't want to
    spend our scarce resources at USAID on duplicative work. They
    are requiring all applicants to specify whether they are
    receiving other U.S. Government funds, and they are including
    experts from other U.S. Government agencies on the grant review
    panels.
        We have an administrator over there who I believe is really
    trying to shake things up and try new approaches and get more
    results. This is sort of the kind of program we should be
    encouraging. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the
    amendment.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Duncan is recognized.
        No. I meant Mr. Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I support this amendment. As I look across the government,
    I see report after report, particularly GAO reports, that
    detail duplicative programs. I don't have any evidence that
    this is a bad program; that is not the issue. The issue is what
    in the heck is USAID doing with this program working on
    economic development and innovation? This is the type of thing
    that if you are going to have it, it ought to be consolidated
    with other programs that are similar at the Commerce Department
    or elsewhere.
        You can look in so many different areas in this government
    and find programs of merit, but they are duplicated all across
    the government because each entity, each agency wants their own
    little program. Take workforce programs, there are something
    like 40 of them spread all over the government, most of them
    doing what the others are doing, not coordinating. They just
    want their own little pot of money to do their own little
    thing. And this is another example of this.
        So I don't have any problem with the general concept. It is
    just that I can't figure out why USAID is the one handling
    this. Let's get all these things together and consolidate them
    and find efficiencies through the consolidation and not
    continue to support a program that is repeated elsewhere in
    every little agency. And this is just another example. So I
    support the amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Griffin.
        How dare I confuse you with Mr. Duncan.
        Terrible mistake.
        I apologize, Mr. Griffin.
        Do other members seek recognition?
        We will go to Mr. Connolly, and we have Mr. Cicilline, and
    on this side, we have Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I listened to my colleague, Mr. Duncan, I don't know if Mr.
    Duncan's visited USAID projects or NGO projects in developing
    countries, but the idea that the U.S. Commerce Department and
    its research and development efforts can be conflated with
    those of the Third World is sadly false. It doesn't work that
    way. The Department of Commerce of the United States has a
    different mission.
        And it is not looking into new techniques to control
    Bilharzia. It is not looking at new techniques to help make
    small dirt-poor farmers upgrade their livestock capability to
    bring in some cash for the family. They are not looking at ways
    to get necessarily higher yields from certain strains of grain
    that grow only in certain parts of the world, mostly located in
    the third world.
        This is a modest program. It is funded by reallocated
    funding. It is not adding to the deficit, despite what we heard
    in the presentation.
        I represent a high-tech district. And I find it amazing
    that we would want to go--we would actually want to discourage
    the Agency for International Development from funding on a
    really seed basis some opportunities to exploit technology and
    innovation to save money, to actually make lives better and
    more productive. The green revolution didn't happen by itself.
    Smallpox eradication ultimately was concluded successfully
    because of USAID investments made in West and Central Africa
    that understood the difference in the phenomenon of smallpox as
    a disease in that part of the world versus other parts of the
    world. Innovation, R&D, tailored to the mission.
        This is a modest program. It is an innovation of our new
    USAID Director. And I think it needs a little more time.
        If you know anything about R&D funding at all, it takes
    time to see the fruits of your labor. And sometimes, yes, it
    means that you don't always see the fruit of your labor. Go ask
    NIH. Go ask CBC. It took a long time, for example, doing AIDS
    research, to be able to isolate the virus and to be able to
    then develop treatments. And it was hit and miss. There were
    failures along the way. But thank God, we maintained the
    commitment in terms of the funding stream.
        Here we are trying to have a research component on an
    innovative basis for USAID to try to see if there are some
    things we have missed. And all of the grants, by the way, went
    to U.S. companies, creating jobs in the United States and
    supporting U.S. institutions, organizations and nonprofits.
        I must, unfortunately, oppose the amendment of my friend
    from Illinois as being penny wise and pound foolish and will
    never, if this succeeds, will never fully understand the missed
    opportunity represented.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan is recognized.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I would like to
    yield the balance of my time to the other Mr. Duncan, who goes
    by Mr. Griffin.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
        I would just say I am familiar with these sorts of projects
    when I served with the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, Iraq.
    I was familiar with what USAID and the Department of
    Agriculture were doing in Iraq. I just got back from
    Afghanistan and talked with USAID and Department of Agriculture
    personnel there and talked with them about what they were
    doing.
        It is interesting to me that a couple of the examples
    mentioned by the gentlemen on the other side are precisely the
    type of innovation and research that is being done at the
    Department of Agriculture. Sure, those aren't being done at
    Commerce, ones dealing with seeds and varieties of the seeds
    and how to better conduct agriculture in Afghanistan and around
    the world in developing nations. That is being done at the
    Department of Agriculture.
        So there is duplication.
        And I would also point out, it is my understanding that the
    seed money for this program was taken from within the budget.
    But, yes, they are requesting additional money, new money, this
    year. My understanding is that it is $30 million of new money,
    not money that was already in the budget.
        So, yes, this program was started with money already in the
    budget, but now they are requesting $30 million in new money.
    That is what I am told by staff. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        The gentleman yields. We will have Mr. Cicilline, Mr.
    Cardoza, and then I hope we have a roll call vote on this
    amendment.
        Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
    first associate myself with the remarks of Ranking Member
    Berman.
        When this initiative was launched, USAID recognized that
    they would really pursue market-driven solutions that really
    engaged the business community in developing new, creative
    ideas to solve some of the important issues in the developing
    world and that would really serve as game changers. And it
    seems to me that this is precisely the kind of investments we
    should be making in innovation, in ensuring that taxpayer
    resources are most effectively being used and are most
    impactful. And I think the agency has gone to great pains to
    really separate out the research and development function and
    instead focus on applied innovation, to take these developed
    ideas and figure out how they can be used in ways that address
    development challenges more cheaply and more effectively.
        This is precisely the kind of innovation we should be
    expecting and supporting in every area of government to develop
    new innovations to use taxpayer resources more effectively, to
    have a greater impact and to solve some of the great challenges
    of our time.
        Some of the examples in this first round of funding was a
    grant for $100,000 that could reduce the cost of a lifesaving
    maternal medical test by 99 percent. Another grant was for a
    portable clean low-cost hydrogen-based energy source with a
    range of potential applications in the developing world. Those
    are just two examples.
        So I think the notion that we would want to send a message
    that we don't support and are willing to not invest in
    innovation in this developing work, it seems to me is the wrong
    message. We ought to be encouraging and nurturing that kind of
    investment and innovation because it will ultimately make the
    cost of our investment less and much more impactful.
        We are living in an innovation economy. We are living in a
    time when that is how we are creating jobs, that is how we are
    solving the big challenges of the 21st century. This should be
    applauded. It should be supported.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cicilline. Certainly.
        Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        And I would like to say to my colleague, Mr. Griffin, that
    if this amendment were to pass, neither the deficit nor the
    USAID budget would be reduced by $30 million. It goes back to
    programs that the administration of USAID, who is lauded by the
    members on the other side for his talents and his abilities and
    his intentions in his new position as administrator, it goes
    back to programs that he thought were less valuable for the
    foreign assistance programs than this program. So we are taking
    something, where I have not heard yet an example of duplicative
    work, I have heard the possibility of duplication--I know that
    ARPA does things and Commerce does things. They all have
    different goals. But this does not in any way bring down the
    authorization.
        And I yield back to Mr. Cicilline.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline, there was someone who
    sought time?
        Mr. Manzullo. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cicilline. Certainly.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo.
        Mr. Manzullo. The answer, if you look at this page that I
    handed out with the orange on the top, it shows about eight of
    the programs that are being funded on the left, and on the
    right, it shows the same programs being funded by other Federal
    agencies.
        Mr. Berman. I don't have what you handed out.
        Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
        Mr. Cicilline. Reclaiming my time. I will yield to Mr.
    Berman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. I don't know what you are handing out. All I
    know is there is nothing about your amendment that will reduce
    the authorization, and maybe I shouldn't have said that because
    now you will do it. But the fact is what you are doing saying
    something that the Director thought made more sense with the
    resources he had, you are going to wipe out so that he can
    instead do things he thought were less valuable with those
    resources. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
        Mr. Cicilline. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlemen yields back.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        I rise in support of the amendment, and the author has just
    indicated if you look at what he is presenting, the duplicative
    nature of this. And what I might add, let's just go to the very
    fundamental of what we are trying to decide.
        This, I believe, is a USAID budget that we are talking
    about here, and not the budget of a Department of Energy or
    Department of Commerce, which has specific responsibilities of
    making decisions about developing new technologies.
        Now certainly people who are engaged in foreign aid need to
    have technology that they can buy. But why are we thinking at
    all that it is their job to enlist inventors and entrepreneurs
    in order to oversee the development of a new technology? No.
    They should be going on the market, getting what they do best,
    which is trying to manage a part of the budget rather than
    trying to be entrepreneurs and inventors.
        This makes no sense at all, and the fact that it is already
    being done in other departments and agencies, it is a total
    waste of money.
        I would now be very happy to yield the rest of my time to
    Mr. Manzullo.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo.
        Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
        The Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Interagency Working Group,
    these are the present agencies already working on this fuel
    cell powered bicycle. There are about 12 of them. I asked Mr.
    Shah, who was in my office, about this particular grant for the
    bicycle. He is an American innovator. He is working on the
    bicycle with this fuel cell. I said, ``Do you have any idea
    what this would cost?'' He said, ``No.'' I said, ``Do you have
    indication whether or not this will be even used overseas?'' He
    said, ``No.'' I said, ``Then why are we spending all this
    money, up to $15 million, to an American inventor of this
    particular bicycle when there is slightly no guarantee it will
    even go overseas for any use overseas?'' And he couldn't answer
    that question.
        It is not the mission of USAID to be involved in research
    and development. Other agencies have the core knowledge and the
    understanding in how to use those tools. What we are saying
    here is if you take a look at the USAID what their mission goal
    is online, it says to extend a helping hand to those people
    overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a
    disaster, or striving to live in a free and democratic country.
        I can't see us spending $15 million of taxpayers' money to
    develop a fuel-powered bicycle is going to aid their own
    definition of their own mission. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman yields back.
        And Mr. Cardoza is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to applaud Mr. Manzullo's effort with this. I
    think--I don't know every aspect of this program. There may be
    some good things in it that may end up being cut. But I want to
    applaud the method by which you went by these cuts.
        These are specifics. These are duplicative programs that
    you have indicated with this orange sheet, headed sheet, and
    this is the way we ought to be going about doing our business.
    Too often in this institution, we do 2 percent cuts across the
    board. We do unthoughtful ways of getting at the real goals.
        I want to tell a story very briefly. I know the committee
    is taking a lot of time, but I think it is important to applaud
    when things are right. I had an earmark last session where I
    got money to do wiretaps to take on the Mexican Mafia doing bad
    things in my district. They just arrested 170 people. That was
    a positive earmark. That was a good use of taxpayers' $250,000.
        And we have eliminated all earmarks because a few folks
    didn't do it right. That is the unthoughtful way of going about
    our business as Congress.
        So I am going to support your amendment, sir. I applaud you
    for doing it. I don't know if everything we are doing here is
    correct, but I think this is the right method by which we ought
    to be doing it.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cardoza. I will yield.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note, there are some people on
    this side of the aisle that agree with everything you just said
    about earmarks. And so just know that I am very happy you just
    made that point.
        Mr. Cardoza. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        No other member seeks recognition?
        Oh, Mr. Sires, I apologize.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is so easy to overlook you; you
    are so small.
        Mr. Sires. I will yield to my colleague from Virginia.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman.
        I just want to say, Madam Chairman, I am glad our friend
    from Illinois actually said, ``USAID should not be in the
    business of R&D.'' I couldn't disagree more fundamentally.
        As somebody who has worked with the agency and used to
    authorize its legislation in the other body, that is just now
    not how it works. The idea that you can just readily go off the
    shelf in the marketplace and purchase that which has been
    developed in technology and R&D unspecialized for the unique
    needs on the field is false. I wish it were that simple. That
    is not how it works.
        And having a modest capability within the agency to modify
    technology, to come up with new R&D, like oral rehydration
    therapy, for example, that saves tens of millions of children
    from a cruel and bitter death, up to the green revolution, is
    simply false and sadly turning our back on how science works,
    which seems to be a phenomenon increasingly experienced in this
    Congress.
        So I respect my colleague from Illinois. I know they are
    desperate to find examples of saving money. This one, in my
    view, will not save money, will eventually cost money, will
    cost the United States a critical capability and who knows what
    future improvements in R&D and technology might have been
    achieved but for this investment, a modest investment.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sires, would you yield to Mr.
    Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Sires. My pleasure.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. You talked about your experience, could
    you tell us why it is more important to have some government
    employees at USAID instead of putting out, this is what we
    need, and seeing what the market will produce and then
    purchasing whatever is brought to them by people who are trying
    to make money and developing new products, rather than
    commissioning someone specifically to build a product?
        Mr. Connolly. Well, I would say to my friend, assuming Mr.
    Sires continues to yield----
        Mr. Sires. Yes. I yield to you.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, it is not an either/or proposition.
        Of course, the Agency for International Development goes
    out to the market to look at what is out there and to see
    whether it is appropriate. It also, however, needs this
    capability, in its view, because there are large parts of the
    market that don't have the experience in working with
    developing countries and with some of the unique circumstances
    of geography, warfare, health issues, on and on and on but make
    this very difficult terrain.
        And so it is not an either/or proposition. The idea that we
    want to wipe clean any capability of R&D at USAID, an agency
    that has world class experience, going back almost now 55, 60
    years, unique in the world, is, to me, turning our back on
    science and experience at a very modest price and will prove to
    be penny wise and pound foolish.
        With that, I yield back to my friend from California.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sires yields back, having no
    further requests for recognition, the question now occurs on
    the amendment. A recorded vote has been requested----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that
    we consider the gentleman's amendment by voice vote.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He would like to have a recorded
    vote.
        We asked your staff.
        We would love a voice vote. We had asked--voice? Okay.
    Okay.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Schwartz has an amendment at the desk.
        The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Which amendment, Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Four.
        Ms. Carroll. Thank you.
        Amendment to H.R. 2538 offered by Ms. Schwartz of
    Pennsylvania. In section 401(a) of the bill, add at the end the
    following: (4) the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)
    effectively supports countries with a demonstrated commitment
    toward good governance, sound economic policies and investment
    on their people, hence the, ``HELP Commission'' report
    recommends a reduction of tariffs for MCC Compact-eligible
    countries to more closely align United States trade and
    development policies.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The amendment is being distributed.
        The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the
    author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
        Ms. Schwartz.
        Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I hope this is
    actually an easy one.
        Maybe we can reach sort of easy agreement on this one. What
    I am seeking to do is to add a statement, a recognition of some
    findings in a report from the health commission. And I think it
    is a helpful finding and recommendation for us to consider
    basically what the what  deg.this does is it
    highlights a provision that makes a connection between economic
    development and foreign assistance.
        U.S. foreign assistance, as we all know, is a
    multipurpose--has multi purposes, including furthering
    America's foreign policy interests by expanding democracy and
    free trade, economic development as well as, of course,
    improving the lives health and well-being of citizens in the
    developing world. Increasing trade opportunities can help
    strengthen these ties.
        MCC forms partnerships in some of the world's poorest
    countries, which are committed to good governance, economic
    freedom and investments in their citizens.
        MCC provides particular countries, there are 23 of them,
    with grants with particular accountability and benchmarks in
    terms of reducing poverty through sustainable economic growth.
        MCC, which was a Bush administration initiative that has
    been continued, and many of us who have visited some of these
    countries find have a really quite a powerful force in moving
    these very new economies economically. It is a prime example, I
    think, of the U.S. Government assistance that works, that is
    benefiting these developing countries and U.S. taxpayers.
        So what I want to do is an add this additional wording you
    just heard as read that would suggest that for MCC compact
    nations that are promoting these growth opportunities and open
    markets and standard of living, that we recognize that the
    recommendation that we consider reductions in tariffs for these
    23 nations that are building their economies is a good finding.
    I want to add it to the report--it is in the report. I want to
    add it to this language. I think it would be useful to consider
    in the future. And I hope that I would just ask for a voice
    vote, if we get to that point, but I would hope that my
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle would recognize that this
    is just pointing out something that could be a huge advantage
    to these very new economies and possibly an advantage to our
    Nation as well.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz.
        Before you yield, let me just tell you that this staff is
    just looking at the amendment to make sure that this reduction
    of tariffs doesn't then lead to a referral to the Ways and
    Means Committee. So I will recognize others to speak while they
    are sorting it out.
        And the gentlelady yields back.
        Ms. Schwartz. We did--before I yield back, we tried to come
    up with something that would be general enough and not terribly
    specific, but it is a reference to a slight change in the
    findings but a reference to the findings that already exist,
    but I am happy to hear other comments.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentlelady would yield, it is
    just because it is a jurisdiction of another committee when you
    talk about the reduction of tariffs.
        Ms. Schwartz. Having served on the Ways and Means
    Committee, I would certainly not want to take from their
    jurisdiction. I hope to go back there someday. So by all means.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I don't mind grabbing it. It is just
    that we are not allowed. Does anyone wish to be heard? Mr.
    Mack, you had some questions on the MCC itself. Perhaps this is
    a good opportunity for you to air that out. Mr. Mack is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess part of the
    concern I have when we are dealing with the MCC is that first
    of all, the way that some of the compacts are determined, who
    gets them and who doesn't get them, are very subjective. And I
    will give you an example. Nicaragua, who invades Costa Rica, is
    allowed to have a compact with the MCC, and Honduras, who
    fights for and defends its democracy and freedom, is turned
    down based upon subjective kind of numbers. In other words, I
    think a lot of times the MCC can be so politicized that if we
    want to, let's say, punish--if our Government wants to punish
    Honduras because they feel like something happened there that
    they didn't like, they will manipulate the standards and the
    criteria. And what I would be concerned about with this
    amendment is then, in effect, if a country like Nicaragua, that
    invades another country like Costa Rica, gets an MCC compact,
    then that would also trigger tariff issues as well.
        And I am just not sure that I am comfortable with moving
    forward with something like this as long as it continues to--
    until the MCC has more defined criteria on how countries and
    how these compacts are guaranteed.
        Ms. Schwartz. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mack. I would be happy to yield.
        Ms. Schwartz. As I understand it, this would not change any
    of the criteria for MCC. Except for other parts of the bill, my
    next amendment, you might want to discuss it, because there is
    a suggestion in the underlying bill, which I didn't write, but
    the majority did, suggested use of MCC criteria. But in this
    situation, all I am doing is recognizing a finding in a report
    that is referenced in the underlying bill and adding to it the
    suggestion--the finding, I am just highlighting in a way a
    finding that suggests that at some point, there might want to
    be more discussion about the opportunity to enhance trade.
        Mr. Mack. And reclaiming my time, I understand what it is
    that you are trying to do. I guess I am just trying to shine
    the light a little bit on the, MCC in that we see a lot of
    times that the State Department or others will influence the
    outcome of these based upon criteria that is not
    understandable.
        In other words, a corruption charge may be put on a country
    that they can't point to any real corruption, but they use a
    subjective measurement of corruption for their political gain,
    outcome, if that makes any sense. And I just don't think that--
    you know, I think that is something, frankly, that the
    committee, we ought to look at, is how do we ensure that we
    don't get kind of this double standard where a country like
    Nicaragua that invades another country and is granted an MCC
    compact, and then another country that fights for and defends
    its freedom and its democracy has an MCC compact taken away
    from them.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Mack, if you would
    yield to me----
        Mr. Mack. I would yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And if I could make a request of Ms.
    Schwartz, we are trying to work it out so that whether your
    amendment passes or not, it would not cause it to be dual
    referred. So if the gentlelady would withdraw her amendment,
    because your amendment actually amends the area in the bill
    that Mr. Berman and I are trying to work out also.
        So we have got an agreement with Mr. Berman on that. If you
    would temporarily withdraw your amendment until we work it out
    with the dual jurisdiction so that yours doesn't get pulled.
        Ms. Schwartz. That would be very helpful. I would be happy
    to temporarily withdraw it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Withdraw it. And I know we have
    other folks who want to speak on it, but we will hold that
    discussion for a little while. Now we go to Mr. Duncan, who has
    got an amendment at the desk.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, ma'am. I offer amendment number 18.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Duncan
    of South Carolina. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert
    the following: Section [blank]. Reports on financial disclosure
    of certain organizations and businesses that receive United
    States foreign assistance funding. (a) Purpose. The purpose of
    this section is to strengthen the capacity, transparency, and
    accountability of United States foreign assistance programs to
    steward American tax dollars wisely in effectively adopting and
    responding to new challenges of the 21st century. (b) Reports.
    The Administrator of the United States Agency for International
    Development shall require any organization or business that
    receives more than 50 percent of its funding from the United
    States Government under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
    U.S. Code 2151 et. sequentially) for any fiscal year to submit
    to the United States Agency----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ask unanimous consent to dispense
    with the reading. And Mr. Duncan is recognized for 5 minutes to
    explain his amendment.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The problem is
    currently we have salaries for nonprofit USAID contractors that
    are not disclosed. And 501(c)(3) nonprofit agencies only have
    to report their CEO's pay on public tax records. We discussed
    transparency earlier in the Poe-Duncan amendment. And I want to
    take the opportunity to thank the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Berman, for his support of that early amendment. And this
    is just an effort for more transparency. This amendment
    requires a financial disclosure of the compensation provided to
    the top five employees of an organization or business that
    contracts with the U.S. Government to deliver U.S. foreign
    assistance if that organization or business receives more than
    50 percent of its budget from American taxpayers. Now, this is
    not unprecedented. It has happened before. In 2009, Congress
    enacted restrictions on foreign----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair? We don't have the same
    amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. We are going to wait there. If
    you would hold on a second, I think that we have gotten another
    amendment. Hold on a second. Because what you are explaining
    doesn't jive with the amendment that we have here.
        Mr. Duncan. She read the correct one.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, I don't think we have copies
    to distribute right now.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. We have the Duncan of South
    Carolina prohibition on assistance to countries that oppose the
    position of the United States in the United Nations. Mr.
    Duncan, we do have the one on the United Nations. Do you want
    to offer that one now?
        Mr. Duncan. I would be glad to. Are we in that section? I
    didn't want to be out of order.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are not in that section yet? The
    same title, but a different section. If you don't mind, I don't
    want to force you, but since we have that amendment, if we
    could redistribute that amendment on the United Nations. And we
    will just take care of that. Hold on 1 second. Madam Clerk, do
    you understand me?
        Ms. Carroll. Yes. I just thought that was part of title
    VIII.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Never mind.
        Ms. Carroll. We have copies of 18 now.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That was just a tease to let them
    know that it is going to get really good later on. You are
    recognized to explain your amendment. It is being handed out.
        Mr. Duncan. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. They just got
    a preview of one we are going to deal with a little bit later.
    I ask them to go ahead and take a look at the United Nations
    one. We are going to talk a little bit right now about the
    transparency issue that I was talking about a minute ago. This
    amendment requires a financial disclosure of the compensation
    provided to the top five employees of an organization or
    business that contracts with the U.S. Government to deliver
    U.S. foreign assistance if that organization or business
    receives more than 50 percent of its budget from American
    taxpayers. This is not unprecedented. It happened before. In
    2009, Congress enacted restrictions----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second again.
        Mr. Payne. Madam Chair, it seems Mr. Duncan is confused on
    this one again. We have something totally different.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Prohibition on assistance.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan, according to you, what
    should your amendment say on the very top after your name?
        Mr. Duncan. It says at the very top, ``Reports on financial
    disclosures of certain organizations or businesses that receive
    United States foreign assistance funding.''
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is what we have.
        Mr. Payne. Okay. We got it now.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. You got it. Okay. Let me just take 1
    minute and make sure. It says, ``Reports on financial
    disclosure of certain organizations or businesses that receive
    United States foreign assistance funding.''
        Mr. Duncan. That is correct.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is now recognized. If
    you could start again on your 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I apologize.
    We have six amendments offered today, so I understand the
    confusion. This is a very simple amendment. It is talking about
    transparency again. Like I said, it is not unprecedented. In
    2009, Congress enacted restrictions on for-profit companies
    that received taxpayer bailouts. But today, there are no
    restrictions on disclosures for organizations or companies that
    subsist on Federal grants. All disclosures would be made
    publicly available on the USAID Web site. Taxpayers need
    assurance that most of their tax dollars will go for the
    foreign aid that they actually should go for.
        We need a way to monitor and make sure that the tax dollars
    are going for the foreign aid versus inflating salaries of
    those contractors. And as I mentioned earlier, we discussed
    transparency in the Poe-Duncan amendment, and that Mr. Berman
    supported that earlier, I hope that he will support this one.
    The gentleman from Rhode Island says that taxpayer dollars need
    to be spent effectively. This is the way we can assure that
    taxpayer dollars are getting to where they are supposed to go,
    and that is providing the aid and not inflating salaries. And I
    just urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Any members wish to
    be heard on the Duncan amendment? Yes, Mrs. Schmidt.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I would like
    to thank Mr. Duncan for offering this important amendment, and
    urge my colleagues to support it. This amendment will increase
    transparency and accountability of U.S. foreign assistance
    dollars, particularly when being allocated to contracting
    firms, nongovernmental organizations, and other entities
    involved in U.S. foreign assistance programs. You know, a
    substantial amount of USAID's work in development is conducted
    through the establishment of contracts with numerous NGOs,
    businesses, and organizations. And there have been reports
    concerning exorbitant and disproportionate levels of salary and
    benefits for high level staff at organizations involved in
    implementing United States Government foreign aid programs.
        This amendment would increase the accountability and
    transparency of the U.S. Government assistance funds by
    requiring organizations that receive more than 50 percent of
    its funding from the United States under the FAA to disclose
    the salaries and how their employees are compensated. This
    would allow increased and proper oversight of our public funds.
    And I think it is a great amendment. And I hope that everyone
    agrees with it and votes for it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mrs. Schmidt.
    Mr. Chandler is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chandler. Madam Chairman, may I ask the gentleman a
    question? Would you yield for a question? Will you take a
    question?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Chandler. Why limit it to the five most highly
    compensated employees? Why not just have it all be transparent?
    Let's have a report that shows exactly what money goes to whom.
        Mr. Duncan. I would be fine with that. This is a step in
    the right direction, a beginning. Top five highest paid
    employees would give us some indication of whether taxpayer
    dollars are actually getting to where they are supposed to go
    or whether we have inflated budgets and inflated overhead that
    we see in a lot of organizations where the money doesn't get to
    where it is supposed to go.
        Mr. Chandler. I have a hard time understanding why you
    wouldn't require a report that just gives a detailed summary of
    all of the money and who it goes to. Just say who the money
    goes to, each and every employee that receives it.
        Mr. Duncan. I would be fine with supporting that type of
    amendment. I believe in transparency all the way around. This
    was a step in the right direction to begin the transparency
    process. If you see what the salaries are of the top employees
    at an organization, independent contractors that are doing work
    for USAID, it would give you an indication of whether there is
    a problem and to look further.
        Mr. Chandler. All right. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does any member----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second. Yes, Mr.
    Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would just like to ask Mr. Duncan in
    terms of he made an earlier statement about inflated salaries.
    Is this because the administrator is given discretionary
    authority in terms of how these people are to be paid or is it
    because there is no mandate? I am just a little puzzled when
    you said inflated salaries. Is it because something is wrong
    with the system of how these people are to be paid?
        Mr. Duncan. Well, the contracts are written, you know,
    basically you contract with an independent contractor to
    provide that foreign aid assistance. The contractor determines
    his budget, determines who he hires and what he pays. And if
    they are directing more of our taxpayer dollars to high
    salaries, this is just a check and balance to make sure that
    all that money is not going to salaries and not getting out
    into the field where it should go. I think everyone in here
    would agree that we want our tax dollars, if we are giving it
    to foreign aid, we want it to go to where the rubber meets the
    road, and that is to meet the need. And it is not going to go
    to line the pockets of the independent contractor. I think this
    is a step in the right direction, sir.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I think your point is well taken. And I
    do want to associate myself with Mr. Chandler's earlier line of
    questioning. If we are going to do it not just for this agency,
    let's do it throughout the whole State Department, making sure
    that everybody, contract or whatever. You know what, when we
    had 20,000 contractors in Iraq, we are still trying to find $8
    billion in cash that we are not able to account for. So I do
    appreciate the gentleman's concern about transparency. And this
    is probably one way that we ought to really get into.
        But I do want to say that Mr. Chandler's point is well
    taken. Let's not just do it for USAID, let's do it for the
    entire Department of State so we can find out what happened to
    the $8 billion in cash that we can't account for. I thank the
    gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield? I agree with you. I
    would put the check register for every government agency
    online. Our salaries and our MRAs are online for the American
    people. I think that there ought to be total transparency for
    the government so that the American taxpayer can go and find
    out where every dollar, whether it goes to the U.N., which
    cannot provide us any transparency on how that money is being
    spent, any agency, any tax dollar should be transparent so the
    American people knows how that money is being spent. And then
    they can let us know that they don't think it is being spent
    very wisely. We are $14 trillion in bad debt. We need to be
    more accountable to the taxpayer. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Does any
    other member wish to be heard on this amendment? If not,
    hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All
    opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and
    the amendment is agreed to.
        Ms. Schwartz is recognized for another amendment that you
    have.
        Ms. Schwartz. I think this will be within our jurisdiction,
    but maybe a little more controversial. We'll see. I do have an
    amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Ms. Schwartz
    of Pennsylvania. Strike section 407 of the bill.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will wait a minute and make sure
    that we have the correct amendment. So we will suspend. While
    they are handed out, I would like to remind the members that
    pursuant to my prior announcement, after the ranking member's
    request, from 6:30 to 8:15 we will continue with debate and
    voice votes, but any recorded votes will be postponed until
    8:15. Ms. Schwartz is recognized to explain her amendment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Ms. Schwartz. Yes. This amendment would strike section 407.
    It is a very short section. So maybe it would be, the best
    explanation I will start with is just to simply read it. It
    basically says that there would be a prohibition on assistance
    to countries that fail to meet the Millennium Challenge
    Corporation's corruption performance indicator. And while there
    are some waivers and exceptions that would be allowed, actually
    basically allowing the President to be able to make a waiver,
    it is a pretty blanket statement that no countries can receive
    any foreign assistance if they don't meet this particular
    indicator under the Millennium Challenge grant.
        And let me just say that I agree with the intent of what I
    would understand would be the intent of this section, which is
    to make sure that we are providing assistance to countries that
    are moving, you might want to even say aggressively, to
    eliminate corruption in their country. And many of us, again
    who have visited many countries, understand how it is a key
    element to really having a democracy that people can trust is
    to eliminate corruption. And for many new democracies, this is
    a major issue as they take over from dictatorships in
    particular.
        There are, however, some real problems with using this
    particular indicator. Under MCC, the corruption indicator has
    several provisions I just want to point out that I think would
    eliminate some countries we would not want to stop foreign aid
    to. And I will just mention a few of them. One of them is
    Afghanistan. Another one is Armenia. There is Haiti, Honduras,
    Kosovo, just to name a few. Basically, what the standard calls
    for under MCC, which would now be applied broadly as I
    understand reading this section, and that may not have been
    what was intended, but this is what it says, is that it would
    prohibit any aid to government. And for many of these
    countries, this is a big problem.
        For example, if we want to provide foreign aid to train
    teachers, well, teachers are paid by the government. That would
    no longer be allowed. That if they provide--if we want to
    provide aid to health clinics and doctors that are paid by the
    government, that would be a part of the problem of this
    indicator that they judge. That if we want to support clean
    water and sanitation, that that would be a part of the
    indicator, and that would be a problem. So again, countries
    like Afghanistan, where our assistance is really working to
    build a capacity within government to do exactly these
    functions, this would actually be a problem because it would
    affect the corruption indicator, as I understand it.
        So let me also say that the indicator, this is, I think,
    the one that really is even the most problematic, does
    basically say that any country that is below the median is not
    fighting corruption enough. They can no longer meet the
    criteria. So that means even if they are doing a pretty good
    job, that means that half the countries would be eliminated
    just because median means that half of the countries fail. Half
    are below the median and half are above the median, so half
    would fail and no longer be able to get foreign assistance from
    the United States. And I am not quite sure.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield for a question?
        Ms. Schwartz. Sure.
        Mr. Connolly. Would one of those countries, for example, be
    Haiti?
        Ms. Schwartz. Yes. As I understand. Let me look.
        Mr. Connolly. That is my understanding as well.
        Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. The idea that the United States would cut off
    aid to Haiti because of a well-intentioned but mislaid
    criterion I think speaks to the gentlelady's point. We can all
    think that these are worthy goals and values, but frankly, the
    implementation, the consequence of this standard, I think,
    would be very self-defeating for the United States. And Haiti
    is a great example. I yield back to my colleague.
        Ms. Schwartz. Just to finish this, if I may, is just to
    finish my point, is, again, I think that for many of us, myself
    included, we are deeply concerned about and want to assist
    nations that are fighting corruption and building their
    countries to do that. I think the problem here is the indicator
    that was used, which comes from the Millennium Challenge grant,
    which I just talked about liking, but in this case, to apply
    that to all foreign assistance, eliminate half of the nations
    that could receive aid from us because they fall below the
    median. And then, of course, if you do it another year, you are
    breaking the numbers of countries in half again. And if you do
    it the next year, you are he breaking it--I mean, at some point
    we reach no countries could receive foreign aid, because there
    are always going to be half the countries are going to fall
    below the median. So I think some of this is just the nature of
    the indicator and the way it is measured is really a problem.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The lady's time is
    expired. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair. And while I do share
    the concerns of my colleague, first off, with Haiti, I believe
    that the President can give a waiver so that Haiti, the foreign
    aid Haiti receives would not be interrupted. Really, this
    amendment effectively endorses the provision of the U.S.
    foreign assistance to corrupt regimes, thus rewarding those
    committed to stealing U.S. taxpayer dollars and perpetuating
    the cycle of an inefficient and ineffective assistance program
    worldwide.
        And you know, the MCC has it right. Assistance is most
    effective when directed toward those who have demonstrated a
    commitment to the rule of law, investments in people, and
    economic reform. Corruption, on the other hand, perpetuates
    poverty, contributes to instability, and renders foreign
    assistance useless. It is difficult for me to fathom how one
    could defend providing assistance to corrupt regimes without
    even a second thought. I realize there are exceptions, and that
    is why this bill has provided a waiver, a waiver for those
    exceptions, exceptions like Haiti. There are some countries
    where our national security objectives are so important that we
    need to make targeted investments, while simultaneously seeking
    to mitigate risk and root out corruption.
        So I strongly oppose this amendment. And I want to add that
    we can't play favorites when it comes to accountability for
    U.S. assistance. I know some might want to carve out one
    country or another. But you know, this is just common sense. We
    should not be giving U.S. money to governments that are found
    to be corrupt.
        And finally, to account for any time lags in the corruption
    indicator, I would like to note that this again does provide a
    provision for the President to have waiver authority, so he
    doesn't have to wait on Congress, to allow certain countries to
    receive this assistance once Congress has received
    certification that the recipient nation is taking steps to
    alleviate corruption and that the end use monitoring measures
    are in place.
        So all we want to do is make sure that if the country is
    corrupt and it is trying to correct itself and it is
    demonstrating good policy, that we will give them the
    assistance. But if it is a country like North Korea, where Kim
    Jong Il is never going to make steps, that we don't give it to
    Kim Jong Il. And I think that that is just--I mean, that is
    just----
        Ms. Schwartz. If the gentlewoman would yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me, Mrs. Schmidt has the
    time.
        Mrs. Schmidt. And I really didn't want to yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I know. You have the time, and
    continue with your thoughts.
        Mrs. Schmidt. I mean, it makes sense, with the precious
    dollars that we have, to make sure that they are going to
    countries that are not working against us. And if there is an
    exception to that, then let's allow the President to make that
    exception. But to just carte blanche say we are not going to
    see if you are good stewards, we are not going to see whether
    you are corrupt or not, just hand the money over carte blanche
    is really foolish. Because a corrupt government, chances are,
    isn't going to give that money to the people who need it. If
    they are corrupt, they are going to use that money, that
    assistance, that grain, that whatever for their own benefit.
    And so it is counterproductive, counterintuitive to what we
    want to do. So why don't we just look at the precious dollars
    that we have to spend and make sure that they are spent in a
    place where corruption is not the dominant feature of the
    country? Where this country, whatever it is, is either non
    corrupt or trying to make itself non corrupt. And toward that
    end, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt. Mr.
    Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Yes. Madam Chairman, I ask my friends in the
    majority to think about what you are saying. In response to the
    gentlelady from Pennsylvania's arguments, and the gentleman
    from Virginia's question, you are saying the President has a
    waiver. So we are going to have a roll call vote on this
    amendment. And what this will say is we who, assuming the
    majority side prevails and the amendment is defeated, we in
    Congress will cut off aid to Honduras, that just got rid of
    this bad guy and is now trying to rebuild a civil society
    because Honduras--so we are going to cut off aid to Honduras.
    The President has a way of saving you if he can work language
    in that says the national security interests of the United
    States. Not the ``national interest'' of the United States, but
    the ``national security interests'' of the United States.
    Armenia? Historic relationship, aid programs, Congress cuts it
    off.
        Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops are dying, we are
    going to cut off all economic aid because they are in the lower
    half.
        Cote d'Ivoire just had an election. The guy tried to hold
    on to power, this corrupt dictator tried to hold onto power.
    President Ouattara finally gets in, he is just starting his
    job. But Ivory Coast is in the lower half. Cut off all their
    aid. You can't be serious about wanting to do that.
        If you are worried about Kim Jong Il, let me tell you,
    first of all, there are about 22 provisions in law that keep us
    from giving foreign assistance in almost every circumstance to
    him. Legislate about North Korea. If you want to talk about
    some other people who are against our interests, we don't want
    to give aid to, propose it. But don't take an index that
    applies to people who are trying to get better. The Millennium
    Challenge program is a wonderful program because it was said
    for some portion of our foreign aid we are going to have a real
    merit test, and one of the tests is if you have confronted
    corruption and dealt with it effectively, then you are going to
    be eligible for compacts and grants under those compacts. We
    didn't say the whole foreign assistance program immediately is
    going to become subject to the Millennium Challenge Corporation
    standards.
        Now, I don't think you want to be on record voting to cut
    off aid to Honduras and Armenia and Haiti and say, Oh, but the
    saving grace here, we really didn't do it, because the
    President, if he wants to scream national security, can waive
    it. Is that the position you want to be in? Is that a Congress
    that wants to assert its authorities in the proper way? That is
    the ultimate delegation of power to the executive branch of
    government. And remember who is President. Thank you. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Payne. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized.
        Mr. Payne. I too would like to echo what the ranking member
    has said. You know, I think that these things sound good,
    however, when we start to look at it, for example, Egypt is on
    this particular--would be out. They have a transition going on,
    have people who are trying to go in to set up a democracy. And
    if this bill goes through, Egypt is cut off. We are worried
    about the Muslim Brotherhood. Okay, let's just cut off all our
    aid to the military, cut off aid to the country, let it fend
    for itself. If you think you have a problem in the Middle East
    now, you haven't even seen a problem. You take a place like
    Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. They got
    more people who are Muslims practicing Islam in Indonesia than
    all of the Arab countries in the Middle East.
        We should, therefore--and they are our biggest supporters.
    So this brilliant amendment would say let's cut them off.
    Right. The bill does. Cut them off. The bill would cut them
    off. That makes a lot of sense. Kenya, who gives more
    intelligence to the United States about Somalia and Yemen and
    those areas that have people who are threatening our service
    persons, would be cut off.
        Kenya is one of the longest-serving emerging countries in
    democracy. They are the stability. You take Uganda. Uganda is
    the country that has the U.N. peacekeepers. They are dying.
    Uganda was attacked at the World Cup. You know why they were
    attacked at the World Cup? People were sitting around watching
    the game, some of them went in, blew them up, killed 20 or 30
    people because Uganda is assisting the United States by having
    peacekeepers in Somalia so that Somalia doesn't turn around and
    become a haven for al-Qaeda. And if you think we have got a
    problem with hijacking now, let Somalia get turned over to al-
    Qaeda and we will be in tremendous problems. I mean, we could
    go country by country. It does not make any sense at all. So I
    would hope that countries are striving to cut out corruption.
    Countries, we have had people killed who were in offices on
    anti-corruption who are on these very lists. So I would hope
    that we would think about this. You know, it certainly has good
    intentions. However, the road to purgatory is paved with good
    intentions. I just hope that we really would give a good
    thought to this before we go and make another wrong vote. I
    yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We look forward to a recorded vote
    on this amendment. Do other members wish to be heard on this
    amendment? Yes, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Carnahan. Madam Chair, if I could yield time to Ms.
    Schwartz.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Schwartz. Thank you. I just wanted to echo the last
    comments, and to be very clear about this. I think what we are
    saying very clearly I hope is being heard, is that we too are
    very concerned about corruption, and are not looking to reward
    any nation that is not doing the work that it needs to do to
    fight corruption and to build a fair and transparent both rule
    of law and government that their own people and we can trust
    with our dollars. That is absolutely a goal we share. The issue
    is how we achieve them. And the adverse consequences of
    removing aid to countries that are working very hard, very
    aggressively, maybe even very well on this major and important
    issue, would be shut down in terms of receiving aid for us to
    do that very work is our concern.
        And so again, maybe it is in the drafting of this and not
    the intent, but it really is not about North Korea. We don't
    give them aid now. That is not the issue. Obviously, if a
    country is not cooperating with us there are consequences. We
    just saw that happen with Pakistan. So it is not like there
    isn't intention to these issues. And that was not about
    corruption per se, that was other issues. This really is very
    specific and potentially extremely harmful to the very mission
    that this committee works on every day.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentlelady yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It was the gentleman's time. Would
    the gentleman yield to Mr. Rohrabacher, to Ms. Schwartz?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I have a question for the lady. So clear
    it up for me. Is your amendment aimed at making it more likely
    that aid would go to countries that are questionable in terms
    of corruption? Or are you loosening the standard for countries
    that maybe were being too fastidious about to whom we are
    choosing to give aid? What is the purpose of your amendment in
    terms of the standard that we have for corruption?
        Ms. Schwartz. My amendment would delete this section. It
    doesn't replace it with anything. So the standard would remain
    as it is today. It does not replace it with any new standard at
    all. It just basically says that this new standard--the section
    establishes a new standard, which I am objecting to as being--
    --
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So the new standard is about corruption?
        Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So you are eliminating a standard that has
    been put in place to prevent our money from going to
    corruption?
        Ms. Schwartz. No. It is saying that this new standard that
    is going to go into effect in this section is deeply flawed.
    And I am suggesting--and it may be an opportunity for there to
    be cooperation in working out what would be the right standard
    and the right language. So I am not at all suggesting that
    there couldn't be a better standard or a better written
    standard. I am just suggesting that this one is deeply flawed.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So the purpose of what you are trying to
    replace was to eliminate corruption. But you feel that it is a
    flawed wording or something like that, so that you need to
    eliminate that section that would protect our money from going
    to fraudulent countries because it really won't be effective in
    doing it.
        Ms. Schwartz. No, it would prevent countries from being
    denied foreign assistance in a way that would be so sweeping as
    to have many, many countries that may not have been intended to
    fit into this because that particular Millennium Challenge----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I think I understand now. Thank you.
        Ms. Schwartz. You are welcome.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman yields?
        Mr. Carnahan. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Ms. Buerkle is
    recognized.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to echo some
    of the sentiments of my colleague from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt. We
    have been here for the better part of today discussing this
    piece of legislation. And the recurring themes that we continue
    to hear are that this Nation faces a $14 trillion-plus debt,
    that we need to be accountable to the American people and wise
    stewards of their taxpayer money, and that we need to be
    careful about how we spend money. And it seems to me that
    elimination of section 407 flies in the face of everything we
    have been talking about today. We talked about being
    transparent and accountable to the American people. I think
    this flies in the face of it.
        You know, I think it has been proven after five decades of
    providing assistance across the world that we know assistance
    over a long period of time can create dependency, but worse
    than that, it can create corruption. And I think in light of
    the difficult times the American Nation faces here at home,
    that to continue to allocate U.S. taxpayer dollars to the
    governments that indulge in corruption for the benefit of
    themselves is wrong, and it is neglecting the American people,
    and it is not being good stewards of their taxpayer dollars. I
    yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Ms. Buerkle. I
    believe that we had Mr. Engel. Is that right?
        Mr. Engel. Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel is recognized.
        Mr. Engel. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to support
    Ms. Schwartz's amendment. I understand the frustration that we
    don't want to pour money down a sewer hole and give good money
    after bad. And I also understand that in this day and age, with
    our budget deficits and problems we have, many of us get tired
    of giving assistance to countries that seem to always spit in
    our face. But let's look at what we are doing here. I think
    this would be penny wise and pound foolish, and I think it
    would also be tying our hands artificially. The Millennium
    Challenge Compacts which we are talking about here are just a
    few a year, 2 or 3, or whatever it is. It is not as if we are
    giving foreign assistance to everybody through the Millennium
    Challenge Compacts.
        Now, if you take the corruption standards and you say it is
    a median, obviously by the term median, half of countries are
    going to be below the median, and half of countries are going
    to be above the median. Now, we may want to give aid to a
    country that may be pro-American, pro-West, doing the things we
    want, but they artificially fall below the median, and
    therefore we would be barred from giving them Millennium
    Challenge Compacts. It doesn't make any sense.
        For instance, I said this before, you know I have been very
    active in the Balkans, particularly with Albania and Kosovo.
    Well, what this would do is Kosovo would fall below the median.
    That is a country that is as pro-West as you can get, pro-
    American as you can get, and would need our help, yet we would
    be precluded from giving them a Millennium Challenge Compact.
    In fact, some of U.S. assistance is specifically designed to
    help countries minimize corruption. That was the Millennium
    Challenge Compact threshold program for Albania. It targeted
    corruption, and successfully reduced corruption in Albania. If
    this had been in place, we would never have been able to target
    Albania, and would never have been able to give them aid to
    help them reduce corruption. So I think what this does is it
    ties our hands artificially. We should look at the criteria
    that is good for our country. And sometimes a country may fall
    below the median, and giving them the MCC would be good for
    them and good for us. And so, you know, this is not about
    blocking foreign assistance to bad players. It is assistance to
    countries that are pro-West potentially.
        So I don't know why we need to do this, to tie our hands
    artificially. I wouldn't want to hurt Haiti. I would want to
    help Haiti. We have an obligation to help Haiti. Haiti would
    fall below the median, therefore, we wouldn't be able to help
    them.
        I mentioned Kosovo. There are other countries as well. In
    fact, I think it was pointed out Afghanistan and Egypt as well.
    Honduras. We want to help Pepe Lobo and the new government
    there. This would preclude us from helping them. And Indonesia,
    Kenya, countries like that. So I know that the intent here is
    good. I just think that we are boxing ourselves in, and we are
    using artificial medians to sort of cut off other criteria that
    can at least and should at least be as important as that. So
    for those reasons----
        Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Engel. I would certainly yield. But for those reasons,
    I think Ms. Schwartz is absolutely right. This is well
    intentioned, but I think if you scratch beneath the surface it
    has the potential to do us harm. I yield to Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. With the few seconds left, I would just like to
    mention in countries where we have and we know that there is a
    high level of corruption, for your information, the U.S.
    assistance does not go to the government. For example, Haiti
    gets zero dollars directly to the government. We have NGOs, we
    have organizations that provide the services in those
    countries. So if there are some countries where we know that
    the corruption is something that is suspected to be gross, the
    countries do not get the foreign assistance. So I just want to
    make that clear. We don't fund governments. As a matter of
    fact, very few governments in Africa get direct funding. It
    goes to health groups, it goes to Red Cross, it goes to those
    groups. So I just wanted to make that clarification.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired. The Chair will recognize herself. Mr. Mack, I
    understand that you are interested in the manner in which the
    MCC develops and applies the corruption performance benchmarks.
    I pledge to work with you, Mr. Mack, to request that the GAO,
    the Government Accountability Office, review the MCC's
    application and development of these indicators. And I will
    ensure to make reference to this GAO request and your concerns,
    Mr. Mack, in the committee report on this legislation.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you. Would you yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you very much. And I have been very
    interested in this debate. And first of all, I must commend the
    chair. We do have to have standards in this bill to ensure that
    the people who are receiving the hard-earned tax dollars go to
    countries that are not corrupt. But as you stated, I do think
    it is important to look at the way that the indicators are
    developed, the way that the corruption indicator is developed.
        And I am concerned that just based upon public opinion that
    can influence the corruption indicator, and a report from the
    GAO would be fantastic. I want to thank the chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Count on it.
        Mr. Mack. I want to thank you very much.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I yield back. Mr.
    Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I too would
    like to associate myself with the position taken by the
    gentlelady taken from Philadelphia. I don't think she is being
    very restrictive. I think she is flexible. She is willing to
    work out the language in such a way that is not so restrictive
    in saying a corruption indicator. What does that mean by being
    corrupt? I looked at countries like Cambodia and Laos. Madam
    Chair, I don't know if any of our colleagues have been to Laos.
    We dropped over 2 million pounds of bombs during the Vietnam
    War. And never did the people of Laos ever wage war or even
    declare war against us. Where does the corruption come into
    play in this? Because it was like a little playground. Cambodia
    the same thing. We dropped bombs there simply because we, you
    know, on the way back from the sorties that we did against
    Vietnam. It was just horrible. And I would invite my colleagues
    to go to Cambodia and Laos. And when you talk about corruption,
    I don't know what we can do, the kind of decisions that we
    made, but we did this against these countries.
        We can go to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. These
    countries have only been democracies less than 20 years. How do
    we measure corruption of the fact that these people were under
    colonization for 100 years of the former Soviet Union. How do
    we measure corruption? Do you expect that they are going to
    become democracies the same way that we expect them to be like
    us? It took us over 100 years to give Black people the right to
    vote and their civil rights recognized. And here we are making
    demands, I believe, that I think we are being a little too
    stringent in trying to understand these countries that have
    been given corruption indicators, it is just unbelievable. I
    would like to suggest to the gentlelady that as part of the
    description or the narrative that is put in the proposed bill
    that we ought to work out maybe better language than just say
    corruption.
        Maybe there are other factors we ought to consider, and not
    just this one indicator to say if a country is corrupt. I would
    challenge anybody to suggest that all these countries are that
    corrupt given the fact that we really--I just don't know where
    the measurement comes into play in this.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I will be glad to yield to my friend from
    California.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I will be very quick. Listen, I spent some
    time in Vietnam back then too. And I was not in the military. I
    was involved in some other activities there. And I left Vietnam
    as a very--how do you say, I was very pessimistic because I saw
    the blood and the gore of war. And it was my opinion at that
    time, and I was 19 years old, that it was the corruption that
    would prevent us from winning that war. And quite frankly, we
    should have set a much higher level against the corruption of
    the Saigon regime. And we might not have gone through that
    defeat, and we might not have had this 20 years of
    dictatorship, Communist dictatorship. But we didn't set the
    standard against corruption in Vietnam. And maybe we should
    have learned that lesson, my friend.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would say to my good friend, I served
    in Vietnam. And we supported a corrupt government, if you want
    to call it.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. That is what I am saying.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But my point is how do you define
    corruption?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. It was easy to see, wasn't it? I saw it. I
    was 19 years old. I certainly identified it very easily.
        Mr. Payne. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I gladly yield to my friend from New
    Jersey.
        Mr. Payne. On the question of corruption, and we should
    certainly work toward it, however some of these countries are
    working to try to cut down on corruption. We have here in the
    United States, we are still fighting to try to win the battle
    against corruption. Take Mr. Rupert Murdoch, most powerful
    person in Europe.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And a U.S. citizen, too.
        Mr. Payne. And a U.S. citizen. When his corporation pays
    off Scotland Yard, pays people to give information, pays people
    to try to get 9/11 survivors' phone numbers. So when we talk
    about corruption, we should continue to work--the NYPD. You
    continue to work against corruption everywhere. We shouldn't
    tolerate it. However, I think that we ought to maybe look at
    ourselves and see how many people do the right thing on their
    income tax or when they pay taxes offshore rather than taxes
    here.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time, all I want to say,
    Madam Chair, is that we ought to find some sense of measurement
    how do we define, how do we measure corruption.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It strikes me,
    from listening to this discussion, that people are talking
    about two different things. I think we would all agree that we
    ought not ever be supporting corrupt governments. And I think
    there is no question about that. The other question is, is
    there a role for the United States to play in supporting
    governments that are fighting corruption and helping them
    develop institutions to successfully combat corruption? And I
    think we are mixing up two different conversations here. And I
    would hope that we could work on some language which ensures
    that we are not supporting corruption or corrupt governments,
    but at the same time recognizing that we have a role to play in
    supporting leaders and governments that are working hard and
    seriously to combat corruption.
        We had a recent visit here, Madam Chairman, as a result of
    your good work, of the President of the nation of Liberia,
    Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who is a hero in terms of the work that
    she is doing to combat corruption in her government. She made
    it clear to us in those conversations that she relies
    enormously on the support and aid of the United States. And so
    I think we have to be able to distinguish between those
    governments that are working hard to build the kinds of
    institutions that share the values of our country and combat
    corruption, and we have a whole series of efforts underway in
    helping countries build court systems, and develop rule of law.
    And all of that in part is a battle to fight corruption, which
    it would seem to me would no longer be permitted under the new
    language of this legislation.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Cicilline. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you aware the part of the bill that
    she is seeking to eliminate actually provides the President a
    waiver so that when he has examples like you have given, that
    he is able to provide a waiver to the President of Liberia?
        Mr. Cicilline. I will reclaim my time. I am aware it has a
    waiver. But we have a responsibility, I believe, as members of
    the Foreign Affairs Committee, to set this policy, to be
    thoughtful about the way we do it, and not to rely on the
    executive branch to do our job. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Seeing no other requests
    for time, a recorded vote has been requested on the Schwartz
    amendment. It will be rolled until 8:15. I know that Mr. McCaul
    had an amendment. We have a list of a lot of amendments. Don't
    worry about it. But I had told Mr. McCaul that he would be
    next.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you. Am I being recognized?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. If you have your amendment, you
    can call it up to the desk there.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment at
    the desk, number 21.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. McCaul
    of Texas. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the
    following: Section [blank]. Limitation on USAID training
    contracts under the Merida Initiative.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And we will hand out the amendment
    as she is reading it. Hold on 1 second. Let's make sure. Merida
    Initiative, McCaul.
        Ms. Carroll. (a) Findings. Congress finds the following:
    (1) In 2007, the United States and Mexico announced the Merida
    Initiative, a multi-year partnership to fight organized crime
    and associated violence, while furthering respect for human
    rights and the rule of law in the region; (2) One of the Merida
    Initiative's four primary goals is to improve the capacity of
    justice systems in the region; (3) In April 2009, USAID/Mexico
    awarded a 3-year, $44.1 million cost-type contract to
    Management Systems International (MSI) to work with Mexican
    state and Federal justice institutions to strengthen their
    capacity to improve transparency, public oversight, and public
    accountability, and better serve Mexican citizens under the new
    constitutional reforms that shape the police and criminal
    procedure codes; (4) A January 2011 USAID Office of Inspector
    General audit determined that the contract mechanism that
    USAID-Mexico used to award the task order to MSI was not done
    in accordance with procurement regulations, USAID-Mexico's
    technical officers responsible for the rule of law projects
    have not effectively carried out all of their responsibilities
    in accordance with USAID policy and internal mission orders.
    USAID-Mexico's contractor has not developed----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ask unanimous consent that the
    amendment has been read. I believe that all members have a copy
    of the amendment. And I will call on Mr. McCaul for 5 minutes
    to explain his amendment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we talked a
    lot about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. But we have
    a war that is going on right next door and just south of our
    border in Mexico. I have met with President Calderon. Connie
    Mack, the gentleman from Florida, and I recently met with him.
    Security is his number one issue. And since he has declared
    war, about 40,000 people have died in Mexico at the hands of
    the drug cartels, who have become more brazen and more violent
    than ever. In Juarez alone, 6,000 people have been killed. As a
    result, the Congress passed the Merida Initiative to deal with
    that, to provide intelligence, military assistance to Mexico.
    And I think, as Chairman Mack of the Subcommittee on Western
    Hemisphere, and Mr. Engel would agree as well, we have been
    very frustrated with the State Department and the inability to
    implement the Merida Initiative.
        I think today only 25 percent of that funding has been
    implemented. And it has been about 2\1/2\ years. One area that
    I think we need to--let me just add also that it has become so
    brazen that our U.S. law enforcement have now been under fire,
    not only in Mexico, but on this side of the border.
        ICE agent Jaime Zapata was killed in cold blood, and his
    partner, Agent Avila, by nothing short of a miracle survived
    that ambush by the Zetas cartel, which has become the most
    violent down there. So we need to look at the Merida
    Initiative. We need to ensure that the training that we provide
    is contracted the right way, completed in a timely manner, and
    measured for its effectiveness. This committee has a
    responsibility to provide effective oversight to ensure that
    this happens for our security and for the security of Mexico.
    So when we look at these training programs and we look at the
    contracting of those programs, I have seen some inefficiencies.
        My amendment would prevent USAID from spending more than 50
    percent of the training funds under the Merida Initiative with
    any one company.
        One of the main areas in which we provide Merida aid is to
    institutionalize the rule of law in Mexico by providing these
    training programs for the Mexican police, judges and
    prosecutors. USAID was tasked to carry this out and gave about
    90 percent of that contract to one single company, Management
    Systems International, or MSI. This company has a poor record
    of performance, and the inspector general agreed. He reported
    that there are issues with the contract's process; that it was
    hurried, sloppy; and there were no metrics of performance; and
    the reporting was ineffective and lacking.
        In fact, USAID itself admitted it has been ineffective in
    its metrics and oversight of MSI and the training. In fact, we
    have made repeated calls to MSI from my staff that were never
    returned. And the situation, I believe, is getting worse.
        This bill does one thing, in effect. It provides
    competition, which I always think brings out the best,
    competition to carry out these contracts, and it will force
    USAID to do what they should have done in the first place, and
    that was to provide effective training with real metrics and
    real oversight.
        With that, I ask that the members of this committee support
    my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Do any members wish to be heard on the McCaul amendment?
        Mrs. Schmidt is recognized, and also Mr. Mack.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
    applaud my good friend Mr. McCaul for this amendment.
        You know, the USAID has the task to carry out the
    responsibility for the training component of the Merida
    Initiative, as well as the Department of Justice, especially
    under pillars 2 and 4, institutionalizing the rule of law and
    building stronger and resilient communities. But, Madam Chair,
    until the 4th of January, until the 10th of December, 2010,
    USAID held 501 training events, with 466 of these events being
    contracted through just one company, Management Systems
    International, or MSI, and I think that is the basis for this
    amendment.
        On January--in January 2011, the USAID IG Office identified
    several problems with the contract with MSI and other
    companies, including issues with the process, the metrics and
    the reporting. The audit specifically found, one, the rule of
    law program lacked strategic focus, there was a poor statement
    of working and poor technical control over the contractor; two,
    the contracting mechanism used for the rule of law program was
    not appropriate. USAID attempted to expedite the award and the
    implementation of the program; three, the performance
    indicators and targets were inappropriate measures of the
    program's progress. There was either no target or unrealistic
    targets. Performance measures were either not available or not
    within the USAID control. There was a lack of effective program
    oversight; that is, no visit, no formal approval of work plans
    and reports. And finally, training effectiveness was not
    evaluated. There was no consideration of formal evaluation
    systems during the design of training, and the USAID did not
    adhere to the policy regarding assessing the degree of results
    and impact of training.
        Given the horrific violence that continues along our U.S.-
    Mexico border, given the tragic deaths of our ICE agent Jamie
    Zapata, given the continued threats posed by drug cartels to
    our Nation and citizens as well as the citizens of Mexico, we
    need to ensure that the rule of law and strong, resilient
    communities exist in Mexico. We need to ensure that the
    training we provide is contracted in the right way, completed
    in a timely manner, and measured for its effectiveness. This
    committee has a responsibility to provide effective oversight
    to ensure that this happens for our security and for that of
    Mexico.
        This amendment stresses our concerns with USAID's handling
    of training for the Merida Initiative and restricts the
    practice of ``putting all of our eggs in one basket'' regarding
    training. Our administration, Madam Chair, cannot afford to
    haphazardly enter into contracts simply for convenience, ease
    or timeliness alone. For security of our country, as well as
    Mexico, regarding the Merida training programs, we must ensure
    the best possible training programs for Mexico, utilizing solid
    contracting processes that consider all companies that are able
    to perform components of this vital training process.
        I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues
    to vote for this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mrs. Schmidt.
        And Mr. Keating is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I urge support of this amendment as well. I think the 50
    percent--people could argue where 50 percent comes from and how
    accurate that might be. But the situation in Mexico, as we have
    found out in the Homeland Security Committee, is one of a
    crisis. And if we have a contractor that is not fulfilling the
    obligation, and we are held captive to that contractor, I think
    we have to do something about that.
        I will be offering an amendment later on that I think will
    address this same kind of situation at no cost as well, but I
    do think we should move forward with this amendment, and I do
    support it.
        I yield back the rest of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Mack is recognized.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just real quickly, I
    want to thank Mr. McCaul for bringing this amendment forward.
        We have got a huge challenge when it comes to Mexico. The
    Merida Initiative has struggled for sure, the implementation
    and the delivery of the resources. And I would urge all of my
    colleagues to support this amendment.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I support the gentleman's amendment, but
    the only thing, as a matter of observation, I don't think it is
    MSI's fault in this whole process. It is the USAID
    administrators. They are the ones that should be disciplined.
    And I just wanted to share that with the gentleman, because it
    says that MSI was not in accordance with procurement
    regulations. My gosh, we should fire the guy that administers
    USAID in Mexico and not necessarily put the blame on MSI.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Rivera is recognized.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I similarly applaud the gentleman's bringing this
    amendment forward. I think it is an important step to make sure
    that we have accountability in our programs with respect to the
    Merida project, and making sure that USAID is held to the
    highest standards, and making sure that our contractors are
    held to the highest standards, and making--in that procurement
    process. So again, I support this good amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so very much.
        Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
        All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Mr. Cicilline. Madam Chair, I have an amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
    But I had told Mr. Carnahan that he would go first. I
    apologize. I am looking at my master list.
        Mr. Carnahan, you are on the master list.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy to be on
    your list. It is a good list, I hope.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the clerk would look for the
    Carnahan amendment and let us see if we are in sync.
        Mr. Carnahan. It is No. 032.
        Ms. Carroll. Yes, sir. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by
    Mr. Carnahan of Missouri. At the end of title IV, add the
    following: Section 4 [blank]. Assistance to establish
    partnerships between businesses and postsecondary education
    institutions in developing countries in Africa. (a) Findings.
    Congress finds the following: (1) There is a growing need in
    developing countries in Africa to educate and properly train
    future business leaders in such a way to help them adapt to the
    demanding complexities and leadership.
        Mr. Carnahan. Excuse me, Madam Chair. If I could interrupt.
    In lieu of reading the entire amendment----
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Why don't we wait just 1 second so
    everyone gets a copy of the amendment, and that is why I let
    her read on a little bit. But, no, we will wait. Well, just
    suspend. Hold on 1 second. And while you are handing out that
    amendment, I would like to tell members that this is the list I
    have of folks who have amendments, but please tell me if you
    are also on my dance card: Mr. Mack, Mr. Cicilline, Mr.
    Griffin, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
    Fortenberry. If you are not on my dance card--Mr. Poe. Thank
    you. And Mr. Berman. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Carnahan, you are recognized.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, my amendment would authorize USAID to provide
    assistance to establish partnerships between businesses and
    postsecondary educational institutions in developing countries
    in Africa.
        The reason for the program is simple. There was a
    recognized need to further educate, develop and train future
    business leaders in developing countries in Africa. Better
    education, training will allow for more prosperous businesses.
    One way to help train the next generation of leaders is through
    entrepreneurial education. While institutions throughout the
    continent offer business certificates or degrees, the training
    can lack certain practical elements necessary for ultimate
    success, and there is a shortage of access.
        My amendment sets out that there are only 50, only 50
    business schools that exist in the entire continent of Africa
    compared to--and that is for 800 million people--compared with
    1,000 business schools in India, 1,200 in the U.S. There is a
    clear shortage of access there.
        My amendment would help focus efforts to close this gap by
    enabling students to practice in their future fields. They will
    enhance their education by requiring real-world business and
    management experience. Better training will help lead to jobs,
    better economic opportunities. This is not only in their
    interest, but it is in our interest as well to help them
    succeed and focus our efforts to support that.
        With that, I would yield----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. It sounds good. We are
    busily trying to find something wrong with it, but apparently
    we can't come up with anything.
        Mr. Carnahan. I want to cut you short then. I have reached
    out--and just if I may add, Madam Chair, I reached out to our
    ranking member and the chair of the subcommittee and shared
    this information, and it is my----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That explains it.
        Does anyone wish to be recognized?
        Mr. Payne. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Let me commend the gentleman for introducing
    this resolution. We are working on legislation where we are
    trying to deal with higher education in general. As you know,
    in many African countries now, there is universal education in
    elementary school. Some small school fees are still required;
    however, most students are able to go. The other big movement
    in the elementary is that the girl child, which has always--in
    developing countries been sort of left behind, they have sort
    of a ``leave no girl behind'' type thing going on now, but they
    have included in a number of countries because of wives of many
    of the Presidents have said the girl child should be involved.
        So as we are increasing elementary ed, there is a move on
    secondary education that only makes sense that with more
    graduates coming out of elementary and secondary school, going
    into higher education, that we ought to have a way to tap this
    new resource of qualified entrepreneurs. And I think if we did
    this and we sort of taught them the way that we do it, we could
    perhaps interest some American businesses to invest in China.
        I see we have a lot of concern about China's investment. My
    African friends in perhaps every country in Africa say, we wish
    America would come, we prefer to do business with American
    businesses, we know it is better, it is more honest, it is more
    proficient. The typical African who goes for higher education
    doesn't want to go to Beijing. It is just totally free. But
    they want to come to the U.S. institutions at Harvard and
    Howard and Yale and Morehouse to the person.
        So we have a great opportunity. The only reason we are not
    doing better in Africa businesswise is simply because our
    business people have not decided to maximize the opportunity.
    So I think this Carnahan is a good measure, and I certainly
    support it wholeheartedly.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Do any members wish to be heard on the Carnahan amendment?
    If not, hearing no further requests for recognition, the
    question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
        All opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
    amendment is agreed to. We just didn't have enough time.
        Mr. Mack is recognized.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment at
    the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Mack of
    Florida. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the
    following: Section [blank]. Limitation on assistance to
    Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia. None of
    the funds authorized to be appropriated under this act may be
    made available for assistance to the Governments of Argentina,
    Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, or Bolivia.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. And we will just wait a
    few minutes until the amendment is distributed.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack, you are recognized for 5
    minutes on your amendment.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And again, as the chair of the Western Hemisphere
    Subcommittee, we have focused a lot on how to move Latin
    America forward. And it appears that every time we turn around,
    there are a number of countries who stand in the way, or at
    least put up resistance, and those countries are the countries
    that are outlined in this amendment.
        I think we all recognize that Venezuela--whether it is
    supporting terrorism, drug trafficking, assistance to Iran,
    kicking out DEA agents, severing ties, you name it, I think
    Venezuela is probably an easy one for everyone in here to agree
    with me on. Bolivia, at the same time has kicked out the DEA,
    kicked out the U.S. Ambassador and aligns itself with the ALBA
    nations undermining democracy in Latin America. Nicaragua has
    invaded Costa Rica. Ortega is unconstitutionally running for a
    third term, and they are in close relations with Iran.
        I could go on and on about the--each one of these
    countries, but I believe again, as I heard from some of my
    friends on the other side of the aisle, that we need to make
    choices, and I believe that Mr. Berman said that if we had
    governments that we wanted to make sure we restricted funds to,
    then we ought to bring that to the committee. Well, that is
    exactly what this does. We send approximately $96 million to
    these countries right now, and none of these countries are
    helping in the creation and strength of democracy and freedom
    in Latin America.
        And I want to make one last point about Argentina.
    Argentina is undermining both the United States judicial system
    and the settlement process at the World Bank. Argentina owes
    the United States bondholders more than $3.5 billion and has
    cost the United States bondholder, taxpayers and shareholders
    more than $10 billion. You will know that recently they seized
    sensitive U.S. equipment for domestic, political maneuvering,
    and the government continues to intimidate and initiate attacks
    on the media and freedom of expression.
        So, Madam Chair, I believe this is a good amendment. This
    really shows where our priorities are, and it sticks to the
    principles that I believe are important, that we will support
    our friends and our allies. Countries in the Western Hemisphere
    that support the ideals of freedom, security and prosperity
    should and can expect the United States to stand with them.
    This amendment says that if you choose to turn your back on
    those principles and ideals, then we will no longer continue in
    support of those governments.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And the gentleman's amendment--I do agree with this
    approach, rather than a standard which is much more general and
    has very negative consequences on our interests. But there are
    a few points--questions I would like to ask.
        If the logic is bad leader, oppressive government,
    corruption, Iran comes to mind. But we, with my colleagues on
    the other side very enthusiastically leading the way,
    appropriated significant funds for democracy promotion in Iran.
    Why would we want in Bolivia--in Bolivia, we have a program
    that promotes democracy-building programs in municipalities far
    away from Evo Morales' control. Why do we want to wipe out
    those programs? We have counternarcotics programs going on in--
    again, in Bolivia.
        Mr. Mack. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Berman. Just 1 second. As I understand the gentleman's
    amendment, you are cutting out all economic assistance
    regardless of category to these five countries--five countries,
    each of which has their own problems, but are different
    countries--and we are lumping them together in a way that I am
    not sure makes sense. So I would be happy to yield to get a
    little more----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Berman [continuing]. Understanding of what the
    gentleman is intending here.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you.
        And the amendment is very clear that these are funds that
    go to the government. So these are some of the programs that
    you talked about are not included in this. This is about
    assistance to these governments.
        Mr. Berman. And my reply to the gentleman, the democracy-
    building and counternarcotics programs, the democracy building
    goes to municipal governments, frankly, in many years where
    they are quite opposed to the policies of the central
    government. You don't distinguish between the central
    government and the municipal governments in this amendment, and
    the counternarcotics programs do go to the government. So this
    is a decision to cut out those programs. I haven't heard enough
    reason to feel comfortable doing that without understanding
    what we are getting from them and why they are concerned.
        So I understand the spirit of the gentleman's amendment,
    but I am just wondering if a strict application of these
    provisions doesn't undermine some of our interests here.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Is that a question for Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Berman. Only if he chooses to answer it.
        Mr. Mack. Well, I thank the gentleman.
        Look, I don't think that we can--you can't make the
    argument, let us say, in Bolivia that we have a program with
    the DEA, because the DEA isn't in Bolivia. So I think if you go
    through and look at the countries that we are pointing out
    here, each one of these countries has stood in the face of
    democracy and freedom in Latin America, whether it is
    Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador. Argentina owes an
    incredible amount of money. So the idea that we are going to
    continue to fund these governments when they have no intentions
    in standing with us and fighting narcotrafficking, fighting
    drugs, fighting terrorism. In fact, the leaders of these
    countries all align with Hugo Chavez, who is trying to change
    the direction of Latin America. Hugo Chavez wants to see--he
    wants to be leader for life, and all of those other countries
    are moving in that same direction.
        So what we are saying is we have to make the hard choices.
    We don't have unlimited amounts of money. When it comes to
    these countries, they have shown that they do not support the
    ideals of freedom, security and prosperity in Latin America.
    And if they don't support those ideals, then we should no
    longer support----
        Mr. Berman. May I just reclaim my last second here?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would like to get
    time from another person, that would be great. We just went to
    Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Rivera is recognized.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It seems like I am reminiscing about the earlier debate
    regarding the amendment on the OAS. As Yogi Bear would say,
    this is deja vu all over again. How much longer does the United
    States need to subsidize anti-American behavior in the
    hemisphere? How much longer should the United States subsidize
    activities that run counter to U.S. national interests?
        When I spoke earlier on the OAS amendment, and I spoke
    about the OAS taking actions that run counter to U.S. national
    interests, those U.S. national interests include making sure
    that we have democracies that are moving more and more toward
    democratic reform, human rights, respect for civil liberties.
    That is not only in the interest of the United States, but in
    the interest of the entire hemisphere, in the interest of
    hemispheric cooperation, in the interest of hemispheric
    stability among all of our neighbors.
        These countries have taken concrete action to destabilize
    U.S. interests in the hemisphere, and those actions have
    already been outlined in part by Chairman Mack, and there are
    many others that perhaps we don't have complete time to
    deliberate. But there are many other activities that these
    countries have taken that run counter to U.S. national
    interests.
        So why, particularly in an era of economic austerity, and
    an era of budgetary constraints, why should we subsidize or
    continue to subsidize these countries? Let us finally send a
    message that we are not going to be the punching bag for
    countries that perhaps ostensibly or purportedly try in some
    way to give a semblance of a friendly relationship, but in
    reality, in practice they are taking actions that run counter
    to U.S. interests. And we should not subsidize--our taxpayers,
    United States taxpayers, should not subsidize anti-American
    activities, anti-democratic activities in the hemisphere, and
    that is why I support this good amendment.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera.
        Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with my good
    friend Mr. Mack on this amendment, although we do share a lot
    of the concerns. This is sort of a one-size-fits-all approach,
    and I am not sure it is the best way to do it.
        For instance, I would not lump Argentina in with these
    other countries. Yes, there have been things in Argentina that
    have happened that we are perhaps not happy about, but I think
    that what is going on in Argentina--Argentina is a democracy,
    and we have relationships with that government. There are
    things on which we agree, and there are things on which we
    disagree. But, for instance, I would not--would put it in the
    same category as Venezuela.
        I think that is a little bit of a too simplistic approach.
    Bolivia, Evo Morales sort of makes his own bed, and he lies in
    it. I don't understand why he does half the things he does.
    Venezuela, we have all kind of given up. And Nicaragua, you
    know, we have seen a lot of things that make us very unhappy. I
    am disappointed with Ecuador. I think that they are expelling
    our Ambassador and we expel their Ambassador was foolhardy, but
    I wouldn't even put Ecuador in the category of Venezuela. I
    think when we do that, we push them further into the hands of
    Hugo Chavez, and I am not sure that is the right way.
        By this logic, for instance, when Lula was President of
    Brazil, which is a very important country, he was really
    collaborating with Iran. He did it many, many times in the U.N.
    He did it in terms of when we were able to get sanctions on
    Iran, he was trying to go a different direction. Would we then
    have included Brazil into that, an important country with which
    we need to have a good relationship with? Since their new
    leader Dilma is there, she is a lot better.
        And so are we to do this every time a country elects a
    government that we don't particularly like or that we think is
    wrong?
        So I have difficulty. I think we can decide a country by
    country. I don't think we need to lump everybody in. And I
    think that here, Argentina, it is the most egregious to put
    Argentina here.
        I have visited there several times. I met with the
    President and the Foreign Minister, who was the Ambassador here
    in Washington. I would not say that they are anti-American. I
    think they want to work with us. Yes, they have a good
    relationship with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. He gives them
    money. He gives them oil. He helps pay off their debt. I don't
    think if a country has a relationship with Hugo Chavez it means
    that they cannot also have a positive relationship with us. I
    don't think it is an either/or situation. I think that they can
    do what is in their best interest, and it is in our best
    interest, I think, to have a good relationship with a country
    like Argentina, which again is a democracy. I went there, I
    visited. We took a codel there. We visited with their trade
    union movement with their people.
        Again, there are many, many countries that I think we can
    say that we don't agree 100 percent with, but I think putting
    Argentina in this group is not the right thing to do.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield?
        Mr. Engel. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. I would echo what he said. Look, this is a
    crude way of substituting for diplomatic engagement. We don't
    have to like the actions of another country, or many of their
    actions, or their leadership, or some of their votes or
    practices to nonetheless understand that we have to be engaged.
    We have no choice. To cut off aid of any kind, I think, has
    ramifications and limits whatever leverage the United States
    may yet still exercise.
        I certainly echo my colleague from New York's puzzlement at
    the inclusion of Argentina on this list. But nonetheless, this
    is a crude weapon. It impinges on any diplomatic leverage. It
    ought to be a last resort, not a first resort, and I believe it
    will have some unwitting consequences in terms of other things
    that matter to the United States not here discussed. I think it
    is a mistake to adopt this amendment, and I am going to vote
    against it.
        Mr. Engel. I want to reclaim my time for about 8 seconds. I
    just want to say of late Colombia has been having close
    relations with Venezuela. Do we want to eliminate Colombia, who
    is our best ally? And I am very supportive of Colombia. So I
    think we have to be careful to have these blanket things.
        I yield to Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you for not much.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does anyone seek recognition?
        Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized, and then we will go on that
    side.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we are only spending $1.5
    trillion more than we are taking in. If the money we are
    sending these countries--we are borrowing from China and giving
    the debt to our children, who will have to pay it off some day.
    So what? Let us just give it to them. Cutting off aid in any
    way to anybody is a crude weapon.
        Well, I have got to tell you, I hope the American people
    hear this loud and clear, because that is not in keeping, I
    don't believe, and they will determine who they elect and
    decide to have up here on these desks making these decisions.
    We--they know we are on the edge of a catastrophe, an economic
    catastrophe.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Not until I finish.
        We are talking about a collapse of our currency unless we
    do something rather than going in to debt $1.5 trillion a year,
    $1.5 trillion a year for the last 3 years. That is almost $5
    trillion. What is the interest on that? And we can't cut out
    people from receiving our money and adding to that debt; we
    can't just say, okay, if you are really having a negative
    attitude toward us, we are not going to give you the money and
    put our kids further in debt? We can't do that? What can we do?
    Come on. In that is your philosophy? This is my philosophy: Let
    us let the American people decide.
        Thank you. I will yield to my friend Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. He doesn't want it anymore.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly. Would you yield to me for a question?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague from California.
        I am just curious, you have repeatedly throughout this
    markup brought up the fact that a significant percentage of any
    dollar for diplomacy, for USAID, for a State Department is
    largely a borrowed dollar, and the clear indication being that
    is a negative thing. So should we cut back on aid to Israel,
    because the same percentage of borrowed dollars applies to
    Israel, which is one of the larger aid programs we have.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. If Israel started to be engaged in anti-
    American activity, and we determined they were going in that
    direction, the answer is yes.
        And I would suggest to you that the reason why I am saying
    every dollar that we spend is a borrowed dollar, because 40
    percent of our budget is borrowed, I am taking it for granted
    that the other 60 percent are things like Social Security,
    Medicare, things that really are important directly to the
    American people, and that what we are talking about is part of
    that 40 percent that is not really totally directed to their
    personal well-being at the moment. But I would think that 60
    percent of our budget is in that way. So the 40 percent that we
    are talking about is borrowed. So we are borrowing this from
    China in order to give to countries that express themselves
    very well in the fact that they don't like us? Sorry.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        I know Mrs. Schmidt wants to be recognized, but first, Don
    Payne.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        I do think when we have this start/stop kind of policies
    that we are starting to do now, we sort of, I think, defeat the
    long-term goals of our foreign policy. These countries here at
    different times were close to the U.S. They have--perhaps a
    little bump has come in the road. We have countries that we had
    very terrible relations with; Peru, for example, when Sendero
    Luminoso was killing people, and Fujimori came in and
    eliminated them, and then Fujimori became the bad guy, and we
    put them on the bad list, and now they are back on the good
    list.
        We are taking the short-term--we are a relatively new
    country; however, the fact that we look at things on an annual
    basis rather than a 15- or 20-year plan, I think, is kind of
    short-sighted. We sort of--like they used to say in Britain,
    penny wise and pound foolish. You know, the British pound. The
    fact that we have changed--we are willing now to throw some of
    these countries out, whereas they were our allies before.
        What I am saying is that I think if we had a long-term
    plan--as was mentioned, Brazil now, I think, is going to become
    one of our closer allies, very important with a several-
    hundred-million-people population and the economic growth where
    we can have some trade relations. But we had bad relations with
    them before because we didn't like the guy who got elected 8
    years ago. Sixteen years ago--8 years wasn't as bad as that
    one--and now the new President seems to be okay.
        So my point is that if we have these short-term, jerky,
    bump-in-the-road, roller coaster policies, we are not going to
    win in the long run. So I would hope that we could take a
    vision that could certainly be more than sort of a knee-jerk
    type of reaction. And I will certainly yield to the gentleman
    from California.
        Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
    wonder if the author of the amendment would be open to a few
    exceptions to his prohibition on aid.
        In Bolivia, yes, the DEA--the Drug Enforcement Agency is
    not there, but the NAS--Narcotics Assistance Section of the
    State Department--has a counternarcotics program in Bolivia,
    one of the world's three largest suppliers of the foundations
    for cocaine that is dealing with eradication of the growth of
    coca leaves. That is going through the government.
        Maybe there--yes, Bolivia is opposing a lot of our
    initiatives, but is this something that we are doing for
    Bolivia, or are we doing it for ourselves? Is the program
    worthless and ineffective?
        The gentleman talked about democracy programs and other
    things like that. Would the gentleman be open to exempting
    assistance provided through nongovernmental organizations even
    though it is because there may be government people being
    trained, teachers being trained, health workers may be trained?
    This is wiped out by your amendment. If there is a chance to do
    what you want to do, even though I don't like lumping Argentina
    into the category with Venezuela and Nicaragua, but if he is
    open to some exceptions, I would be interested in knowing,
    because that might be a way we could get you some support you
    may not need for your amendment. But sometimes a belt and
    suspenders----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Mack. I thank the gentleman. And let me just say this,
    that I think I will stick with the amendment as written,
    because I think it is important that we send a message to our
    friends and our allies and to those who oppose us. And these
    countries clearly have aligned with each other to denounce, if
    you will, into the ideals of freedom, security and prosperity.
    And I don't think that we ought to continue to support with
    taxpayer dollars governments that have no interest in those
    ideals.
        Mr. Berman. Well, just to reclaim the time that Mr. Payne
    controls, if he will continue to yield to me.
        Mr. Payne. Yes.
        Mr. Berman. I would say I thought you guys were supply-
    siders. Well, the supply of cocaine in the United States is
    very much contributed to by----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The time has expired.
        Mr. Berman. I don't know why you want to wipe out a program
    that is for us, not for Bolivia.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I want to applaud my good friend from Florida for this
    amendment. Tonight, while we have got papers up here debating
    what amendments to support and not support, there are millions
    of Americans out there at their kitchen tables trying to figure
    out how to balance their budgets and pay their bills. And so
    their papers look a little different. It might be their energy
    bill, it might be their mortgage payment, it might be their car
    payment. And I say that because as they struggle in this
    recessed economy to meet their bills, their demands, we in our
    Nation need to be doing the same with ours, and we cannot
    continue to spend money that we don't have. And we certainly
    can't afford to spend money in ways that I think are wrong for
    this Nation, and I think that the people at the tables tonight
    who are paying their bills would ask us why.
        And I really want to look at the countries that Mr. Mack
    has included and ask why would we be giving them our hard-
    earned money, our taxpayers' hard-earned money? Argentina, you
    know, Argentina is undermining both the United States judicial
    system and the settlement process at the World Bank. Argentina
    owes the United States bondholders more than $3.5 billion. It
    has caused the U.S. bondholder, taxpayers and shareholders more
    than $10 billion. And in addition, it has seized sensitive U.S.
    military equipment for domestic political maneuvering.
        Venezuela, well in addition to Chavez not being a really
    great guy, they sponsor terrorism and drug trafficking, and
    they provide assistance to Iran.
        Bolivia kicked out the DEA, kicked out the U.S. Ambassador,
    aligns with ALBA, and undermines democracy.
        Nicaragua invaded Costa Rica. Ortega unconstitutionally is
    running for a third term and has a very close relationship with
    Iran.
        Ecuador refuses to regulate its borders with Colombia,
    where the majority of the FARC are. So while Colombia is trying
    to get rid of drug trafficking along its border with Ecuador,
    they are allowing the ties to continue. The government official
    ties are very close with the FARC, and they kicked out the U.S.
    Ambassador, and undermine freedom of the press.
        We have got to figure out how we are going to spend
    American taxpayer dollars, and they are really concerned about
    spending it with foreign aid. When I go back home, that is the
    one thing that people say to me is, ``Why are you giving it to
    foreign countries, why don't you keep it here?'' Well, there
    are reasons why we give it to foreign countries, countries like
    Israel, which, by the way, for every dollar that we give them,
    we actually get 75 cents of that dollar back right here in the
    United States. But there are countries that maybe we shouldn't
    be giving those taxpayer dollars to. And I applaud Mr. Mack for
    pointing out that maybe these are countries we should say,
    ``Hey, not until you straighten up your act, you are not going
    to get money from us.''
        So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And it
    is not because of an ideological difference between the other
    side and my side. It is because the American public is asking
    us, point blank, ``Why are we giving any foreign assistance
    money, period, case closed?'' We have to go back and defend it.
    We better doggone well not have to answer why are we giving it
    to Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador because
    I cannot support them, but I can support other countries.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt.
        Mr. Meeks is recognized, and then Mrs. Ellmers.
        Mr. Meeks. I, of course, understand that my friend from
    Florida really believes that he is doing the right thing, but I
    really think that what we are looking at--you know, it is pay
    me now or pay me later. To have this kind of policy really says
    and belittles, I think, the people that we need--we are working
    with on our hemisphere and these countries.
        I mean, Bolivia, for example, do we have an interest? Of
    course we have an interest, because when you talk about cocaine
    and drugs and things of that nature, we want to make sure that
    it doesn't come over here, so we need to interact with that
    government and governments like it so that we can make a
    difference, and so that we can--and when President Morales was
    elected, it was a big thing for the Bolivian people, the first
    time an individual who happened to be an Indian from the--he is
    from the community. It was a big thing for them. It was a
    democracy. Democracies are--democracy is sometimes messy. You
    can't determine--I mean, I wish in the United States I could
    determine the outcome of the elections that we have, and I can
    determine who is the President and who is going to be the
    President of the United States, and those that I like I will
    stay with, and then those that are elected that I don't like, I
    will take myself out of the Nation.
        It doesn't work that way. I am compelled to deal with who
    the people have decided that they are going to elect. So it is
    the same situation when we talk about our hemisphere. We can't
    vote, nor should we, nor should we tell the people in these
    countries who they should elect. But what we have got to do,
    and I think similar, I think that Mr. Engel mentioned it--I see
    what is taking place with President Santos where he and
    Venezuela were--Colombia and Venezuela were completely at odds,
    and he decided to take a different tack to figure out how he
    can have a better relationship based upon the interests that
    Colombia has with Venezuela.
        Well, the same thing that we should do. We should look at
    this in a tactical manner and figure out the best way that we
    can continue to move to get the results that we need, and
    understanding at times we are going to have these governments
    that--or these Presidents that are not the ones that we would
    have selected. But it doesn't mean that we have a herky-jerky-
    type situation and say, okay, the guy that we like or the lady
    that we didn't like got elected, so therefore we are going to
    change all of our policies, we are not going to do anything, we
    are going to cut all of the programs. I think that is--it is
    short-sighted. It does not have any vision. It is--you can have
    short-term gain. It makes you feel good, short-term gain, but
    you will probably be in for some long-term pain. I think what
    we need to do is maybe have some short-term pain so that we can
    have some long-term gain and better relationships overall on
    our hemisphere.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield?
        Mr. Meeks. Yes, I yield.
        Mr. Connolly. I just wonder whether my colleague is as
    puzzled as I am. If we are going to make these the criteria,
    why wouldn't we have Pakistan on the list? I mean, they are
    shooting at--in some cases reportedly at allied troops in the
    Afghan border, harboring terrorists----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Wait a minute.
        Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Noncooperation in terms of our
    fight against terrorism and insurgency, corruption, compromise
    of intelligence. One could go on and on and on. Frankly, the
    countries here on this list are penny ante compared to the
    magnitude of Pakistan. So if we really mean it, why wouldn't we
    add Pakistan to the list?
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I hope you will wait. I have an amendment
    on the floor.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Whose time is it?
        Mr. Gregory Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. My time, and I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mrs. Ellmers.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        We on this side--and thank you to my colleague from Florida
    for offering this amendment. And I echo the sentiments of my
    fellow colleague from Ohio on this issue.
        I keep hearing over and over again from our colleagues on
    the left about being penny wise and pound foolish. Well, it is
    difficult when the American people see of every dollar that is
    spent in this country, 42 of those pennies are borrowed from
    other countries for these purposes. So we continue to spend
    money we do not have.
        And we understand international diplomacy. We understand
    these issues. But the fact of the matter is we have got to put
    an end to this wasteful spending and giving money to countries
    that we really need to pull back on because of their continued
    policies. And it is just very frustrating to hear how--what a
    luxurious lifestyle we are all living, and as far as short-term
    pain, the American people have been in pain for 2\1/2\ years.
    This is pain, real pain. And it is time we put an end to this.
        And I would just like to say also that I would like to
    again thank my colleague from Florida for offering this. This
    is very needed, a very needed amendment. And I would like to
    yield a moment of my time to Ms. Buerkle, if that----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Buerkle is recognized.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank
    you to my colleague for yielding time to me. I will be brief.
        I want to speak in support of Mr. Mack's amendment. I want
    to say that the definition of insanity is to continue doing the
    exact same thing and expecting a different result. When I hear
    my colleagues on the other side talk about stopping and
    starting diplomacy, that is exactly what this body should be
    charged with. If a program isn't working, if we are funding a
    corrupt government, or we are funding a government that does
    not espouse our values, then, yes, we will stop. We should not
    support them. We should not expect the same result when we
    continue to fund these countries. So I thank you, and I yield
    back to Mrs. Ellmers.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Ellmers and
    Ms. Buerkle.
        Do other members wish to be recognized on this amendment?
    If not, then----
        Mr. Payne. Recorded vote.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, we will get to that part. So
    hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the amendment. Mr. Mack has requested a roll call
    vote already. So because of our previous agreement, this will
    be the second roll call vote that will take place at 8:15, in
    just a little bit. So thank you, Mr. Mack, for that amendment.
        Mr. Cicilline is recognized, and then we will have Mr.
    Poe's amendment.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I have an amendment at the desk. It is an amendment which
    is also cosponsored by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
    Cicilline of Rhode Island and Mr. Keating of Massachusetts. At
    the appropriate place in title IV, insert the following:
    Section [blank]. Sense of Congress regarding the Millennium
    Challenge Corporation. (a) Findings. Congress finds the
    following: (1) The Millennium----
        Mr. Cicilline. Madam Chairman, I would ask for unanimous
    consent that the amendment be deemed as read.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And we will just then suspend until
    the members have the amendment. And I do have the list of the
    Republicans who are offering an amendment. But, Mr. Payne, did
    you say you had an amendment also? So we have Cicilline for the
    Democrats. I have Cicilline, Deutch, and Payne. And do let me
    know so I can put you in the queue.
        Everyone has the amendment?
        And Mr. Cicilline is recognized at this time.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This amendment is a sense of Congress language describing
    the success of the Millennium Challenge Corporation's first
    compact in Cape Verde. Members of the committee know, the MCC
    funding is based upon an assessment of a country's political,
    social and economic conditions, and the country's ability to
    promote sustainable economic growth. In order for a country to
    be selected as eligible for an MCC program, it must demonstrate
    a commitment to just and democratic governance, investments in
    its people and economic freedom as measured by 17 different and
    very specific policy indicators, control of corruption and
    commitment to rule of law among them. And in Cape Verde, the
    Millennium Challenge strategy has focused on microfinance
    development and improved access to credit for farmers.
        The Millennium Challenge has played a really important role
    in helping to transform Cape Verde's economy and help it create
    sustainable growth. My amendment simply recognizes the
    tremendous progress that Cape Verde has made and expresses the
    sense of Congress that a second compact would help Cape Verde
    build on the successes of the first compact.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Would the gentleman yield a second?
    We love your amendment, and Mr. Smith is ready to speak in
    favor of it, but I am wondering, would you like to read your
    statement nonetheless?
        Mr. Cicilline. Just one more paragraph.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Go right ahead. Threw you off your
    track.
        Mr. Cicilline. Yeah. Again, this amendment again--the award
    to Cape Verde demonstrates that MCC adheres strictly to its
    indicators about achieving results and investing in countries
    where it will be most effective, and really allows us to
    leverage our investment and build upon the investments we have
    already made. And I think it is important that when a small
    country like Cape Verde has made such progress, we want to
    really use it as a way to incentivize other countries to
    compete and develop policies that will help them sustain
    sustainable economic growth. So I thank--I have learned early
    to quit while I am ahead.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. And I know that this is
    cosponsored by our friend Mr. Keating of Massachusetts as well.
        We thank the gentleman for yielding back the time.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will be very
    brief.
        This amendment encourages the MCC to conclude a compact
    with Cape Verde. Cape Verde has proven to be a small but
    reliable partner, and has demonstrated respect for the rule of
    law, economic freedom and investing in people. Cape Verde was
    one of the first countries to qualify for, negotiate and
    implement a compact, which helped create jobs, reduce poverty,
    and create a sound investment environment, which sets the
    country on a trajectory to aid--to trade. Through MCC Cape
    Verde, though it was granted some $110 million for their
    compact, they have expended just $103 million to date,
    demonstrating fiscal constraint and saving the U.S. taxpayer $7
    million.
        I point out that a second compact for Cape Verde was
    included in the Millennium Challenge Corporation's Fiscal Year
    2012 request. Given existing resources and the opportunity to
    leverage private sector resources, the MCC has reduced the
    budget range for a second comeback for Cape Verde from $75
    million to $100 million to $50 million to $70 million. However,
    in supporting the amendment, I would like to emphasize that I
    fully expect the MCC to continue to adhere to its core
    principles and rigorous performance indicators. And again, I
    thank----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the
    amendment?
        Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. I certainly concur with the two previous
    speakers. I think Cape Verde is a very good example of how the
    MCC works, and it is doing an outstanding job. It is very close
    to our Government. Many of our codels were refueling. In the
    old days when we had codels, we would stop in Cape Verde for
    refueling, a very pleasant country, very cooperative. So I just
    would like to add my support to this amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Seeing no other members seeking recognition to speak on the
    amendment, the question occurs on the amendment. All those in
    favor, say aye.
        All opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        And Mr. Poe is recognized for his amendment.
        Mr. Poe. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 155.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The clerk will read the
    amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Poe of
    Texas. At the end of title IV, add the following: Section 4xx.
    Guidelines for United States foreign assistance programs. (a)
    Purpose. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the
    performance of United States foreign assistance programs and
    their contribution to policy, strategies, projects, program
    goals, and priorities undertaken by the Federal Government, to
    foster and promote innovative programs to improve the
    effectiveness of such programs, and to coordinate the
    monitoring and evaluation processes of Federal departments and
    agencies that administer such programs. (b) Establishment of
    guidelines. The President, in consultation with the
    Administrator of the United States Agency for International
    Development----
        Mr. Poe. Madam Chair, I move that we waive the reading of
    the rest of the amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. It is so granted.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will just give 1 minute for all
    of the amendments to be distributed.
        And the gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This amendment is really the second amendment in two. The
    first one was for transparency, which we passed by a voice
    vote. This amendment requires monitoring and evaluation done by
    the President for setting up guidelines for goals and
    benchmarks for all foreign aid programs.
        I want to thank the ranking member Mr. Berman and his staff
    for their input on this amendment.
        Right now, foreign aid programs are not measuring results.
    USAID, which has done more than any other agency except MCC on
    monitoring and evaluation, isn't even requiring its programs to
    have a way to measure results, let alone implementation, until
    Fiscal Year 2013.
        So, since the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act in
    1961, foreign aid programs have spread across 12 departments,
    25 agencies, 60 Federal offices. Funding levels for foreign aid
    have doubled in the last 10 years. And lack of accountability
    really invites waste, fraud, and even corruption.
        The losers are those the programs are trying to help
    overseas and the Americans who pay for all of this. So there
    must be a clearly defined set of standards that is applied to
    all foreign assistance programs. And I urge adoption of this
    amendment that monitors and evaluates all foreign aid programs.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to ask the gentleman, the
    sponsor of the amendment, a question.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield, Mr.
    Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Certainly.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would just like to ask the gentleman if
    there was any reason why the Secretary of State is not included
    in the process of consultation. In the establishment of
    guidelines, the first page, I notice that we have USAID, we
    have the Secretary of Defense, got the MCC, but I was just
    wondering, to the gentleman, if there was any reason why the
    Secretary of State is not included.
        Mr. Poe. Well, it requires the President to set up the
    guidelines. I just mentioned USAID and MCC because they are
    doing something. But I prefer that the President set the
    guidelines and the benchmarks and the standards, rather than
    the Secretary of State. It is just a choice.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I see. The Secretary of Defense is also
    included in the consultation. Is there a reason?
        Mr. Poe. Well, the Secretary of Defense--the Defense
    Department does foreign assistance, as well. That is the
    reason.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. I thank the gentleman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Do other members seek recognition on this amendment?
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Yes, I rise in very strong support of this
    amendment. I was going to offer an amendment on this subject,
    and the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment that I
    think is as good as the one I was going to offer, and I am
    biased in favor of myself.
        So I hope the committee adopts it. I congratulate him. I
    think it is a significant contribution to the improvement of
    our foreign assistance program. And I encourage your
    enthusiastic support for it.
        Mr. Payne. Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman yields back.
        Mr. Payne is recognized.
        Mr. Payne. Yes. I think that this resolution has some
    merit, especially since Mr. Berman has agreed that it does.
        However, I also wonder about the organizations mentioned.
    And I really have a problem with us including the Department of
    Defense in foreign assistance per se.
        Now, we do know that the Department of Defense, if they are
    in a country, will help to build the road. However, there has
    been suspicion in the past when the Department of Defense or
    some of our agencies, like the CIA or others that were involved
    in so-called foreign assistance, also became involved.
        And one of the problems that initially confronted AFRICOM
    was that the African nations felt that foreign assistance now
    was going to be determined by the military, that there would be
    a general in charge and the USAID and other programs would have
    to get approval from AFRICOM that would be in charge. And after
    several years of assuring the African countries that this was
    not a military movement, this was not a program to simply
    protect U.S. military interests and fight al-Qaeda or protect
    the oil in the Gulf of Guinea, that there had now been an
    acceptance that AFRICOM, in its new reorganization, may be
    positive.
        So I just cringe a little bit when I see the Department of
    Defense included in USAID or the Department of State and would
    question--I don't think it would weaken your amendment at all
    if you would consider perhaps not having the Department of
    Defense mentioned, but when in instances that they do indeed
    become involved, they would kind of be consulted.
        Mr. Berman. Would the----
        Mr. Payne. Yes, I will yield to the gentleman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. I appreciate it.
        The way to make the amendment better than what I was going
    to offer is, certainly, the Secretary of State should be in
    there. I assume it was----
        Mr. Payne. Absolutely.
        Mr. Berman [continuing]. Inadvertent that the Secretary of
    State is not included. Since we have not made USAID an
    independent agency, the administrator works under the
    Secretary.
        And I do see a logic to the Secretary of Defense when we
    are dealing with 1206 funding. There are a lot of--I think too
    much--assistance administered through the Department of
    Defense, such as the whole Pakistan counterterrorism fund and
    all that. So there is logic for evaluation of those programs
    with Defense. Mr. Payne's suggestion is not a bad one, have
    them focus on those programs.
        But I do think it is a glaring omission not to have the
    Secretary of State as one of the people being consulted. And I
    am hoping the gentleman might----
        Mr. Payne. Reclaiming my time. I agree that the Secretary
    of State certainly should be in there. I think that was
    mentioned before. And it is sort of like the tail wagging the
    dog, because USAID is a part of the Department of State.
        I think that evaluations of Defense programs ought to be
    done by the Department of Defense. I think that some
    legislation like this for the Department of Defense should also
    be in--as a matter of fact, we spend maybe $50 billion a year
    on all foreign assistance, or less, even including MCA. We
    spend $700 billion on defense. So I would prefer to even see
    something like this set up for Defense.
        I just think it is inappropriate; however, I would not vote
    against it because it--I just think that we continue to have
    certain countries who remember Vietnam and remember the old
    days of Iran-Contra and so forth. To say with the Department of
    Defense being our aid agency, I think just, in my opinion, it
    sends the wrong message.
        Mr. Poe. Would the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Payne. Yes, Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Poe. I ask unanimous consent that we add the Secretary
    of State.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Poe. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will make that addition.
        And does Mr. Payne yield back?
        Mr. Payne. I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Does any other member seek recognition?
        Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the amendment.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        All opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Congratulations, Judge Poe.
        Mr. Deutch is recognized.
        Mr. Deutch. I thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I have two amendments at the desk. The first is Amendment
    623.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Deutch
    of Florida. At the end of title IV, insert the following:
    Section [blank]. Nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and demining.
    For nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and demining programs, not
    more than $740 million is authorized to be appropriated to the
    President for Fiscal Year 2012.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Hold on 1 second, Mr. Deutch, and we will give out the
    amendment.
        The amendment having been given out, the gentleman is
    recognized to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        As the ranking member noted earlier, the name of this title
    is ``Foreign Assistance,'' but the title omits authorization of
    key activities. Foreign assistance is not just development. It
    encompasses a broad swath of activities to support partners and
    advance U.S. national security.
        A key area of this assistance is the nonproliferation,
    antiterrorism, demining, and related programs account. It
    encompasses counterterrorism assistance, demining, and
    nonproliferation activities at the Department of State--some of
    the most important functions of the entire national security
    apparatus. The text before us omits authorization for these
    programs.
        These programs keep America safe and help us strengthen our
    partners. States' nonproliferation programs help halt the
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery
    systems, and advanced conventional weapons systems, with
    particular emphasis on denying such weapons to terrorists.
    These programs also support multinational exercises under the
    Proliferation Security Initiative and the destruction of WMD
    weapons.
        The Global Threat Reduction Program supports specialized
    activities aimed at reducing the threat of terrorist or state
    acquisition of WMD materials and expertise through such
    activities as scientist redirection and engagement.
    Antiterrorism programs provide training and equipment to help
    build the counterterrorism capabilities of partner nations.
        The coordinator for counterterrorism is expanding the
    Department's efforts to counter violent extremism in high-
    priority countries. This is exactly what we need to do to
    ameliorate the need for military action down the road.
        The NADR account also funds the TIP/PISCES program, which
    provides computerized watch-listing systems to partner nations
    that enable immigration and border control officials to quickly
    identify suspect persons attempting to enter or leave their
    countries.
        Finally, NADR supports humanitarian demining efforts like
    the Conventional Weapons Destruction Program.
        The bottom line, Madam Chairman, is that these programs are
    critical to U.S. national security. We should fully exercise
    our committee's prerogative by authorizing these programs
    specifically in the bill. I urge adoption of this amendment.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And the gentleman yields back.
        And speaking of critical issues, pizza has arrived for
    members on both sides of the aisle in the side room.
        Which member would like to be recognized for the Deutch
    amendment?
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Deutch, where did you come up with
    this $740 million number?
        Mr. Deutch. If I may, the $740 million is the Fiscal Year
    2011 number, which is consistent with the balance of this bill.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So your proposal is just basically
    to carry over what we were doing last year----
        Mr. Deutch. That is correct.
        Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Over to this year.
        Mr. Deutch. That is correct.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. All right. Just wanted to know where
    it came from. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Deutch. You are welcome.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Do members wish to speak on this amendment?
        Mr. Royce. Yes, I will speak----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce is recognized.
        Mr. Royce. Yeah, I appreciate the gentleman's concern about
    this account, the NADR account. I have watched this account
    very closely over the years. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sherman
    and I, some years ago, worked together to make sure there were
    sufficient resources to combat the threat from shoulder-fired
    missiles, and the account got beefed up.
        But this amendment envisions a NADR account beyond what the
    President has called for. And the President's request is
    $708,540,000. So this amendment then goes and adds $30 million
    to the President's request, and it does so without saying why
    or identifying how that money would be spent.
        Now, if the President thought he could spend more money if
    the administration thought they could, we would know they would
    try to do that. But as I said before, we have to make choices.
    And going above the President's request just isn't a choice I
    think we are in the position to make.
        And I would also add that, in terms of the Appropriations
    Committee, they are in line with our number here--they are in
    line with the President's request. They are in line with the
    President's request.
        So, if the State Department thinks that this account
    request was shortchanged, I haven't heard anything from them.
    And as I indicated, we have worked with them closely on this
    account over the years. I chair the relevant subcommittee. No
    one has alerted me to the fact that they feel the President's
    request is insufficient.
        So I have to oppose this amendment. And to go back to the
    argument at hand, just to add $30 million to this without a
    compelling reason why, at a time when we have to make tough
    choices and when that is not what the State Department or the
    administration is asking for, is not a good idea.
        Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Royce. I oppose the amendment.
        Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Royce. Sure, I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Deutch. This is not--just to clarify for the gentleman
    from California, this is not an increase from the President's
    requested amount to $740 million. This is an increase from zero
    to $740 million.
        Mr. Royce. No, it is not--it is not zero, because--the
    reason it is not zero, Mr. Deutch, reclaiming my time, is
    because I took the time to talk to the Appropriations Committee
    this morning to find out what the appropriations is, and the
    appropriation is $708,540,000.
        Mr. Deutch. If the gentleman will yield, there is nothing
    in this bill, in the underlying bill, that reauthorizes these
    programs. There is nothing in this bill that reauthorizes these
    programs.
        I will gladly accept an amendment to my amendment to change
    the $740 million to the $708 million requested by the
    President.
        Mr. Royce. Well, I think that is what you ought to do.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield, would
    there be any objection to changing the amount? The sponsor of
    the amendment would agree to that.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is a matter of the President's
    numbers--yes?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chairman, I do have a question
    about----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, yes, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Deutch, I know----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will just start the 5 minutes----
        Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. That in one of the drafts
    earlier, the proposed authorization, there was a specific
    section dealing with demining and, I believe, nonproliferation.
    And then the latest draft, there was no provision whatsoever.
    And I think this is the reason why Mr. Deutch has offered this
    amendment.
        And, specifically, I wanted to ask Mr. Deutch about the
    issue of demining. And I had intended and wanted to include
    unexploded ordnance, the fact that we dropped 2 million pounds
    of cluster bombs in Laos and Cambodia for which we never really
    did an honorable job in cleaning up the mess that we created in
    those two countries--countries that never waged war against us.
        And I wanted to ask the gentleman, how much money is being
    allocated for purposes of cleaning up mines? I presume it is
    land mines, but I wanted to know if there is any provision in
    there that touches on unexploded ordnance as well as cluster
    bombs.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. I thank the chairman.
        If this amendment is adopted, there is $5 million for
    conventional-weapons destruction in Laos and $4 million,
    $3,940,000, for conventional-weapons destruction in Cambodia.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Deutch, if I could have that number again--did we
    write that down--that Mr. Royce had given, since you were in
    agreement? It is the President's number for Fiscal Year 2012:
    $708,540,000.
        If the clerk would note that, then I think that we are
    ready, if there are no further requests for time, to voice vote
    this Mr. Deutch amendment.
        Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the Deutch amendment.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        All opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Congratulations, Mr. Deutch.
        Now, pursuant to the earlier announcement, the following
    postponed votes will be taken in the following order: We have
    pending the Schwartz amendment to strike section 407,
    conditioning assistance on the MCC corruption performance
    indicator; and the Mack amendment, limitation on assistance to
    Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia.
        And, Mr. Deutch, I know you have another amendment. Mr.
    Duncan has, like, three others. So we will take--and we have a
    bunch. So we are taking them one at a time. But thank you.
        So we are ready to vote.
        Mr. Berman, ready?
        You ready, gang?
        We are ready to go.
        Yes?
        Mr. Berman. You are certainly within your rights to go. I
    feel a little bad that the author of the amendment isn't back
    yet, and I am sure she will be here in a minute.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. I think we were very clear. And
    we are pretty nice about accommodating folks, but we were
    pretty darn clear.
        So, pursuant to the earlier announcement, the following
    postponed votes will be taken in the following order: First,
    the Schwartz amendment to strike section 407, conditioning
    assistance on the MCC corruption performance indicator.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Mr. Royce?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. I said no earlier.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Royce votes no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 13 ayes
    and 23 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        Now we will proceed to vote on the Mack amendment,
    limitation on assistance to Argentina, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
    Ecuador, and Bolivia.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Burton?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes aye.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
        Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engel. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
        Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
        Ms. Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members been recorded?
        The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 23 ayes
    and 16 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to.
        We will now turn--oh, the Chair recognizes the presence of
    her much better half. Hi, Better Half. You picked a good day to
    come up. Move we adjourn? We have pressing business. Don't
    embarrass me.
        All right, Mr. Griffin has lost his turn in the queue,
    which now goes to--oh, he is there? Okay, Mr. Griffin.
        He was excused for a little while for National Guard duty
    there. Reporting for duty.
        Mr. Griffin. That was pizza duty.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That was pizza duty.
        Mr. Griffin has an amendment at the desk.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Griffin
    of Arkansas. In section 403 of the bill, after the dollar
    amount, insert ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''. At the end of title
    IV, add the following: Section 4xx. Prohibition on funds for
    the Trilateral Assistance Program. (a) Findings. Congress finds
    the following: (1) During Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, the
    United States Agency for International Development provided the
    Government of South Africa with $2,500,000 to support the
    Trilateral Assistance Program, a program through which the
    Government of South Africa provides technical assistance to
    third countries in Africa; (2) $1,500,000 was requested for
    Fiscal Year 2011 and $1,530,000 has been requested for Fiscal
    Year 2012; (3) South Africa has been recognized, along with
    Brazil, Russia, India, and China, as having one of the world's
    largest, rapidly growing economies and has become a donor
    nation; (4) Further, while South Africa still faces enormous
    development challenges, including one of the highest----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Unanimous consent to
    consider the amendment as read.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All members now have a copy of the
    amendment, and Mr. Griffin is recognized, as the author, for 5
    minutes to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        We all know that we have a problem with debt and spending
    money we don't have and borrowing about 42 cents on the dollar
    from foreign sources. And that brings me to the amendment I
    have on the South Africa Trilateral Assistance Program.
        We are giving money to this Trilateral Assistance Program
    at the request of USAID. They have requested $1.5 million for
    Fiscal Year 2012. And the Trilateral Assistance Program is a
    program through which the Government of South Africa provides
    technical assistance to other countries in Africa. That is not
    a bad thing.
        What bothers me about the funding of this particular
    program is that we give the money to South Africa so that they
    can give the money to other countries. My amendment reduces
    funding for the Trilateral Assistance Program by $1.5 million,
    because if we want to give to these countries, we can give to
    them directly. We do not need to give through South Africa.
        South Africa is a member of the G-20 and has been
    recognized, along with Brazil, Russia, India, China, as having
    a major, emerging world economy. South Africa invested billions
    in infrastructure for the 2010 World Cup.
        While South Africa still faces enormous development
    challenges, including the highest HIV/AIDS infection rate in
    the world, this program does not relate to that. De-funding
    this program does not keep those dollars from assisting in that
    area. Cutting this program would not affect funding to support
    development programs within South Africa.
        What we do here is we use South Africa as a pass through.
    And it is like taking these bags of food that we have seen
    around the world that USAID distributes, taking the American
    flag off, putting some other country's flag on there, and
    letting them get the diplomatic credit for feeding folks. That
    is what is happening here. We are giving the money to South
    Africa, and then they give it out as they see fit.
        I don't have a problem, in many instances, with where this
    money is going. I just feel like we should be giving it, if it
    is going to go there, particularly in light of the fact that,
    when we give through another country, we lose direct oversight
    over those funds. Simply put, if we want to spend this money,
    we need to be spending it directly and not through another
    country.
        We are out of money. And we have a task, the task of
    identifying wasteful spending or spending that could be done in
    a more efficient way. And this is another one of those
    examples.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Chabot [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, is----
        Mr. Griffin. Oh, sorry. Not Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Chabot [continuing]. Recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
        One of our USAID's goals, and ultimate goal as a
    development agency, is to work ourselves out of a job. Given
    that many countries in Africa require development assistance
    for many years to sustainably develop, a critical part of our
    effort is to encourage African countries that have made
    significant development progress to show leadership in helping
    their neighbors achieve similar success.
        This program leverages a very small amount of U.S.
    Government money resources jointly with those of the Government
    of South Africa together. And, together, we provide technical
    assistance to other countries in Africa in a manner that is
    consistent with the tenets of the Paris Declaration on Aid
    Effectiveness, which includes country ownership, alignment with
    countries' strategies and systems, and mutual accountability.
    These trilateral activities allow the Government of South
    Africa to provide demand-driven expertise and services to other
    African countries while enhancing its own capacity to become a
    more active foreign assistance donor.
        The administration believes that Africa holds the key to
    its own development and that we must utilize opportunities to
    leverage African performances to engage the international
    community in a dynamic partnership. The trilateral activities
    provide a multiplier effect of not only strengthening the
    capacity of the Government of South Africa to play a more
    active role in Africa's development, but to achieve meaningful
    impact through project activities such as strengthening the
    capacity of government officials in South Sudan and other
    areas.
        And so what I am saying is that South Africa has been very
    important to us on some critical votes on Iran in the U.N.
    South Africa gave us support under the new government of our
    new President. I would urge us to continue to work with South
    Africa, a dominant force in Africa. And I think that this
    should not pass.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
        Does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition?
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chabot. If so, he is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. And I will yield my time to the gentleman from
    Arkansas.
        Mr. Griffin. I just wanted to make a couple more points,
    Mr. Chairman.
        We give South Africa almost $600 million a year, $582
    million. And the majority of that is to deal with their HIV/
    AIDS crisis. The money that we are talking about in the context
    of the Trilateral Assistance Program is not somehow going to
    turn South Africa against us when we are still giving them over
    $500 million a year. That is just ridiculous. That is not a
    legitimate argument.
        The other argument is that they need help, they somehow
    need help in developing relationships. Well, South Africa has
    already become a leader in the region. They are a donor state.
    They have been engaging in bilateral arrangements with
    traditional donor states in other developing countries for 11
    years. They have sufficient experience and sufficient funds to
    do precisely what this program is allowing them to do with our
    money.
        And where does this end? I mean, we could just go around
    the world and give every country some money for them to give
    out to their neighbors, and that might help them to better
    their relationships. I mean, it never ends.
        This is a perfect example of us giving money away that we
    have little to no oversight over. And it is money that we can
    continue to provide to the recipients if we choose to. If we
    don't, we can stop.
        I ask that you support this amendment. Thank you.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman is recognized, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the chairman.
        I yield my time to the gentleman from New Jersey.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields to the gentleman from New
    Jersey.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And, along those lines, I would like to
    ask the gentleman to explain to us exactly what the trilateral
    agreement portends and why we participate in such, in doing
    this with South Africa, if he could.
        Mr. Payne. As you may know, South Africa is a dominant
    nation in the continent of Africa. With the new leadership of
    Jacob Zuma, we have now moved toward close relations. We have a
    number of votes that will come up in the United Nations, and
    South Africa, with the new leadership, has said that they will
    be even a stronger ally to the U.S.
        I never indicated that if we did not fund this program that
    South Africa would turn against us. The gentleman stated that
    he didn't feel that they would turn against us; I never said
    they would. I just simply said that they put in money which
    matches the money that we put in. It maximizes what they do,
    because many of the African countries look toward South Africa
    as they are developing, and they have the expertise, and the
    countries know that this is a joint program between the U.S.
    and South Africa.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Payne. Absolutely.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. It is my time anyway.
        Mr. Payne. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So what you are saying here, through the
    Trilateral Assistance Program, it is kind of like a burden-
    sharing program.
        Mr. Payne. Absolutely.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. This is not like we are giving South
    Africa $2.5 million. They are also contributing to the fund,
    for which then they give assistance to other countries. Am I
    correct in that?
        Mr. Payne. That is absolutely correct. And we are able to
    maximize what we are able to do. Countries know that it is a
    U.S.-South Africa joint project. They look at that very
    positively. And I think that it is really money well spent.
    South Africa gets more expertise; we get credit for our
    partnership with them.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back.
        Do any other members seek time?
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is a very bizarre conversation. We can't pay our own
    bills. We are in over our head. We are borrowing 42 cents of
    every dollar we spend. And then we have to pay interest on that
    money that we borrow.
        And if I am understanding it, my friend from Arkansas, so
    we are borrowing money, and while some people would say $2.5
    million is not a lot of money, it is only a lot of money down
    here because it is not our money; it is easy to give away money
    that is not yours.
        But, Mr. Griffin, if you could explain to me, so we are
    borrowing this money, we are giving it to South Africa so that
    South Africa can give it to somebody else to develop their--
    their what? Their image as a donor?
        Mr. Griffin. Well, South Africa has flexibility--oh, does
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Kelly. Yes.
        Mr. Griffin. South Africa has flexibility to determine who
    is going to get this money and what for. But the point is, if
    we want to give this money, we can give it directly. If you
    take the amount that is here, $1.5 million, that means almost
    half of that is borrowed, and a third of the borrowed is from
    China. Maybe if we are going to borrow all this money from
    China, we could just skip that step and try to work out an
    agreement where China can give it directly there. I mean, this
    is ridiculous. It is ridiculous.
        Mr. Kelly. Well, you know, if the gentleman would yield,
    what I think we ought to do, then, is propose to China that
    they give the money to South Africa but tell them it came from
    us.
        Mr. Griffin. Precisely.
        Mr. Kelly. All right, I get it.
        Mr. Griffin. That is what we are doing.
        Mr. Kelly. I get it. Okay. This is making a lot more sense
    to me now.
        Well, I will tell you what. The gentleman from Arkansas,
    thank you for bringing the amendment up. I think it does--in
    the theater of the bizarre or the theater of the absurd, which
    is what we operate in anymore. I appreciate that.
        Thank you very much, and I yield back my time.
        Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Kelly. I am yielding back my time.
        Mr. Chabot. He yielded back his time. Does the gentleman
    seek recognition?
        Mr. Ackerman. I would.
        Mr. Chabot. All right. The gentleman from New York is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ackerman. I would just like to ask the gentleman who
    made the motion or the gentleman who just spoke, do you know
    how much money China actually does give directly to South
    Africa and to the African countries?
        Mr. Kelly. Are you directing that question to me?
        Mr. Ackerman. Okay.
        Mr. Kelly. I don't represent any of the citizens of China,
    so I really have no concerns of what China gives to anybody.
        Mr. Ackerman. But you do recognize that we have an interest
    in what China does on the planet because they are one of our
    main competitors, don't you?
        Mr. Kelly. I am not sure I understand where you are going
    with your question. Yes, I understand China is a competitor to
    the U.S., but thank you.
        Mr. Ackerman. Where I am going is that it is pretty cute to
    say, eliminate the middle man and China should give the money
    directly to them. But without even doing that, China, despite
    the fact that you don't represent any of them, is smart enough
    to know that it is in their national interest to invest in
    Africa. And they have indeed invested in Africa, and South
    Africa specifically, multiples, multiples, multiples of what we
    are looking at investing there now.
        The natural resources on the continent of Africa are huge.
    And the Chinese, who you are privileged enough not to represent
    any of, is smart enough to know that----
        Mr. Kelly. Will the gentleman----
        Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. This is a really good
    investment. Despite the fact that you don't represent them
    doesn't mean that they don't understand what a good investment
    is.
        Mr. Kelly. Will the gentleman yield back?
        Mr. Ackerman. I will yield back, maybe, in a minute. I will
    think about it.
        But the Chinese are smart enough to know a good investment
    when they see one.
        We are not the only ones on the planet. Some people seem to
    think so. And we have seen a lot of amendments today that begin
    with the words, as does this one, ``Prohibition on funds for.''
    So it seems that we are pulling out of the planet and leaving
    the playing field to those Chinese people that you don't
    represent.
        But someone is representing them that is pretty smart. And
    they have looked around the world at the resources that they,
    and maybe even we, desperately need now and on into the future
    and say, let's see where we could make investments and we could
    buy some friends and let people know on this world that we have
    an interest in them and helping them, because that is not
    throwing away money--and I think they need money in China,
    too----
        Mr. Kelly. Would the gentleman----
        Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. But that is investing a lot of
    money. And they are investing that money in places like Africa.
        So I assure you that your suggestion, although it did bring
    a smile to my face, that they could make the investment
    directly, they have thought about this before you thought it
    was a joke. And they have really done it. They have done it to
    the extent that puts us looking like meager paupers.
        If we were as smart as we think we are, we should be
    investing in the world, not withdrawing and retracting
    ourselves from it.
        The gentleman wanted some time?
        Mr. Kelly. Yeah, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Ackerman. Surely.
        Mr. Kelly. And I would agree with you, the Chinese have
    been much smarter in their investments. They really do get a
    positive ROI. And I don't know where China sits with their
    debt. I know where we sit. They are much smarter than us. I
    mean, we are $14.3 trillion in a deficit. So I would say, yes,
    China has done things a lot smarter than we have.
        But China makes its investments overseas when there is a
    strategic reason for China to make its investments overseas.
    They just don't throw money around like a Santa Claus----
        Mr. Ackerman. Yeah, reclaiming----
        Mr. Kelly [continuing]. Thinking it is going to buy them
    friends.
        Mr. Ackerman. I don't know a lot about Santa Claus, but
    reclaiming my time. The point is, China does know what is in
    their national interests. And if they could figure out what
    their national interests are, we should be able to figure out
    the same thing.
        And I assure you, it is in both countries' national
    interests to invest in mineral-rich areas and resource-rich
    areas such as Africa. And the Chinese are doing that.
        Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman----
        Mr. Ackerman. We don't have to be smart----
        Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman answer a question?
        Mr. Ackerman. I don't know if I know the answer, but I will
    refer it to my Chinese friends.
        Mr. Duncan. Are we talking about investments from China
    into rare earth minerals or energy issues? Or are we talking
    about humanitarian investments, where the Government of China
    is----
        Mr. Ackerman. The Chinese are doing all of the above, both
    of what you just suggested and more.
        Mr. Duncan. I would like to see the real numbers on that.
        Mr. Ackerman. And they are investing in resources, they are
    investing in businesses, they are investing in infrastructure
    in these countries. And they are building a tremendous amount
    of goodwill, and that is not just Africa.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Ackerman. You would be shocked to see what they are
    doing in South America, as well.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Burton. The Chinese are buying minerals and investing
    because they are going to use those investments long-term to
    become a more powerful country. They are not giving it away
    like we are. I think that is the point the gentleman is trying
    to make. Giving the money away is far different than buying
    assets that you can use later. And that is what the Chinese are
    doing.
        So I don't know how many Chinese people you have in your
    district, and I really don't care----
        Mr. Ackerman. 34 percent, if you did care.
        Mr. Burton. I don't really care. I think I said that. But
    what I do care about----
        Mr. Ackerman. You cared enough to bring it up and not care.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman from Indiana controls the time.
        Mr. Burton. Yes, but the gentleman from New York cannot
    control his mouth.
        The point is----
        Mr. Ackerman. I think that was really----
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman from Indiana controls the time.
        Mr. Ackerman. Point of personal privilege.
        Mr. Burton. Take it.
        Mr. Chabot. The gentleman is recognized for making a point
    of privilege.
        And I think at this time it would be appropriate for me to
    give the committee back to the chair.
        Mr. Ackerman. I second that motion.
        Mr. Burton. Let me finish my time, Madam Chairman.
        The point of the whole discussion is, should we be giving
    money to a third party and let them disburse that money, or
    should we be doing it ourselves? And I think the gentleman
    from--where are you from? Arkansas?--the gentleman from
    Arkansas makes a very valid point. If we are going to give
    foreign aid, let's give foreign aid to whom we think deserves
    it. We shouldn't be giving it to a third party who can use it
    to influence people for their benefit. That is number one.
        And number two, the Chinese, since that has been a subject
    of contention here, the Chinese are investing and buying
    minerals and oil and other things around the world for their
    benefit. They are not the humanitarians that we have been led
    to believe by the other side today. They are not humanitarian.
    They are out for their own benefit. And you can't compare that
    to the humanitarian largesse that we give to the rest of the
    world.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. Thank you.
        Mr. Payne. Would you yield for a second?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton, would you yield to Mr.
    Payne?
        Mr. Burton. Sure.
        Mr. Payne. He is my former buddy, but now you are back, a
    friend of mine.
        The fact that--there are some numbers, and perhaps tomorrow
    I will dig them up--I gave them in a talk I talked about on
    China-Africa relations. Believe it or not, the amount of money
    that China gives for education in Africa is, like, maybe 50
    times, 100 times what we give to Africa for education. I mean,
    their investment is $50 billion just right now. That it is just
    starting.
        The thing about China is that we had the same
    opportunities, as I mentioned before. And this is not about
    China; this is about trilateral. However, we just did not pay
    attention to Africa until China said, ``Well, these Africans
    want to deal with U.S. They are not dealing with it. Let's go
    in.'' The copper mines in Zambia, oil fields in Sudan, the--you
    can go on and on and on--the plutonium that is in Africa. And
    so the Chinese just said, ``Hey, listen. Nobody is dealing with
    it. We will deal with it.''
        Mr. Burton. No. If the gentleman--let me reclaim my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. You can reclaim your time.
        Mr. Burton. Let me reclaim my time and just say, you are
    making my point. The point is, they are buying assets around
    the world for future purposes and to make them a stronger power
    in the world. They are not the humanitarians that they have
    been made out to be.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He yields back.
        And let me see, who seeks recognition? We have Mr. Johnson,
    who is recognized. And Mr. Rohrabacher, sorry.
        Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, I have been sitting here
    listening to this, and it strikes me as interesting. We are
    $14.3 trillion in debt. It is rising every day. I don't have to
    remind the members of this committee of that. Here within a
    month or so, the entire Nation thinks we are going to drive off
    the economic cliff. And we are actually sitting here debating
    whether or not we should borrow money to give to someone else.
        The gentleman earlier, on the other side, talked about
    intelligence and how smart that is. I dare say that the
    American people have great reason to be suspicious of the
    intelligence of those in Washington that are making those kinds
    of decisions in this kind of austere time.
        Also talked about whether or not this was a national
    security interest and how we should be focused on addressing
    national security interests. And I would submit that Admiral
    Mullen has said that our national debt is indeed our most
    serious national security interest and threat.
        So I am not sure how we get to this level of debate. It
    sort of seems to me that it verifies that we do, indeed, have
    parallel universes here that we exist in. Not sure what to make
    of it.
        And, with that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Just a few thoughts
    about what we have been hearing.
        First of all, let us just note--and, again, sometimes I
    feel like the gentleman just expressed, you know, what planet
    are we on or what parallel universe are we in, complimenting
    China's approach? Yes, China is able to go in to Africa in a
    big way, and other countries, and sometimes they are able to do
    things that we are unable to do--because they are a vicious
    dictatorship and don't permit anybody to complain. We happen to
    be a democracy.
        And the people of China, do you think that they would go
    along with their government if the government was just
    unloading resources on some other country, whether it was
    friendly or not? No. I mean, the Chinese people have no chance
    whatsoever to complain. Our people expect us to watch out for
    their interests.
        That is what democracy is all about. It is not some, you
    know, grandiose scheme that we are going to save everybody in
    the world and not expect to get any credit for it. And that
    attitude is, I think, again, a parallel universe. That may be
    what our colleagues on the left believe. That is not what I
    believe, and I am sure that don't reflect what my colleagues
    over here believe, first.
        Second of all, let's take a look at China. When you start
    looking at it and comparing us to China, they go in to a
    country, and there are no corruption standards for China. Just
    as if, by the way, I might note, we tonight have heard how we
    want to take away the corruption standards for our efforts.
    Well, no, corruption standards are very important. And in China
    they don't have the corruption standards; they go in and bribe
    other countries and other officials to go their way and to
    basically sell out their own people to these dictators in
    Africa.
        And, finally, let's just take a look, that when we are
    involved with helping other people--I think the American people
    are the most generous people in the world. You know, I don't
    think you should count foreign aid alone when you are talking
    about generosity. You should talk about people who go out and
    try to help other people.
        And there is nothing wrong with Americans holding their
    head up high and saying, ``We are the most generous people in
    the world, and we give voluntarily probably more money than
    China gives at all.'' Because my guess is, China doesn't give
    what we would consider beneficial and helpful hands. What they
    do is, they go in and they build a bridge or they buy a
    resource or they bribe an official, but they are not engaged in
    what we call foreign aid or humanitarian programs, as we are.
    Instead, they are engaged with ripping off countries as much as
    they can and also, again, not hampered by a democratic process.
        So any comparison of our country with China, I will just
    have to say that it is beyond my imagination that people could
    even think about making a positive comparison between our
    country and our people and the Chinese and this vicious
    government in China that is the world's worst human rights
    abuser.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And Mr. Marino is recognized.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I just want to bring out a point or two that--I should be
    investing in gold, at this point. But you know something? I
    don't have the money.
        The United States doesn't have the money. But China does.
    And as a dictatorship, it makes it even more convenient for
    them to go out and do the investments that they do.
        Now, I am a new member here. I have been here 7 months. And
    I have been doing town halls and conference town halls. At
    least in my district, in rural Pennsylvania, north-central,
    farm area, middle-class, small business, overwhelmingly,
    Republicans, Democrats, and independents and even people that
    aren't registered tell me, we have to look after our own need.
    And I agree with that.
        But before I am going to yield my time over to Mr. Griffin,
    I have an observation that I would like to make here. I have
    been sitting here for almost 12 hours, like most of us have
    been, and I have been sitting in these meetings for 7 months.
    And I am a little embarrassed.
        You know something? If we just check our egos at the door,
    respect one another, not trying to embarrass someone--because
    my father always told me, never try to embarrass someone
    intentionally. It is the wrong thing to do, particularly with
    our colleagues. But because of the cameras and because of the
    people sitting out there, we seem to think this is humorous. We
    seem to think it is okay to whack away at each other.
        You know, we are intelligent people. At least, I think we
    are. At least I am still hoping that that is the case. And we
    can get our point across by being respectful with one another,
    by treating each other like we should, like we want to be
    treated. So I am just going to throw out a little suggestion
    here. Why don't we try that once in a while? We will differ. We
    will differ a great deal. But we can have good, intelligent
    dialogue. I yield my time to Mr. Griffin.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Oh, Mr.
    Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. I would just want to reiterate that I don't
    think that anyone in this room needs a lecture on what China is
    doing in the world. You don't have to be a Ph.D. in Chinese
    history or world affairs to know what China is doing in the
    world. And to give a condescending briefing on what China is
    doing in the world as part of your argument is out of line and
    ridiculous. I come from a relatively poor State, Arkansas.
    Recent studies have shown that although we have almost the
    least of all the States, we give more per capita to charities
    than any other State in the country. This is a giving country.
    We invest, and we give all around the world. That is not what
    this amendment is about. This amendment is about spending our
    money wisely period. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does any member wish--Mr.
    Murphy is recognized.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Listen, I
    agree with the gentleman. This is about spending our money
    wisely. Here is a great way to spend our money wisely. Let's
    stop invading countries. Let's stop having to spend $3 trillion
    overall, as we have done over the last 10 years in two wars. So
    it makes sense fiscally for us to think about the ways in which
    we don't get to a point of crisis where we have to invade
    another country.
        Now, Islamic extremist groups are popping up all over
    Africa, as we speak, so fast that we can barely count them. So
    as we try to catalogue the ways in which we can avoid this
    country getting mired in another conflict like we did in Iraq
    and Afghanistan, it is to start to think to ourselves maybe
    there is some partners in the region that we can invest in
    today that can help us, who maybe have stronger relationships
    and more leverage over countries that may be harboring those
    terrorists, to prevent us from spending trillions of dollars in
    the long run.
        For now I don't really care about the conversation about
    China. For now, I care about making sure that we spend our
    foreign aid dollars today in small, but important ways to make
    sure that we don't have to go into another country ever again
    with military troops to try to stop a nation from providing
    safe harbor to Islamic extremist groups. Africa is a very, very
    dangerous place today. That is the reality. And it is
    complicated about how we form alliances with true partners in
    that region who can reach out and try to represent our
    interests in the region. That, to me, is as much as anything
    else the reason why we are talking about aid to South Africa, a
    strong partner in the region, not just economically, but for
    national security reasons as well.
        So I am opposing this amendment, I am supporting this money
    because I am just as fiscally responsible as you all are. I
    care about spending our money wisely. But I ran for Congress
    because I watched this Nation spend trillions of dollars in
    wars that we might not have had to have fought if we would have
    been smarter about spending our foreign aid dollars up front.
    And if you talk to our military generals on the ground, they
    will tell you, they will tell you over and over again that
    foreign aid dollars spent wisely are just as important and a
    critical piece of our military spending. So for that reason, I
    think that many of us approach this with the same sense of
    fiscal responsibility that you do. We just maybe look a little
    bit farther down the line in terms of that. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields. Mr. Chabot is
    recognized for 5 minutes. Then we will go to Mr. Deutch, and
    then we will go to Mr. Duncan, the other Mr. Griffin.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be brief. I
    would just like to speak to this idea that the Chinese aid or
    investment or largesse is a positive thing around the world. I
    think in most instances, it has been just the opposite. China
    has undercut our efforts, our interests around the world time
    and time again. Just a couple examples. I have been to the
    refugee camps in Darfur, both on the Sudanese side and on the
    Chad side. And what you see there is just--well, it is an
    absolute shame. And a lot of the world was trying to put
    pressure, including the United States, on the Sudanese to back
    off with the Janjaweed and the travesty that was happening
    there. And our efforts on sanctions against Sudan were undercut
    by the Chinese. Why? Because they wanted their oil. And they
    didn't care about the people that were being killed, the
    villages that were being burned. They wanted their oil. And so
    they undercut the sanctions that could have, should have worked
    on Sudan. In Iran, I think all of us agree about the last thing
    this world needs is nuclear weapons controlled by Iran, you
    know, one of the largest countries that supports terrorists
    around the world.
        The chance that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands
    of terrorist organizations, the principal source of those would
    probably be Iran if they ultimately get nuclear weapons. So,
    rather than handle this militarily, the United States and our
    allies have tried to get Iran to back down this program by
    sanctions. And what country has time and again undercut those
    efforts? Well, China once again. China cares about China. And
    that is basically why these investments happen around the
    world. We could look at a whole range of things. And I said I
    would be brief, so I will. You know, you look at Burma, or
    Myanmar, whatever one's preference is what to call that
    country. I prefer Burma. But look what they have done there.
    Look what they have done in North Korea. Country after country
    after country. The aid that comes from China in general is
    against the United States' interests, unfortunately.
        And I agree with the comments of Mr. Rohrabacher, it is a
    dictatorship. It has been for a long, long time. Hopefully, at
    some point it won't be. But right now that is what it is. And I
    think the American people are with those of us that are
    speaking out. And this amendment is a pretty good way to do
    that. So I will yield back at this time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield to the
    gentleman from New York.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much. First, let me apologize
    if I offended anybody's sensitivities by bringing up China. It
    wasn't meant to lecture about China, but to stimulate some
    thinking about China. And I have heard a lot of people
    objecting to China, and the discussion has been about China for
    the last \1/2\ hour because obviously people are really
    thinking about China. But we have to try to approach this in
    some kind of intelligent, holistic way that makes sense for our
    American interests. And whether we are Democrats or
    Republicans, we have the same interests, especially vis-a-vis
    China.
        I can recite the litany of grievances against China as well
    as anybody else. And I agree with everyone. And I would throw
    in they put too much MSG in the food. But the Chinese are the
    competition of the future. They are the folks that we are going
    to be going up against. Their military is enlarging
    exponentially. Their influence around the world has greatened
    on every single continent, while ours is shrinking. We have to
    think about China as we do these things. Certainly they are not
    doing these things out of a great sense of benevolence. They
    are not wealthy philanthropists. They are acting in their own
    selfish interests. And we have to act in our American
    interests.
        What I am suggesting, and tried to suggest in my own crude
    way, was that we should not be looking to withdraw and abandon
    the playing field on the planet to the Chinese, because they
    are making those investments. Their people are poorer than our
    people. They can get away with it, and their government can act
    the way that it does because they are a dictatorship. But we
    are smart enough to educate our people to know that there is
    real competition and danger lurking out there in the world as
    the Chinese influence grows not only in Asia, where they are
    the dominating force, but in Africa, where they are the
    emerging force, and South and Latin America, where they are the
    emerging force. There is a danger in front of us here. And I
    don't look at it as a bad investment if we are teaming up in
    some Trilateral way and sharing the credit. I am looking at
    this as a matching grant. We are putting up money and South
    Africa is putting up the same amount of money.
        We are giving it out, and everybody over there knows what
    the game is. This is America helping our African brothers look
    good with some of our money, doubling the amount of resources
    that we are putting in. And there is an appreciative value that
    inures to us that is more important than just buying resources.
    It is letting people know that we care about them.
        And the Chinese aren't just buying resources that they are
    going to store away and use later. They are building bridges,
    they are building roads, they are investing in factories, they
    are doing infrastructure and everything else that you could
    think of. We have to wisen up and not be fighting against each
    other. And I didn't cite China to say that they are the mirror
    that we should be looking into and trying to make ourselves
    like them. We have other reasons to do it. But the fact of the
    matter is, like it or not, they are the real emerging
    competition. Name another country that you think is going to be
    competing with us, another military superpower. Who is it going
    to be? Another economic power. Who is it going to be? In the
    field of education, who is it going to be? We have to start
    winning the hearts and minds of the people of the world in an
    intelligent, comprehensive fashion. And we have to really think
    about this and come up with a strategy in working together on
    both sides of the aisle, and not just oppose each other because
    one side put up an amendment so that we are against it. But to
    really think it through and how do we improve it to make it
    really work for us as a people. How does it strengthen our
    economy? How does it strengthen our standing? And if I was too
    flippant in my approach to trying to do it the first time, I
    hope to have remedied it at least a little bit in this second
    try at an explanation. And I appreciate my friend yielding me
    the time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I apologize for
    dwelling on this issue. But I sat here and listened to the
    gentleman I think from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, talk about the
    two wars, and as I sat here and thought about the context of
    the debate we are having, I think about the investment that
    America has made in the region where those wars are currently
    taking place. What we did for the Mujahedin Afghanistan to
    defeat the Russians during the Cold War. The money we gave to
    Iraq when they were fighting our enemies in the late 1970s and
    early 1980s of Iran. The fact that we went into that region at
    the bequest of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to kick out an invading
    Army. It wasn't for imperialistic reasons. We went to help out
    folks that called for America to help. And now we see Saudi
    Arabia export being the Wahhabist literature, and supporting
    terrorism around the world, and maybe not the government, but
    individuals within that country supporting terrorism around the
    world with financial resources. How much money have we given
    Pakistan?
        Where was Osama bin Laden? He was in Pakistan. He was
    within the town where their military is, and yet they failed to
    tell us. We supported Egypt over the years. And how much money
    did Mubarak run off with? Afghanistan became a haven for
    terrorism and training camps that helped the 9/11 terrorists
    train to attack this country. And on 9/11 we were attacked. We
    were attacked. And for what? Because we are a free Nation. That
    is the root of it. We are a free Nation. And because we are
    free, we like to export our beliefs and freedom of religion and
    free markets, and that is just to name a few. On 9/11, we as a
    Nation came together. And has the war cost us? It has cost us a
    lot more than the financial resources of this Nation. It has
    cost us our men and women. They have lost limbs, and they have
    lost lives, and it is a price that we need to think about.
    Don't bring the war into this. We are talking about the
    financial stability of this country. We are talking about it in
    a context where this week we are dealing with a debt ceiling
    increase where we are looking to borrow more money to continue
    giving more money away. And something about my South Carolina
    upbringing tells me that is not right. So I apologize, Madam
    Chairwoman, but I cannot sit here and listen to someone bring
    the war into this when it is very clear the United States has
    had a presence there.
        Mr. Murphy. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Duncan. I will.
        Mr. Murphy. I am sorry if I have touched a nerve here, but
    we can't sit here and believe there is some separation between
    the foreign aid budget and the military budget. We can't sit
    here and pretend that it is somehow unpatriotic to bring up the
    facts----
        Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield? I am not saying there
    is a separation.
        Mr. Murphy. You control the time.
        Mr. Duncan. I am not saying there is a separation. But what
    I am saying is the United States has had a presence there in a
    lot more ways than just money over my lifetime, 45 years I have
    been alive. And what has it got us? In a lot of instances it
    has got us a lot of pain and heartache because we were
    attacked.
        Mr. Murphy. Would the gentleman yield? Listen, I understand
    the merits of that argument. But the suggestion that you can't
    bring up the wars, you can't bring up the military, the
    potential military consequences of not making foreign aid
    investments I think is an absolute fallacy.
        Mr. Duncan. Look at what the foreign aid investment has
    gotten us. I don't believe the argument holds water. You know,
    we are in Libya now. You failed to bring up that war. And I
    would be interested to find out how you voted on that war,
    because I voted to get us out of that war.
        Mr. Griffin. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Duncan. I will yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
        Mr. Griffin. I just want to make clear, my amendment does
    not comment on--I served in Iraq with the 101st. I am very
    familiar with the role of foreign assistance. I recently got
    back from Afghanistan, where I was briefed on the ground by
    Petraeus and other generals. I get all that. This is about $1.5
    million that we are giving to another country so they can give
    to other countries. It is this amendment. And if you are for
    this amendment, it does not mean that you are against foreign
    aid. It means you are for this amendment. I yield back.
        Mr. Duncan. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does the gentleman yield? Thank you.
    And we have anyone who would--okay. We have Connolly, and we
    have Mr. Fortenberry, and we have Mr. Payne--Mr. Meeks, and who
    else? Because we would like to bring this puppy home here.
        Mr. Manzullo. I was just going to move the previous
    question.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So hold on 1 second. If we are ready
    to vote on after these--we can keep----
        Mr. Manzullo. I move the previous question.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No, that is okay. I just want to say
    the prohibition on funds for the Trilateral Assistance Program
    is Mr. Griffin's amendment, and section 403. Who did I call on
    first? Who was that? Mr. Connolly? Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I will be
    brief. I had almost forgotten what Mr. Griffin's amendment was
    about. By my count tonight, this is like country number 56 in
    which we are slashing aid or disinvesting. And the night, of
    course, is young. And if one needed more evidence of the
    isolationist, retreatist mentality of the new majority in this
    Congress, tonight's markup is a good example.
        I would say to my colleagues who are concerned about the
    influence of China, if you want to help China and accelerate
    their broad influence and emerging confidence in Asia, Africa,
    and Latin America continue this pattern of disinvestment,
    because they have no such qualms. They are willing to put
    enormous resources on the ground. They are not disinvesting in
    countries because they don't agree with us or with them. And
    anyone who has traveled to large swaths of Africa or Latin
    America knows what I am talking about. You see the Chinese
    presence in the airport, in the city, at the hotels, on the
    ground, investing in construction, in securing access to raw
    materials, in whatever it is they are seeking. And that is the
    competition. That is the future, as Mr. Ackerman said. So, you
    know, we have a fairly modest foreign assistance program to use
    as a tool to help buttress our ability to compete with that.
    And tonight we are dismantling much of that foreign assistance
    tool. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yield back. Mr.
    Fortenberry and then Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Fortenberry. All I wanted to say, Madam Chair, is if we
    all have patience and want to continue the discussion of
    China's role in Africa, I have an amendment on this issue that
    will probably at this rate come up at about 5 a.m. So if we
    want to defer that discussion until later, I would be glad to
    do it. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Mr.
    Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Let me just say that, before I yield to Mr.
    Payne, that the gentleman's amendment basically says that we
    are going to take money away from South Africa, who is an ally,
    because what we are looking about is that region, the region of
    South Africa, where South Africa is, and we want to make sure,
    since they are such a good ally of ours, that they also have
    influence in that region, and that they can work with their
    neighbors and other African countries so that we have
    additional allies. And it shows that we are maximizing the
    money because South Africa is also saying, look, I am not just
    taking your money, we are going to put up some more money also.
    And that is going to help a lot of other countries in the
    region. And it is going to have greater influence in the region
    for us in the long run also. So it is really a wise move,
    because we are helping an ally who is helping give a good and
    better impression for all, for them to help them in that
    region, where we need allies, and to help us. I yield to Mr.
    Payne.
        Mr. Payne. I will be very brief. First of all, when the
    discussion began about China, I don't know if Mr. Griffin said
    he is tired of hearing a lecture about China, so I am trying to
    decide when a discussion becomes a lecture. A lecture is like
    somebody talking down to people. I thought it was a discussion
    that we were just having. And characterizing it as a lecture--
    --
        Mr. Griffin. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Payne. Yes. I would be glad to yield.
        Mr. Griffin. I wasn't referring to you.
        Mr. Payne. Pardon?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The person yielding is----
        Mr. Payne. I was yielding to Mr. Griffin.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I know, but that is not your time.
    Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. I yield.
        Mr. Griffin. I wasn't referring to you. I don't even
    remember what you said.
        Mr. Payne. Okay.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne is recognized again.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Griffin, for that
    clarification. I just think that, and let me tell you
    something, there is no one over here in love with China. I
    mean, I saw the way they tried to interfere with Security
    Council resolutions on Darfur. I was there when the bombs were
    falling. I was there and--as a matter of fact, the
    Congressional Black Caucus almost had relations with China
    broken off, because we had a meeting with their Ambassador, and
    we told him what to tell Beijing. It was a quiet meeting, no
    one knew about it, it was a couple years ago, and we saw a
    change in China's attitude. So there is no love in our heart
    for China.
        I just want to say two things quickly. One, that in Africa
    there is the highest acceptance for the United States of
    America of any place in the world. It is almost 80 percent of
    the people in Africa prefer the United States, and we don't
    even do anything very much there compared to what China does.
    And secondly, just to say about the Heritage Foundation
    actually came up with the statistics that China in 2010
    invested $120 billion in Africa. Now, that is certainly a
    concern, because as has been indicated, it is simply building
    up to when they are at the point where they are going to have
    all the power that they need, and then we are going to have to
    decide, well, what do we do? One hundred twenty billion
    dollars, I thought it was $50 billion, and we just looked up
    the number.
        So there is something that we need to be concerned about. I
    want to make it clear that nobody over here, especially me,
    have any love in my heart for China. I think that we need to
    look at this Trilateral. I think it is money well spent. South
    Africa is putting their expertise, they are putting their money
    in. It is sort of like a public-private partnership. We are
    doing it with them. I would hope that we would have my
    amendment passed. Thank you. Yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Meeks, do you yield
    back?
        Mr. Meeks. Yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Seeing no further
    requests for recognition, the question occurs on the amendment.
    And the amendment is Mr. Griffin's amendment, prohibition on
    funds for the Trilateral Assistance Program. A recorded vote
    has been requested. And the clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Mrs. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes. Let me correct that to a no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman off aye, on no.
        Mr. Engel.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No. But happy birthday, Nelson Mandela.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
        Mr. Chandler. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? The
    clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote, there are 23
    ayes and 19 nos.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to. The next amendment will be Mr. Payne. I would
    like to tell the members that the Chair is going to restrict
    the time on the amendments because it keeps volleying back and
    forth, and it takes up an awful lot of time. I am going to try
    this. If I can't get unanimous consent, we will just limit it
    for \1/2\ hour. Would it be all right if members have 3 minutes
    each instead of 5? Ms. Wilson says aye. Can I get a witness?
    Yes? Let me try it this way. Since it is unanimous consent--
    yes, sir.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chair, I am reserving the right to
    object. There are many amendments where I think that is
    acceptable. There are a few amendments, I will just give you
    one example, in case you thought it wasn't going to happen,
    there will be an amendment regarding the global gag rule that
    has been inserted into this bill. And I would object to any
    effort to limit the debate on that kind of an amendment. But on
    most of the amendments, fine.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. How about this? How about 5
    minutes for the person who offers the amendment, 3 minutes for
    everyone else except for Mexico City?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, just so people will
    understand, I have an amendment that eliminates aid to Pakistan
    and another amendment that eliminates aid to Iraq. I will be
    satisfied with my 5 minutes, but I would like my colleagues to
    understand that this would be limiting their ability to discuss
    this. So I mean, I am not being limited here by that rule, but
    they may not want to take it up.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second. I will make a
    motion, and then we will vote on it. The Chair makes a motion
    that from now on, the person who offers the amendment, the
    sponsor, will have 5 minutes. Each member will have 3 minutes
    to speak on it.
        Mr. Berman. I have to make a point of order on this
    amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Berman. This amendment constrains House rules on the
    committee procedures. It can be done by unanimous consent, but
    I would make a point of order.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Will the gentleman yield? Are you
    saying that I cannot limit debate time?
        Mr. Berman. By motion.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. By a motion that we will vote on?
        Mr. Berman. That is right. Under the House rules regarding
    how committees function, there is----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. But she can do it with unanimous consent.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on. No one is recognized right
    now.
        Mr. Berman. While we are checking this, can I move to
    strike the last word?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. No. Thank you. Hold on 1 second.
    Mr. Berman, while we are looking, Mr. Berman and Mr.
    Rohrabacher, what were you going to say? Mr. Berman is
    recognized.
        Mr. Berman. I will just take one moment. We have some
    additional amendments on title IV. I am not sure how many. I
    have three, at least one of which is going to be the amendment
    on the global gag rule. And then we have additional titles
    where there are many more amendments. I know this goes against
    the chair's initial desire of how to conclude this markup, but
    I would like to throw out a suggestion, that we try to work out
    a time agreement on amendments, both as to the amount of time
    that a member might speak and the amount of time on a total
    amendment, but that we do it in the context of saying there
    will be a time tonight when we will recess--I would just like
    to finish my request before it gets shot down, and that we
    reconvene at 9 o'clock or 9:30 or 10 o'clock, or whatever the
    appropriate time is tomorrow, to finish the markup at a
    reasonable hour. Because otherwise we will be here all night.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, we will.
        Mr. Berman. And I would suggest we will end up spending
    much less time on this markup if we follow a notion of deciding
    to stay for another hour or \1/2\ hour and then coming back at
    9 o'clock or 10 o'clock tomorrow, and in the meantime, work out
    a unanimous agreement on time that members will speak on
    amendments and on the total time spent on an amendment, and
    that we will end up spending much less time in markup and love
    each other much more.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And I think I am ready to make the
    motion. Are we ready? On the time to limit. May I recognize
    you? Are you allowed to have a voice? We need a magnifying
    glass. You have to wait for my cataract surgery.
        Mr. Manzullo. Why don't we just agree.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on a second. There is no
    unanimous consent on anything. We are going to proceed with
    debate, and we will try to work this out where we have perhaps
    5 minutes for the sponsor, 3 minutes for everyone else. And in
    \1/2\ hour, after that amendment is talked, except for the
    Mexico City, perhaps we will hear a motion to end the debate on
    that particular amendment.
        This last amendment went on for an awfully long time, and
    people were then called on again and again to talk, and off
    topic. So it is fine if we are on topic, but I am not going to
    censor what you say, but it is really getting a little out of
    control. But Mr. Payne, we will work it out while you debate
    your amendment. You have an amendment at the desk. And the
    clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Payne of
    New Jersey. At the end of title IV of the bill, add the
    following: Section 4xx. Improvements to nutritional quality,
    quality control, and cost-effectiveness of United States food
    assistance. (a) In General. The Administrator of the United
    States----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Everyone has the amendment. Thank
    you. Unanimous consent to consider it as read. And Mr. Payne is
    recognized to explain his amendment. Thank you, sir.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Payne. Great. And I hope to do it in less than 5
    minutes, however I will do my best. This amendment costs no
    money. It is, in my opinion, noncontroversial. I offer this
    amendment to title IV of the bill, which establishes a sense of
    Congress that USAID should institute critical reforms to
    improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of U.S. food aid.
    That is not asking for any more money or changing anything
    substantially. For 55 years, the United States, backed by the
    support of the American people, have been committed to
    providing life-saving food aid to developing countries and
    vulnerable populations around the world.
        After their inception, bilateral food aid programs were
    primarily organized with the disposal of major agricultural
    commodity surpluses generated by domestic farm production as
    the major objective. Additional objectives of the program
    include advancing U.S. trade and national security interests,
    as well as meeting the recipient countries' food security and
    development objectives. U.S. food aid has provided critical
    calories and nutrition to millions of people during short term
    emergencies. But food aid programs have been increasingly
    called into question over the past decade for not meeting the
    nutritional needs of recipient populations, and in some cases,
    for disrupting local markets. This sense of Congress amendment
    is our opportunity to voice support for the recommendations of
    two recent studies.
        One, the first study, conducted by the Government
    Accountability Office at my request, is entitled
    ``International Food Assistance: Better Nutrition and Quality
    Control Can Further Improve U.S. Food Aid.'' The second study,
    conducted by Tufts University and commissioned by USAID, is
    entitled ``Improving the Nutritional Quality of U.S. Food Aid:
    Recommendations for Changes to Products and Programs.'' Both
    studies found that while U.S. food aid is effective in
    satisfying the nutritional requirements of recipients for
    short-term emergencies, it does not provide adequate nutrition
    during long-term emergencies, especially if food aid is the
    primary or only source of nutrition, and for populations with
    special nutritional needs, such as for infants, children under
    5, individuals who are critically malnourished, and individuals
    living with HIV and AIDS. The amendment simply calls on USAID
    to implement the GAO and Tufts recommendations to issue
    guidance on how best to address nutritional deficiencies that
    may emerge during protracted emergencies; two, to evaluate the
    performance and cost-effectiveness of specialized food
    products, convene a new interagency food aid committee to
    provide a one stop shop for whole of government technical
    actions and food aid, and interface with U.S. food industry and
    implementing partners, identify and systematically track key
    quality indicators, undertake reforms in commodity acquisition
    and supply chain management, develop mechanisms and
    partnerships to facilitate more U.S. private sector development
    and innovative innovation and food aid products, packaging, and
    delivery in order to improve the cost-effectiveness,
    nutritional qualities, and overall accept ability of the
    product, and develop clear guidance, in coordination with the
    Office of Global AIDS Coordinator and the President's Emergency
    Fund for AIDS Relief in Africa, PEPFAR, for standardized
    nutrition support in HIV programs, establish process and
    system-wide protocols for monitoring and evaluation of program
    impact, specifically for improving cost-effectiveness.
        As the U.S. continues its leadership in providing life-
    saving food assistance, we must find efficiencies and leverage
    U.S. private sector innovations. As I mentioned, it does not
    ask for any additional costs. This simply says there are two
    studies that point out how we can take the program we have and
    make it better, more nutritional, probably not more food, but
    more nutritional aspects. And I would urge my colleagues to
    support this amendment. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. I
    don't see a China angle to it, but the night is young. Mrs.
    Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. While we do use China to eat, I won't bring
    it up. Mr. Payne, I do want to thank you for offering this
    amendment and highlighting the importance of nutrition and
    quality of food issues in the United States. Food aid, as you
    well know, I chair the Subcommittee on Nutrition in the
    Agriculture Committee, and nutrition are near and dear to my
    heart. However, I can't support this amendment.
        Currently, the United States is the largest donor of food
    aid, contributing $1.6 billion through just the Food for Peace
    program in Fiscal Year 2010 alone. You know, the nutritional
    needs of vulnerable groups and the quality of our food aid to
    impoverished countries are critical issues. I couldn't agree
    with you more. However, many of the reforms to improve our
    quality control are already underway. The recent Government
    Accountability Office report on better nutrition and quality
    control highlights these issues for reform that both USAID and
    USDA concurred with and recently provided examples on
    continuing efforts to address such issues.
        This amendment calls for new programming, a convening of a
    new interagency food aid committee, and the establishment of a
    multi-stakeholding working group, adding to the bureaucracy,
    and I think, too, probably additional costs, because it is
    adding to the bureaucracy. Under such difficult constraints, I
    cannot support the potential costs of this amendment,
    especially when some of the reforms and recommendations that
    are cited within the amendment are currently being addressed.
        You know, Mr. Payne, if our budgetary issues weren't in the
    same shape as many Americans, and that we really have to look
    at pennies and the way to save pennies, I might be able to be
    more sympathetic to your point of view. But we have so few
    dollars to spend. And to create a new program that is only
    going to add layers of bureaucratic costs, I would rather find
    ways to improve nutrition with the dollars that we have to
    spend now instead of creating a new agency. And Madam Chair, I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt. I
    did not hear that nation brought up at all. Good job. Mr.
    Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to
    thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his proposed amendment.
    As I understand it, it immediately is not an additional cost to
    establish what he is trying to promote here. I would like to
    give him my time, if he could explain a little more exactly
    what the amendment provides.
        Mr. Payne. Right. Just briefly, it doesn't call for new
    employees. It says create an interagency organization. That
    would certainly be people who are currently employed by the
    agencies. It would not add anybody. It would not create any
    additional costs. We are not asking for more money for more
    food. We are simply saying that we have some very specific
    recommendations. We think that by having someone really
    focusing on it clearly with this new interagency group, it
    would be able to really facilitate it better. And this is just
    the sense of the Congress saying that we think we have done a
    good job, we are not asking for more money, we are not asking
    for more food, we are just saying, why can't we make the food
    more nutritious? And secondly, that we use people in our
    agencies already to simply have a meeting. So trying to save
    time, I will yield back to the gentleman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr.
    Faleomavaega. Does any member wish recognition? I did not mean
    to put a chill on this. Okay then. I am sorry. All right. Then
    hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs
    on the amendment. This is on the Payne amendment. All those in
    favor say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the
    Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Payne. Madam Chair, may I ask for a recorded vote?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely. A recorded vote has been
    requested. The clerk will call the roll on the Payne amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
        Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no.
        Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Mrs. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mrs. Schmidt votes no.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
        Mrs. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mrs. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes aye.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
        Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
        Ms. Bass?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have always members been recorded?
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo.
        Ms. Carroll. Wait.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am sorry. I didn't mean to rush
    you.
        Mr. Pence. How am I recorded?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence, you are not recorded.
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Votes yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Manzullo would like to be
    recognized.
        Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 20 ayes
    and 21 nos.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to. On my list of amendments, Mr. Duncan is
    recognized for his amendment.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have amendment
    number 19.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Duncan
    of South Carolina. At the end of title IV, add the following:
    Section 4xx. Prohibition on assistance to countries that oppose
    the position of the United States in the United Nations. (a)
    Prohibition. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
    this act or any amendment made by this act may be provided as
    bilateral economic assistance to a country that opposed the
    position of the United States in the United Nations. (b)
    Definitions. In this section--(1) the term ``opposed the
    position of the United States'' means, in the case of a
    country, that the country's recorded votes in the United
    Nations General Assembly during the most recent session of the
    General Assembly and, in the case of a country which is a
    member of the United Nations Security Council, the country's
    recorded votes both in the Security Council and the General
    Assembly during the most recent session of the General
    Assembly, were the same as the position of the United States
    less--sorry, the second page is not on here.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Can you give that to the clerk?
    Thank you.
        Ms. Carroll. Thank you. Than 50 percent of the time----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We will consider the
    amendment as having been read because all of the members have
    the amendment. And the sponsor is recognized now for 5 minutes
    to explain. Mr. Duncan. Do all members have the amendment? Mr.
    Duncan.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me just set the
    stage for it. The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N.
    And U.S. voluntary contributions in the U.N. organizations has
    increased dramatically over the past decade. According to
    reports from the OMB, in the year 2006 through 2010, total U.S.
    contribution to the U.N. system jumped from $3.183 billion to
    $6.347 billion, more than doubled over the last decade.
    Excluding U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget, U.S.
    funding for U.N.-affiliated organizations through the
    contributions to international organizations account
    skyrocketed from $375 million in Fiscal Year 2000 to $645.5
    million in the year 2010. That is over the last 10 years it has
    skyrocketed. The U.S. pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular
    budget and 27.1 percent of the peacekeeping budget, while the
    combined total of 128 countries, or rather, two-thirds of the
    General Assembly pay less than 1 percent of the U.N.'s regular
    budget and less than \1/3\ of 1 percent of the peacekeeping
    budget. So when you review the State Department's 2010 report
    on voting practices in the United Nations, this lists all of
    the General Assembly votes during the 65th session of the
    United States General Assembly.
        Out of the 71 votes that the U.S. cast, 131 countries voted
    opposite of the United States more than 50 percent of the time.
    Only 60 countries voted with the U.S. at least 50 percent of
    the time. For example, for the 65th U.N. General Assembly, 18
    resolutions related to Israel. Only seven countries voted in
    coincidence with the United States at least 50 percent of the
    time: Australia, Canada, Israel, the Marshall Islands,
    Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. So when these countries who don't
    support us, and they combine with influential voting blocks in
    the U.N., they can and do block U.S. attempts to implement
    reform, curtail budgets, and support American principles and
    values.
        Folks, the American people are behind us on this issue. We
    are $14.3 trillion in debt. Why are we giving so much money to
    the United Nations? What return are we reaping on our
    investment when these countries do not support American
    interests on the world stage? It is important that countries
    recognize that America values issues such as supporting Israel,
    U.N. reform, and international religious freedom. My amendment
    seeks to address this gap between spending and promoting
    American interests. Our level of foreign assistance to other
    countries should make a difference in how that country votes on
    resolutions in the U.N.
        My amendment is very simple. Our economic assistance is not
    an entitlement program. If countries that receive U.S. foreign
    assistance do not vote with the U.S. at least 50 percent of the
    time, then the U.S. has the right to revote that country's
    foreign assistance. As security assistance is in the interests
    of our national interest, this amendment does not touch
    security interests. Rather, as defined in the amendment, it
    refers to bilateral economic assistance only. I will keep it
    simple. I urge you to support this amendment, and I appreciate
    the consideration.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This amendment,
    unlike, for instance, the Mack amendment, cuts off any money
    authorized to be appropriated by this act to a country that
    opposes the position in the United Nations under the
    definitions of the amendment. So you vote for this amendment,
    you kill the Merida Initiative because Mexico is one of those
    countries. You eliminate the global HIV/AIDS, malaria,
    tuberculosis program because practically every one of the
    countries that are recipients of that assistance votes against
    us more than half the time. You kill the democracy programs in
    Iran and other assistance to the people of Iran to stop their
    government from suppressing them because you haven't limited
    your amendment to aid to the government. You have said aid to
    the country. In other words, you go right through--and of
    course, you wipe out your bilateral assistance to Iraq and
    Afghanistan.
        Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Berman. All aspects of it.
        Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman yield? There is a waiver
    provision in the amendment.
        Mr. Berman. I love when you guys say that. I reclaim my
    time. We are going to do something really stupid and then give
    a waiver because we know we are doing something stupid, and the
    President has got to have the ability to undo this. And that is
    what this is. I am sorry to say, I have great respect for the
    gentleman, but I would love to know that he anticipated the
    consequences of his amendment before he had it drafted and
    offered it. I think it is a mistake to eliminate the Merida
    program.
        I don't want to cut the program that George Bush got
    started, with the help of a Republican Congress, to try and
    save hundreds of thousands and millions of lives through HIV/
    AIDS medications. I don't want to get rid of our efforts to
    continue the transformation in Iraq that, as we move from a
    military situation to an effort to help them sustain themselves
    we wipe out all economic assistance. You have got to be
    responsible for what you are doing here. And to say that the
    President can issue a waiver just falls flat.
        Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield, please, for just a
    moment? Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Berman. Yeah.
        Mr. Burton. You know when we passed the Iran sanctions
    bill, we gave the President waiver authority. You didn't
    complain about it then. Why are you complaining now?
        Mr. Berman. I am saying thank God you gave the President
    waiver authority. And I believe in certain situations--by the
    way, we had a very nice high standard for that waiver
    authority. But reclaiming my time, I am saying, why would you
    do an amendment that the immediate consequence of its passage
    is that a huge number of countries that get our assistance to
    stop their people from being killed by AIDS and the children
    who are born to pregnant women taking medication so their kids
    won't be born with AIDS, and which will wipe out our Merida
    Initiative and undermine everything you guys supported doing in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, why would you want to offer an amendment
    that does this and then rest on the fact that the President
    could waive it?
        Mr. Burton. Will the gentleman yield for one more question?
        Mr. Berman. Sure.
        Mr. Burton. The amendment says very clearly that if they
    vote with us more than 50 percent of the time, then there is no
    penalty. And if they vote with us less than 50 percent of the
    time, the President, if it is in our national interest, can
    waive it. I don't understand what the problem is.
        Mr. Berman. By and large, I have generally found that when
    I want to get one of my colleagues to do something I would
    like, I don't tell them how I am going to whack him if he
    doesn't do what I like. It is not usually the best first
    approach. On those rare occasions, Mr. Burton, and there are
    some where you and I are on the same side, I don't come to you
    and say, you bum, I am going to do everything I can to destroy
    you unless you support my particular bill or amendment. I would
    suggest some of that logic applies here. Taking a standard,
    providing a waiver that allows you to make the standard
    meaningless, but that immediately insults the vast majority of
    the countries of the world by saying you are trying to bribe
    them into changing their sovereign decisions is not the best
    first approach toward international diplomacy or human
    relationships. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
    But maybe calling the proposal stupid is also not the best
    approach.
        Mr. Berman. I would like to correct it. What is a better
    word?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Foolhardy.
        Mr. Berman. Wrong. Wrongheaded.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Much better. I have seen
    some hands up. I saw Mr. Johnson and I saw Mr. Connolly. And
    then I saw Mr. Rivera, and Mr. Carnahan, and Mrs. Schmidt, and
    Mr. Ackerman. Remind me of that order. Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, with
    great wealth comes great responsibility. Even the Scriptures
    teach that. And we have a responsibility to be good stewards of
    taxpayer dollars. And I think if our goal, which I believe that
    everyone on this committee shares that goal, is to encourage
    the advancement of democracy and freedom across the globe, then
    we have a responsibility to help those who are less advantaged
    than we are understand that we are there to help, but that that
    help is not a handout, that it comes with a determination that
    they support the same ideals that we do. I support this
    amendment to restrict the bilateral economic assistance to
    countries that oppose the position of the United States at the
    U.N. You know, during the past decade about 90 percent of U.N.
    member states that receive U.S. assistance vote against the
    U.S. a majority of the time in the U.N. General Assembly on
    nonconsensus votes. These countries are happy to benefit from
    our economic assistance, but they frequently do not step up to
    the plate when we need their vote at the U.N.
        Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield for just a second?
        Mr. Johnson. I will yield in a second, when I finish my
    statement. All too often, and with impunity, they vote against
    the United States, against Israel, against sanctioning Iran,
    against real budgetary and management reforms at the U.N. This
    amendment makes it clear that our economic assistance is not an
    entitlement program, and there are consequences when countries
    oppose our position at the U.N.
        In order for our economic assistance to promote
    responsibility, our economic assistance must reward
    responsibility. This amendment does not apply to our security
    assistance programs. Let me be clear about that. It does not
    apply to our security assistance programs. And because not all
    votes and situations are alike, the amendment includes a
    Presidential waiver--we have just discussed that--to ensure
    that economic assistance can continue when it is in our
    national interests to do so. With that, I will yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think Mr. Griffin was asking for
    time.
        Mr. Johnson. I will yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Duncan. Actually, Madam Chairman, it was me. You are
    getting us confused today.
        I just wanted to add some data to what you said, the
    gentleman from Ohio. South Africa, we talked a lot about them
    today. They only voted with the United States 33.8 percent of
    the time. Let us mention some others here. Pakistan, 21.3
    percent of the time. Nicaragua was mentioned earlier; 34.4
    percent of the time. The list goes on and on.
        It is very clear that countries that are large recipients
    of U.S. aid through the U.N. fail to vote with the United
    States. It is our tax dollars that we are giving to them.
    Shouldn't we demand something for that in return? And let us at
    least stand on the world stage shoulder to shoulder with the
    United States of America that is giving them hundreds of
    billions of dollars in foreign assistance, economic aid and
    vote with us. And if they want that money, Mr. Berman, they
    want that money, all they have to do is vote with us. They
    wouldn't be cut off if they voted more than 50 percent of the
    time.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson. I reclaim the balance of my time just to say
    if we want to change the outcome, then we have to change the
    steps to the dance. We can't keep dancing the same dance over
    and over again and get our fiscal house in order and expect to
    get a different result from our partners overseas if we keep
    playing by the same rules.
        These are dire economic times. We owe to the people of this
    country, to our children and our grandchildren to be
    responsible. I believe this bill is a responsible bill and a
    movement in that direction. I support it, and I urge my
    colleagues to.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. By the
    way, thank you for your patience and your fairness tonight. You
    have done it with good humor, and I appreciate it, and I know
    my colleagues do.
        In case anyone is keeping score, I think we have just
    doubled the number of countries we are disinvesting in and
    cutting aid from, at least economic aid. Interesting why we are
    not including military. And I listened very carefully to my two
    new colleagues, Mr. Johnson from Ohio and Mr. Duncan from South
    Carolina, and it is amazing what a binary world they apparently
    want us to live in. The United States is apparently always
    right, and anyone who votes against us must therefore by
    definition be wrong. No. Their national sovereignty is to be
    dismissed. In fact, when they exercise it, and it doesn't
    conform with what we think is right in our black-and-white
    world, view of the world, they are to be punished. All economic
    assistance is to be cut unless the President waives.
        We actually heard a Biblical reference about our
    responsibility to taxpayers, and I guess I would say that is--I
    don't know if it is Biblical, but I certainly know we have a
    responsibility to the taxpayers. But the other responsibility
    we have is when you are a great power, you do not retreat from
    your responsibilities. That makes for a dangerous world that no
    taxpayer is going to thank you for down the road. Been there,
    done that. We have done that in periods of American history. It
    didn't work out too well. Paid a high, terrible price for it.
        I don't want to return to that world. I want to maintain
    our international obligations. I don't want to be perceived as
    some crude, tin-horned, throw-your-weight-around power that
    takes its marbles and goes home when it doesn't get its way.
        Here is a question for us as a committee and as Members of
    Congress: Do we believe in democracy and democratic
    institutions or not? Maybe we ought to adopt a rule that any
    time you disagree with me, we throw you out of Congress,
    because that is really the standard you are espousing on this
    issue.
        Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. I would yield gladly to the ranking member.
        Mr. Berman. I would like to ask the gentleman a question.
    Under this title, our Cuba Democracy Program is bilateral
    economic assistance. As I read this language, there is no
    question but that this amendment, unless the President waives
    it, the guy who will save us from everything, the Cuba
    Democracy Program is cut out because Cuba does not vote with us
    very much at the U.N. Is that your understanding of this?
        Mr. Connolly. That would be my understanding, because it
    falls under the rubric of economic assistance, not military
    assistance. And I thank the ranking member for pointing that
    out.
        I just end by saying it is a complex world, and to suck us
    all into a simple right-or-wrong, black-or-white world does not
    serve anybody's interests, certainly not the United States'.
    And it is no substitute for doing the hard, difficult work of
    diplomacy and engagement to make it a better world and to make
    sure U.S. interests are protected and fostered. This is, I
    think, a very crude and almost juvenile approach to that and
    frankly will be counterproductive, no question about it, and I
    urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        The gentleman yields back.
        I have Mr. Rivera, Mr. Carnahan, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Ackerman
    and Mr. Pence. So Mr. Rivera is recognized. And Mr. Cicilline.
    And Mr. Payne. Thank you.
        Mr. Rivera is recognized.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am glad our friends on the other side mentioned Cuba just
    now, because I don't think they were accurate in their
    assessment. The money that goes for the Cuba Democracy Program
    does not go to the Cuban Government. The money that goes to the
    Cuba Democracy Program goes to civil society members--I will in
    a moment--members that are dissidents, human rights activists,
    people that are struggling against the Cuban dictatorship,
    people like the Mothers in White that march and are repressed
    by the Cuban Government, human rights dissidents like Orlando
    Zapata Tamayo, who was murdered while on a hunger strike
    protesting human rights in Cuba. I don't think Orlando Zapata
    Tamayo was a member of the United Nations or was voting against
    us more than 50 percent of the time at the United Nations.
        But it is very interesting to me how much criticism is
    leveled against the waiver provision that Congressman Duncan
    has enshrined in this amendment. I can recall about 15 years
    ago when four Americans were murdered in international air
    space by the Castro dictatorship, and Congressman Burton at
    that time authored legislation to sanction the Castro
    dictatorship for murdering those four Americans, and it was
    insisted, insisted upon, the sponsors of that legislation at
    that time, Jesse Helms and Dan Burton, to have a waiver
    provision for President Clinton to be able to waive the
    sanctions against the Castro dictatorship after they had just
    murdered four Americans in a civilian aircraft in international
    airspace.
        So--I will yield in a moment. So if four Americans, if
    their lives were not worthy of having specific, concrete
    sanctions, and a waiver was demanded at that point--I would
    think here we are talking about votes. I think four American
    lives are more important than votes at the United Nations. But
    Congressman Duncan is still providing that waiver because we
    might have some folks that are more aligned with us than
    others, and they may vote 49.9 percent, and we don't want to be
    unreasonable certainly, and Congressman Duncan has provided for
    a way for the administration to provide that waiver.
        But again, we are being very selective in our criticism,
    because if it wasn't good enough when four Americans were
    murdered to have sanctions leveled, then I would think that
    certainly for voting decisions at the United Nations, we could
    have a waiver provision. And before I yield to the other side,
    I want to yield to Congressman Rohrabacher, who also wants to
    say a few words.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Congressman Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        Yeah, I think that sometimes we can suggest that we have a
    black and white vision of the world. And I am talking to my
    friend and colleague, yes, it is a good thing if you are a
    friend of the United States, and it is a bad thing if you are
    an enemy of the United States and you don't like us. And when
    you have a limited amount of money to provide assistance
    because you yourself are going into a financial crisis, it is a
    good thing to make sure that you are not providing people who
    don't like you as expressed by their votes in the United
    Nations the limited amount of resources we have to help other
    people. Yes, it is a good thing to help your friends rather
    than to help your enemies. That is black and white. Fine.
        If that is the logic from which the American people are
    trying to decide as to what policy should take place, I hope
    they listen to this debate. I am very proud to stand behind
    that criteria. And there is nothing wrong with that.
        Let me note, Mr. Berman was talking about all these
    programs that are going to be eliminated by that. No. If
    countries want to have our support, they can come and become
    our friends. And there is nothing wrong with encouraging them
    to be our friends. And when we have programs that are designed
    that don't require that, what happens? We have the very program
    Mr. Berman was talking about.
        For example, the program--the Global Fund program that was
    supposed to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. China ended
    up contributing I think it was $96 million, and it got out of
    that program already $549 million, and, in fact, will be given
    $947 million. Yeah, what happens? Our adversaries end up
    getting our scarce resources that I have no apologies about
    directing to America's friends. And if that is what the
    American people need to hear to understand the difference
    between the left wing and the right wing, fine. Let them
    listen.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Time has expired.
        I would like to ask that Mr. Duncan, who wanted to make a
    clarifying change to his amendment. So I am going to take this
    out of turn so that he can make that motion.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        If you will look at line 7, the front page of the
    amendment, the word ``country,'' I would like to strike that.
    Unanimous consent to strike the word ``country'' and add the
    word ``government.'' I think it would clear up some of the
    confusion. But I would like to strike ``country'' and add
    ``government.'' Unanimous consent.
        Mr. Berman. Reserving a point of order, you are seeking an
    amendment to your amendment; is that right?
        Mr. Duncan. That is correct. An amendment to the amendment
    to strike the word ``country.''
        Mr. Berman. On my reservation, can I conclude that when Mr.
    Rivera, the gentleman from Florida, says I am wrong, you are
    saying, no, he is not? I just want to make sure you
    understand--I made certain statements about different democracy
    programs. The Cuban Government is not going to change its vote
    in order to save the Cuban Democracy Program. I just want to
    make sure you are agreeing that amendment as written does not--
    ends up cutting off democracy programs in these countries.
        Mr. Rivera. Congressman Duncan, would you yield for a
    moment?
        Mr. Duncan. I would. It is my time. It is just a
    clarification word to clear up any confusion going forward not
    out of this body, because you all have heard the argument, but
    going forward out of this body.
        Mr. Berman. Is there an amendment in front of us that you
    want to--the amendment is not in writing. It requires us to
    agree by unanimous consent to make that. So I am just reserving
    in order to ask----
        Mr. Burton. Madam Chair, point of order.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Burton is----
        Mr. Burton. I would propose the amendment that the
    gentleman suggested to change that word, and I will reduce it
    to writing right now.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan. That is fine.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton----
        Mr. Burton. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Duncan has an amendment, but you
    are not going to be--do you want Mr. Burton to be offering it?
        Mr. Duncan. I will withdraw the amendment, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Burton. I have an amendment to his amendment.
        Mr. Berman. I just wanted to make the point, I think you
    have a right to fix up your amendment, and I don't object to
    it.
        Mr. Duncan. Then I will leave the amendment active and ask
    for unanimous consent.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. To make the change, and the clerk
    has noted that change. Thank you so much.
        We will go back to the order of speakers. Unanimous consent
    has been granted. The change has been noted.
        Mr. Carnahan is now recognized to speak.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
    thank my friend from South Carolina for clarifying that. But I
    want to make a point.
        Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, we may
    vote opposite 90 percent of the time, but if we took certain
    positions, we might miss out on that 10 percent of the time
    where we have some common ground or some opportunities to work
    together. I just want to make that point.
        And secondly, the U.N. is an easy target. They absolutely
    are a complex body. It is a difficult place to work. And it is
    hard to sit there at the table with every country in the world
    with competing and complex interests all mixed up there, and to
    be sure we are looking out for our interests there, but clearly
    our interests are not going to align with every country all the
    time, and sometimes not even half the time. But we absolutely
    need to be building those allies.
        And I would suggest to the gentleman that they speak to
    some of our leaders from Israel. And I bet virtually every one
    of them you spoke to, they would think this was a bad idea
    because we have fought many battles on behalf of our ally
    Israel at the U.N. to beat back a lot of the attacks that come
    against Israel on a regular basis, and because we are engaged
    in building alliances, looking for new ways to beat those
    things back, we have had success there. And Israel is just one
    example of how we have tried to keep some of those alliances
    together, and I would urge the gentleman or others to talk to
    some of our allies from Israel, and I believe they would tell
    you this is not a good approach.
        I think you have a good idea in terms of how to hold people
    accountable, but I think we need to look for some other ways to
    actually execute that idea. And that is going to be a constant
    challenge at the U.N. But I don't think it is going to work to
    have a formula like this, and so I would respectfully request
    my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan, who yields
    back.
        Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I first want to thank Mr. Berman for bringing up the
    point about country versus government, because I was a little
    nervous about supporting this amendment, and I am so glad that
    we have corrected that all very important word.
        I just want to say again that when I go back home and I
    talk to folks, when I have teletown halls, when I have town
    halls, one of the things that I am constantly asked is why are
    we giving to foreign governments when we really can't even
    afford to help our own? One in four families in the United
    States at some point during the years is going to be on food
    stamps. The cost of our food stamp program, our domestic
    program in the United States, has nearly doubled in the last
    few years. Now, I am only pointing that out because we have
    real needs in the United States, and we have to find the
    dollars to pay for those needs.
        So now you look at the real needs across the globe, and,
    gosh, every country sounds like it has a real need. So how do
    you pick which one you are going to support? Well, it is really
    difficult for me to go back and justify supporting countries
    that continuously vote against us at the U.N., and that is an
    easy target because people can see the recorded votes.
        So I think that this is a very well-thought-out amendment.
    If you can't vote with us at least 50 percent of the time, then
    maybe you have to have a little different scrutiny on getting
    our money, and I think the scrutiny is we are not going to give
    it to you unless the President finds some compelling reason to
    give it to you, and then you are going to get it. So the
    President has that waiver authority. So if a country like
    Israel is concerned that another country that used to get our
    aid that is no longer getting our aid because they voted with
    us only 12 percent of the time, the President can override our
    concerns here in this body.
        I think we are giving the President a great deal of
    authority in this. I think it is the flexibility that works
    within Congress, within the halls of Congress, and I really
    urge the support of this amendment because I have to go home
    and justify the way I am spending taxpayer dollars, and it is
    just so difficult for me to justify foreign aid when folks see
    it going to countries that really don't care a whole lot about
    our national interests and our national security.
        And I will yield to Mr. Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. I just want to mention, we have heard a lot of
    talk about the waiver provision, and I think some folks
    indicated that the fact that there is a waiver provision
    somehow takes away from the substance of the amendment. If you
    are applying that standard--I know someone mentioned it
    earlier--you could argue that because President Obama's health
    care law had a waiver provision, it should have never been
    passed in the first place. Well, I agree. It should never have
    been passed in the first place, but it is not because it has a
    waiver provision.
        Waiver provisions, as the folks who have been here much
    longer than I have know, are very common in legislation. I
    would opine that if you counted through the numerous bills that
    are passed in this body that have some sort of waiver, you
    would find a whole bunch of them.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Can I reclaim my time? Because I am really
    afraid we are going to get into the issue of the waiver of the
    health care bill, and that is not really germane to this.
        So while I applaud Mr. Griffin for his view, I would hope
    that both sides continue the debate on foreign aid and this
    bill and don't get side-tracked into other issues that we can
    talk about another day.
        And with that I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Ackerman is recognized.
        Mr. Ackerman. I am happy to see all----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hold on 1 second. I had a
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gallegly. Are we now officially abiding by 3 minutes on
    the----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No, we did not get that accord.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. I am happy to see the renewed confidence in
    the President's judgment. I am amazed to see yet another
    amendment that begins with prohibition on assistance to
    countries that--this one amendment alone encompasses two-thirds
    of the world. Two-thirds of the world. Two-thirds of the world
    because of a mathematical formula. I mean, it is not really
    sensible. I am not sure that the amendment was very well
    thought out. There are usually unintended consequences, and
    very often it is easy, when you take a second glance, to find
    the unintended consequences.
        I would like to ask Mr. Duncan, the author of the
    amendment, in those two-thirds of countries of the world that
    we eliminate from consideration from U.S. aid, how many of
    those countries are our strategic allies in the war against
    terror?
        Mr. Duncan. I can go through the list. If you want to go
    through every country and tell you based on the last General
    Assembly. Afghanistan, 34.3 percent of the time.
        Mr. Ackerman. Is the Government of Afghanistan on our side
    in the war against terror?
        Mr. Duncan. I can go through every country if you would
    like to.
        Mr. Ackerman. We just started the list. Is Afghanistan on
    our side in the war on terror? Is India on our side in the war
    on terror? Is Iraq on our side in the war on terror? These are
    the major partners that we have. These are where we fly our
    planes from. These are the people who let our troops and our
    supplies through.
        Voice. Will the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let me see----
        Mr. Ackerman. Let me finish my point. We are doing
    tremendous damage here because we haven't really considered
    what we are doing except it sounds good, and it will sell good
    back home because my constituents can understand this. Well, if
    your constituents can understand why we are doing this, then
    both of you are wrong. We should be making these decisions on a
    country-by-country basis as to which countries deserve our aid.
    If we are basing it on the principle of whose votes we can buy,
    gee, that makes us a terrible thing, and I won't name what it
    makes us. But we are in the business of selling ourselves. And
    if we are doing that, maybe we should have a sliding scale on
    the menu. What type of action do you need? And we will sell it
    to you. That is how we will base our aid.
        Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. What are you looking for? How much money?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Would the gentleman like to yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. In a moment.
        Should we give the same amount of money in consideration to
    somebody who is with us 52 percent as we do for 75 percent,
    because maybe the guy who is with us 52 percent has given
    everything that he can give, and maybe somebody who is with us
    49 percent is really there on the front lines when it counts.
    Because of the part of the world in which they find themselves,
    they have to vote in a certain way and fashion.
        I mean, if you analyze the list, you see what we have got
    going for us with the countries that are with us 75 percent of
    the time. There are not a lot of them. If we are going to give
    money only to people who like us, that is the reason people
    don't like us. It is bullying. It is buying. It is paying off.
    You don't get intelligent policy decisions and support because
    of that. And some of these countries are punching far above
    their weight grade.
        Mr. Mack. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. I would be delighted to yield.
        Mr. Mack. The one problem I am having is on the one hand
    you say we shouldn't do it this way, but then when I offer an
    amendment and specifically outline countries that have opposed
    the U.S. and laid out the cite that all of the things that you
    just said that we should do, you oppose that as well.
        Mr. Ackerman. You are talking about South America?
        Mr. Mack. What it sounds like is that it doesn't matter
    really that none of it makes sense on this----
        Mr. Ackerman. Reclaiming my time. There are some countries
    in Latin America--and I am not sure if it was you or one of the
    other gentlemen or ladies that made the point about free trade
    agreements with Latin America. I don't dismiss free trade
    agreements; you have to look at them one at a time and see what
    we are getting and why it is important. I am in favor of
    Colombia. Colombia under this would be excluded. We couldn't do
    a free trade agreement with Colombia under this because, guess
    what, they are not with us 50 percent of the time.
        I don't think anybody really analyzed it. Somebody picked a
    number that sounded good, like 50 percent sounds, like, good.
    You know, if you get a C or a C-minus or a C-plus, that is
    passing. That makes you our friend. That doesn't make you our
    friend. It doesn't make you a supporter of U.S. interests.
        We really have to put some collective thought into this,
    and certainly there are countries that we give aid to that
    shouldn't be getting aid, and certainly there are some that are
    bargains that we don't give enough aid to that can't vote with
    us for certain reasons.
        But of critical importance to us on our national security
    interests, countries in the Gulf. Look at the list. Countries
    in the Gulf are very important to us right now for the
    stability of the whole region. They are all off this list. We
    just dissed them just like that.
        They are not all the same. What I am suggesting is that we
    take a look at these one at a time on a policy basis, not on an
    arithmetic formula or a Biblical quote. If we wanted to base
    our foreign policy decisions on the Bible, I would offer an
    amendment of love thy neighbor and give them aid. That we can't
    take care of all our needs in this country? We will never take
    care of all our needs in this country, but, yes, I know a lot
    of poor individuals and poor families. And you know, they are
    the most generous people I know, and they give assistance, and
    they give charity to people that need help outside of their
    family, even though they don't cover their own bases
    completely.
        [Music plays.]
        Mr. Duncan. I have no way of stopping it.
        Mr. Ackerman. I think the place is haunted.
        Mr. Duncan. I apologize.
        Mr. Ackerman. Madam Chair, I am not sure what that is all
    about. But, Madam Chairman----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman wanted to know if they
    are paying royalties for that song.
        Mr. Ackerman. I am just suggesting that this approach is
    really helter skelter, and it picks a number that really
    doesn't mean anything. And we have to approach this on an
    intelligent basis, and I would ask if the gentleman would
    withdraw the amendment. Maybe a group of us can work together
    and pick those countries that are not deserving of our aid.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I don't think so.
        Mr. Pence is recognized.
        Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman. And I--you don't need to
    use theme music for my comments. Mr. Ackerman got a music bed I
    just heard.
        I want to rise in strong support of the amendment by Mr.
    Duncan from South Carolina, and I appreciate his leadership.
    And I--and the level of freshmen hazing that is taking place
    from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is
    memorable, but unpersuasive. I particularly appreciate Mr.
    Berman revising and extending his characterization that this
    piece of legislation was stupid. But the use of the terms--Mr.
    Connolly referred to this legislation as crude. My good friend
    Mr. Ackerman referred to it as a helter-skelter approach. The
    gentleman from Virginia said that this is evidence of
    Republicans having a binary world view, isolationists
    retreating from the world.
        Since when did economic aid from the United States of
    America become an entitlement in the world? I am trying to get
    that. And the suggestion that there should be some rational
    limitation on how we use our increasingly scarce taxpayer
    dollars in the area of foreign aid to governments is not the
    same as what some of those accusations portend. Quite frankly,
    I talk to a lot of people back around the Hoosier State and
    across this country who just assume we did away with all
    foreign aid.
        I am not one of those people, but I do think that the way
    we have seen the United Nations evolve of late, it makes the
    late President John F. Kennedy quite a prophet when he said in
    his inaugural address, we must not permit the United Nations to
    become a forum for invective against the West. Now, the problem
    with President Kennedy's statement is he was not focused
    enough. It hasn't become a forum for invective against the
    West, it has become a forum for invective against the United
    States of America and Israel.
        And I say by an informational basis to my friend Mr.
    Ackerman, with whom I had the privilege of serving as the
    ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee when he chaired
    that subcommittee, I know his heart for Israel. He may not be
    aware, a significant number of the recorded votes that would be
    affected here are anti-Israel votes, and if a country
    consistently voting against Israel in the United Nations should
    have no bearing on the United States providing economic aid to
    that country, well, I think I have got a different viewpoint on
    that.
        Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Pence. I will when I am done.
        Another thing the gentleman from Virginia said, a great
    power does not retreat from its responsibilities. We have a
    responsibility first to the American people, second to
    America's vital national interests, third to America's treaty
    allies. And America's opponents and detractors and enemies
    don't make the list. I have no responsibility to those
    countries where I grew up. I mean, someone just said if we only
    give money to people who like us--well, isn't it equally
    ridiculous to mostly give money to people who don't like us?
        And can I remind my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle, we are the biggest benefactor of this forum for
    invective against the United States and Israel in the world.
    And I worked with the late Henry Hyde, whose portrait adorns
    these walls, and we tried to pass the U.N. Reform Act. He let
    this backbencher be the coauthor of one of those versions of
    the bill with him. I have worked with him in a spirit of
    partnership with colleagues I respect on the opposite side of
    this panel.
        This institution has a serious problem, and if--we were
    talking earlier about the war in Iraq. If the run-up to the war
    in Iraq was not evidence of the toothlessness and near
    uselessness of the United Nations in confronting tyrants in the
    world, which was the reason it was created was to confront
    tyranny as it rose, then I don't know what was. One resolution
    after another, one unenforced resolution after another, the
    United States of America eventually had to act. And I just--I
    want to----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Pence. He has taken a bit of a pounding today. He is
    tough enough for it. But I strongly support this amendment and
    urge my colleagues to do likewise.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Pence.
        Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I certainly want to acknowledge the gentleman from
    South Carolina's interest in getting to this issue of ensuring
    that we are not providing support to countries who don't share
    our values and share interests of the United States. But I
    would say that the strength of our great country is not our
    ability to buy our friends or buy support in any forum, it is
    the power of our ideas, it is the strength of our values, and
    it is our commitment to democratic freedoms and democratic
    principles.
        And I think that we have to make determinations about how
    we use treasured resources, very, very important resources, in
    a very strategic and careful way. And we ought to be looking at
    a whole series of relevant factors. One of them should be that
    support of the United States. One of them should be the
    strategic importance in the world of the country. One should be
    prospects for democratic advancement, geopolitical
    considerations, a whole series of complicated important factors
    that we ought to be weighing individually and country by
    country. But if we engage in what will be described really as
    buying support, something if we did in our domestic politics
    would be a crime, it will diminish our democracy. It will
    diminish us. And I really appreciate what the gentleman is
    trying to do, but I would respectfully suggest it is an
    approach that really does reduce the democracy that we are
    trying to protect.
        And I would just say in conclusion, one other important
    reason, if by itself reason to defeat this amendment, is it
    will result in the senseless and horrible death of thousands
    of, maybe millions of, individuals from HIV and AIDS. As Mr.
    Berman stated, the Global Health Initiative, which is present
    in many, many countries which will not be on this list, and the
    work that is under way that is saving lives all across the
    world will come to an end, and so we can be certain that if
    this becomes law, millions perhaps individuals, innocent
    individuals, will face the scourge of HIV and AIDS. And I know
    the gentleman doesn't intend that to happen. I would urge
    defeat of this amendment.
        Mr. Murphy. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cicilline. Certainly.
        Mr. Murphy. I would just like to make an analogy. I think
    you make a great point as to how our constituents would look on
    our Government if we imposed the same rule. If our President
    proffered a public rule in which he said that only Members of
    Congress who vote with him 50 percent of the time will receive
    any funding from this administration, and they issued that as a
    public declaration, there would be a revolt because they know,
    as you know, that that is not how this democracy works. And
    though I think the gentleman is right that this should
    potentially play a factor in decision making, there will
    rightfully be the same response around the world as there would
    be in this country if we did the same thing.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He has already yielded back.
        Mr. Marino is recognized. Sorry, sir? Taken care of. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Let me just say that Mr. Duncan, I think, highlights a very
    serious problem of global nonsolidarity with the United States.
    He encourages a message to countries around the world that
    we're watching and we're watching very diligently, and I
    absolutely commend him for that. I do think it is a barometer.
    I am not sure it ought to be the only barometer as to how we
    condition U.S. foreign aid.
        I would point out that as a firm believer of
    conditionality, when it comes to human rights benchmarks in
    trafficking, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act clearly
    annunciates a number of minimum standards as we call them. The
    same way with the Religious Freedom Act and some of the other
    human rights laws that does exactly--or moves in the direction
    that Mr. Duncan, I think, is trying to take us.
        One cautionary note, that from session to session at the
    U.N., we don't get to pick the issue mix that is debated there.
    Very often the United Nations General Assembly, unfortunately,
    is a debating society with very little relevance. The Security
    Council is where the real action is, although they do have some
    relevance, and we ought to take seriously what they do.
        So again, I cannot thank him enough for raising this issue
    so that we begin to take more seriously what happens at the
    United Nations, because that does reflect the foreign capitals,
    that is what those Ambassadors are there to do.
        One cautionary note really. I don't agree with this
    administration on a whole lot of issue, so when they actually
    take a position at the United Nations contrary to my own or
    perhaps some of my colleagues, I am glad the developing world--
    Latin Americans and perhaps some of our friends in Africa or
    elsewhere or in Ireland, or you name the country--takes a
    contrarian view. Let them push back, because I don't agree with
    what the White House is doing.
        So I just throw that out, you know. Some of the issues that
    we care so deeply about, the culture of life issues which we
    will be debating very shortly, this administration has pushed
    the culture of death like no other administration ever,
    everywhere, in every one of the venues where it is applicable.
    This administration is pushing abortion on demand, and I hope
    and pray, frankly, that those countries will push back out of a
    great sense of protection for their own individual babies and
    mothers and all those who are at risk from the U.S. position.
        So I would just say to my friend, it is very important that
    he raises it. It is a barometer. It ought to maybe be seen with
    other barometers as to how well or poorly a country is doing.
    But again, I think the issues need to be delineated just so we
    know what it is that this administration, which is really the
    U.S. position--it is not the congressional position--it is the
    U.S. position as articulated by the executive branch.
        Mr. Johnson. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you for yielding.
        I am not sure I understand the Obama administration, the
    Presidential analogy that was used just a little bit ago. I
    would daresay that right now most American people are
    struggling to relate to this administration in any way. We have
    clearly indicated that we have got an amendment here that has
    got--it does not apply to security assistance. It has got
    waiver capability. It does not bar trade agreements, as I
    understand it.
        What we are trying to do here is change the conduct of
    those nations that deal with the United States and benefit from
    our pocketbooks. We are trying to promote democracy and freedom
    around the world. Now, how do you do that in an environment
    where there is just an endless flow of money? It is a cause-
    and-effect kind of thing.
        And I don't believe Americans can relate to the Obama
    administration analogy, but I bet you they can relate to this.
    If you live in a neighborhood where you are the only family
    that has got vital resources that the neighborhood needs, and
    you set a rule that you have got to cut your grass every
    Thursday and keep the neighborhood looking right, I bet you
    most people that want that resource are going to cut their
    grass. If we want to encourage pro-U.S. relationships, there
    ought to be some buy-in to the process.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith, yields back. And I have on my dance card Mr.
    Payne, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Keating, and maybe we could
    have a vote.
        So Mr. Payne is recognized.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        I think this is a very interesting debate, and I do want to
    just mention that the four Americans who were tragically
    killed, it was a sad situation when Cuba brought a plane down.
    However, to correct the gentleman, it was wrong wherever it
    was, but it was not in international space, it was in Cuba
    airspace, and that is when the plane was brought down. Wrong
    whether it was in Cuba's airspace or wrong whether it was in
    international airspace. However, it happened. Just to correct
    the record.
        We look at votes in the U.N. You take South Africa. South
    Africa voted against us. They were on the list. They had
    elections in South Africa. The leadership that voted against
    us, Thabo Mbeki, the country said there is a vote of no
    confidence, and 1 year before his term was over, he was ousted
    from government. They had a new election. A man named Jacob
    Zuma became the President. I talked to him 2 weeks ago in South
    Sudan at the independence celebration. He said they want to
    really get more engaged with the U.S.; have gone into Zimbabwe
    and told Mugabe he had to cut out the stuff, and now they are
    going to have elections. He said that if you continue to do
    this, we, South Africa, the strong guys on the block, will have
    to look at our policy toward you, Mr. Mugabe. Mugabe didn't
    like it, but he is working in the right direction.
        This would be unbelievable for us to turn around and tell
    South Africa, who now has a new President moving in the same
    direction--you see, it is great to have an infusion of new
    people, and it brings a lot of new attention to it. However, we
    do have to understand that we have to learn the issues, and you
    have governments that change. The South African position is
    going to be very much different. And here we will come out and
    say, let me cut you guys off because this sounds good, and you
    shouldn't have done what you did 3 years ago.
        So a lot of this really does not make sense. You take
    Turkey. A year or 2 ago, Turkey allowed the flotilla to go into
    Gaza, and nine people were killed, and it was a big thing. This
    year Turkey destroyed one boat and stopped the other from going
    to Gaza to have the flotilla. Now we would tell Turkey, you are
    out. Let us take you out. You know, the world moves in a way
    that can't be done in, like, 24 hours or 48 hours. Turkey has
    told Syria, stop the killing. And they are now saying that we
    don't want you to keep having refugees come into our country.
    So Turkey is on the list. So this is really going totally in
    the wrong direction.
        I think that we need to rethink things that we do. There
    are things that Mr. Smith mentioned that happened in the U.N.
    that--this current administration that he opposes and some of
    the countries support Mr. Smith's position. I certainly had a
    different position of going to war with Iraq because it was--
    because Saddam Hussein had supposedly done 9/11, and then they
    changed it and said, no, no weapons of mass destruction, it
    wasn't there, but we went in anyway. It was Osama bin Laden,
    and he is out in Afghanistan somewhere then, and then end up in
    Pakistan.
        So I was in support of some of the countries who voted
    against us going into Iraq because I didn't think that there
    was--the reason that was put forward for us to go into Iraq was
    correct at the time. I think to question Mr. Berman and Mr.
    Ackerman's position on Israel is like somebody questioning my
    position on the NAACP. I mean, it really makes no sense at all
    that they have to be thrown into some mix which makes no sense
    at all.
        So I think that this is another ill-conceived notion. I
    think that people really mean well. I remember when I was a
    freshman, I meant well, too, and stepped in it a bunch of
    times. It is a part of maturing and growing, especially on
    something like Foreign Affairs, which is extremely, extremely--
    as a matter of fact, President Bush, $50 billion. I remember
    when my friends from the other side almost fell off their seat,
    and we are going to stop the program that people all around the
    world are saying that President Bush was a great guy.
        One last thing. I would like to ask the chairlady that on
    the vote on the food amendment, there was a mistake.
    Congressman Meeks----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired,
    and I have a little sheet when this is over about that. Thank
    you so much.
        Mr. Mack is recognized.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do--this debate is,
    I think, quite telling about where we are headed and how we all
    look at the world. On one side you have apparently a side that
    just can't say no. And if you have in any relationship, whether
    it is with family or with--in business, in your friendships, if
    you can't stand for something, you stand for nothing. So you
    have to be--you have to--people have to know what it is you
    stand for.
        You know, leadership isn't continued--just continue to
    spend more money. Leadership is recognizing--having strength in
    one's character, recognizing what it is that you are trying to
    accomplish, and standing by your principles. If we started to
    stand by our principles, the rest of the world would recognize
    that we are leading again. They would recognize that we can
    look to the United States and that that friendship matters.
        Right now there are a lot of--there are a lot of countries
    who just as soon take advantage of us because there are no
    consequences. You can't do that in--every relationship has
    consequences. You can't just be afraid to not spend money or to
    send money to, in this case, a government when the government
    doesn't support anything that we are doing.
        I mean, I think people back home, they are going to boil it
    down this way. On one side all they are hearing is that we need
    to continue to fund everything and have no kind of barometer or
    standard or measure of where that money goes. But just keep
    spending money, because if you don't, we are going to send a
    bad message. And I think what you are hearing over here is we
    want to support our friends, we want to support our allies, we
    want to reward people who believe in the same things we believe
    in, but we can't continue to just spend money with countries,
    governments that don't have the same desires as we do.
        With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from--Mr.
    Rivera.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rivera.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much for yielding.
        With respect to the comments about where American citizens
    were shot down by the Castro government, once again folks are
    entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And the
    fact of the matter is that not only our own FAA, the Coast
    Guard, satellite evidence, the International Civil Aviation
    Organization all brought forward evidence, facts that those
    four Americans were murdered over international airspace.
        But besides all of that, we have the actual murderer
    confessing it. I have a videotape of Raul Castro on camera
    saying he ordered the murder of the four Americans in
    international airspace because he wanted to hide--they didn't
    want evidence of the body part--of the plane, parts from the
    plane over Cuban territory on videotape. And I will get that
    videotape to anyone who wants it, the actual murderer admitting
    he ordered the shootdown and the murder of four Americans.
        Besides all of that, our own Justice Department indicted
    the MIG pilots, MIG fighter pilots, fighter airplanes shooting
    down two Cessnas, unarmed, with American citizens, civilians
    over international airspace. They were indicted by our
    Government for murder. And the reason they were able to be
    indicted was because of the evidence, the facts, data,
    satellite imagery, eyewitness from people that were on cruise
    ships in the Caribbean that saw the shootdown.
        So it is amazing to me that anyone would even try to
    rationalize anybody being murdered in a civilian aircraft. But
    let us stick to the facts. They were murdered over
    international airspace by a terrorist government. And I have a
    videotape--some people may have seen it already on this
    committee--of Raul Castro admitting, saying very proudly that
    he ordered the pilots to shoot them down----
        Ms. Bass. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rivera [continuing]. In international airspace.
        Certainly.
        Ms. Bass. We provide no money, no foreign aid to Cuba, and
    we were talking about an amendment. So I am just a little
    confused about----
        Mr. Mack. Reclaiming my time on this.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Mack's time.
        Mr. Mack. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for
    his comments and just again remind this committee that from our
    friends on the other side, you tell us don't do it--don't cut
    in a blanket way, specifically name the countries that you want
    to do. Then we put forward an amendment to specifically name
    countries, and you say, no, don't do that, you are going after
    a few. So you have got to come up with--you have got to come up
    with some standards. You have got to come up with what it is
    that you really stand for and not just to say no.
        We will continue over here to offer ideas to set a path for
    this Congress on the values that we stand for, the idea of
    freedom, the idea of security, the idea of prosperity. We are
    going to continue to fight for those principles, even though
    you are going to say no to this one or no to that one, or now
    is not the right time, or maybe tomorrow would be better, or
    maybe if you wrote it a little this way or maybe a little bit
    that way. But right now you have argued out of both sides, and
    you haven't had a clear--I mean, I don't think--you are sure
    what it is that you are trying to accomplish other than to
    stand up and say that amendment wasn't written right. And then
    when we are done with that one, and there is another one
    written the way that you just said it should be written, that
    one is not written right.
        I mean, at some point maybe figure out what it is you think
    the foreign policy should be, and let us have a real debate.
    But right now we are going to continue to move with those
    ideals, freedom, security and prosperity.
        With that I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        I have Mr. Meeks, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Keating and Mr.
    Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Meeks. Let me go back to what I said earlier, what
    Henry Hyde said in here. Massively engaging the world while
    living on an autonomous island in the global sea breeds
    arrogance and self-delusion. And that is where we are headed
    here. We are self-delusioning ourselves to think that if
    somebody disagrees with us, that our principles are the only
    principles that are right.
        I love this country. This is the greatest country on the
    planet, the greatest country this planet has ever seen, but
    this country is not always right. It hasn't always been right.
    And we should not be going after someone else when we look at
    them and they may not be right.
        We have had the ability to change. Others have had the
    ability to change. This country was not right when we enslaved
    individuals. This country was not right when we put indigenous
    on reservations and the Trail of Tears. This country was not
    right when we had Jim Crow. This country was not right when
    there was Plessy v. Ferguson and separate but equal. This
    country was not right when we called Nelson Mandela a
    terrorist. This country was not right when we continued to
    allow apartheid to go on in South Africa, the last one to join
    on board. This country was not right when we were late getting
    in to stop the Holocaust. This country was not right when we
    supported dictators in our hemisphere when it was convenient.
    And this country was not right when we went into Iraq under the
    alleged guise of weapons of mass destruction, and there were no
    weapons of mass destruction.
        So we have got to make sure we have a standard of
    understanding and working collectively together and
    understanding that we can't just say that we--it is our way or
    the highway. We have got to make sure that--otherwise we will
    be the individuals that are stuck on an island thinking that
    the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean can protect us. Those
    oceans can no longer protect us. We are in a different world.
    And if we are not cooperating with folks, if we are not working
    with folks and working with the United Nations, we are
    imperiling ourselves and making us--and isolating ourselves on
    an island by ourselves, and that indeed could be our own
    destruction.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Does the gentleman yield back?
        Mr. Meeks. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Gallegly. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. Mr. Gallegly is recognized.
        Mr. Gallegly. I move the previous question. Point of order,
    Madam Chairman. You had previously recognized additional
    speakers before this motion.
        Mr. Berman. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Is this a debatable motion? I want to repeat
    what--I do think you recognized the following individuals in
    the following order, and then recognized Mr. Gallegly ahead of
    you, and I have got to say the day we start moving the previous
    question is the day I object to the waiving of reading of the
    amendments. We add amendments----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gallegly, we will----
        Mr. Berman. It is a very big mistake for you to offer that
    motion.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Mr. Berman. I just want you to understand that.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Gallegly, if I may, it is my
    fault, and we will do that at the proper time.
        Mr. Deutch, Mr. Keating and Mr. Faleomavaega are the people
    who are seeking recognition--yes, sir.
        Mr. Gallegly. I ask that I be added to the list.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. Absolutely, sir. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Deutch is recognized.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Madam Chairman, I am tired of being told that the folks on
    our side don't have principles, that we don't stand for
    anything, all we are doing is opposing anything that comes
    forward. Let me be very clear about my principles as it relates
    to foreign aid. My principles are that it is in this Nation's
    best interest to spend considerably less than 1 percent of our
    Federal budget, considerably less, on the type of bilateral
    economic assistance that this amendment speaks to. And I think
    it is high time that we disabuse ourselves of this notion that
    what we are talking about is the cutting of checks to
    governments that we don't agree with. That is not how we do
    foreign aid in America.
        The bilateral assistance, I would encourage everyone to
    flip through the 35 pages in the Secretary of State's foreign
    operations description of bilateral economic assistance. And I
    would suggest that as we look to these countries that we
    disagree with, that we bear in mind that ultimately what we are
    trying to do is move their position, is to change their
    position, and I would suggest that this is not, we are not
    offering candy to these countries. We are offering $846 million
    for maternal health and child health programs because every
    year in the developing world, 358,000 mothers die from
    complications related to pregnancy and childbirth; and $691
    million for malaria programs because 800,000 people every year
    die of malaria, and 250 million people are infected. And we can
    go through on and on through the fight against global HIV/AIDS
    epidemic, $150 million for nutrition, $236 million to fight
    tuberculosis.
        I would go back to the point raised earlier comparing the
    world to a neighborhood and what we do in our neighborhood if
    someone didn't cut the yard. I would respectfully suggest that
    if any of us lived in a neighborhood where there was a malaria
    outbreak, it wouldn't matter how much we despised the people
    who contract malaria, if we sit back and do nothing, then it
    could well spread to our friends in our neighborhood and to us.
    That is what foreign aid is.
        The money that we spend on foreign aid isn't a gift and it
    is in our self interest. It is in our self interest to promote
    freedom and to promote security and to promote prosperity. And
    we do it by making investments to prevent people from dying, to
    help people gain education, to help countries deal with
    disasters, even countries that we don't agree with. And we do
    all of this with dramatically, dramatically less than 1 percent
    of our Federal budget.
        There are countries who benefit from the dollars that we
    spend, that have been the topic of conversation, $5 million, to
    help strengthen and support Venezuelan civil society. We spoke
    earlier of $20 million to support humanitarian assistance for
    prisoners of conscience in Cuba. We could go on and on, and the
    dollars that we spend in places where we despise the
    government, and not just because of their votes at the U.N.,
    but we make these investments because ultimately it is in our
    own interest. It is about American values. That is why we have
    foreign aid.
        We don't write checks to governments. We support efforts to
    save lives, to promote democracy, to promote freedom, all of
    the things that every member on this committee supports.
        So I am not sure if we went through the list, the list of
    all the countries who receive this bilateral economic
    assistance. I am not sure if we went through this list, which
    countries that we dislike the most receive the aid to do the
    things that we all believe need to be done the most, but I know
    ultimately that it is in our Nation's best interest. I will
    yield for a question.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Where does the money come from, sir? Where
    does the money come from?
        Mr. Deutch. Reclaiming my time.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Not one time have you mentioned in all of
    your high ideals that you have outlined that we are spending
    taxpayer's dollars.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch's time. We have 15
    seconds.
        Mr. Deutch. And I will conclude with this. I know exactly
    where the dollars come from. And it is a worthy investment of
    our Nation's tax dollars to promote freedom, to promote
    democracy, and to do it in a way that simultaneously saves
    lives, improves lives for people in countries that we respect
    and support and even in those countries that we want to change.
    That is how we accomplish it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
        The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Keating is recognized.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I yield my time to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Connolly.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I thank my
    colleague.
        I wanted to respond to a few things that have been said. I
    marveled, frankly, at some of the comments made by Mr. Pence,
    our friend the Indiana. He used the word ``enemy'' in
    describing how people vote at the United Nations, and then took
    umbrage at the description of the Republican approach as
    binary.
        Mr. Pence. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. No, sir, I will not I will give you the same
    courtesy you gave my colleague. So----
        Mr. Pence. I think I gave your colleague plenty of
    courtesy.
        Mr. Connolly. No, sir, you did not.
        Mr. Pence. The gentleman is misstating my statement on the
    record. Madam Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to
    have my record read.
        Mr. Keating. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating has the time. And he
    gave it to Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        So you described the world as enemies or friends; that is a
    binary world. And it is a very simplistic view.
        Mr. Pence. Gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. It is one that does not serve U.S. interest,
    Madam Chairman. And that was the point that was being made.
        And to Mr. Rohrabacher's credit, he confirmed it. He said,
    yes, that is our world view. We do see the world in black and
    white. And what is wrong with that? He even said, I leave it to
    the taxpayers to decide which world view they want to support.
    That was an honest statement, and I thank the gentleman for
    making it. I happen to disagree with him.
        I happen to believe actually, upon reflection, most
    Americans will not accept that simplistic view of the world,
    but fair enough that you assert it.
        Mr. Ackerman referred to this bill as tantamount to being a
    bully. Teddy Roosevelt talked about; speak softly but carry a
    big stick. But he also went on to say, hopefully, don't need to
    use that stick very often, nor should you.
        This amendment is nothing but stick. And I use the word
    ``crude'' not so much to apply to the amendment as to the tool
    it creates. If you vote against us, you are our enemy, and we
    are going to punish you. That is the action of a schoolyard
    bully. It is not the action of a mature great power.
        And in my view, it will backfire. Mr. Mack indicated that
    this was leadership; this is how you affect leadership. Not in
    my experience. You are going to get people's backs up. You are
    actually going to hurt U.S. influence and the ability to engage
    and persuade with this kind of crude tool. And that is why I
    think it is unwise. I don't know what the motivation is. In
    some ways it is irrelevant. Its effect will be very damaging to
    U.S. interests and U.S. foreign policy. And that is why I
    oppose it.
        With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back my time to Mr.
    Keating.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating has the time.
        Mr. Keating. Madam chairman, I yield back the remaining
    portion of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, sir.
        Mr. Faleomavaega--I am sorry, I didn't--I had not seen that
    you wanted recognition. So we are going to take turns.
        Mr. Chabot is recognized. Then Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Chabot. I yield my time to the gentleman from Indiana.
        Mr. Pence. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I thank
    him for the courtesy.
        And I won't take the whole 5 minutes, Madam Chairman.
        I just wanted to correct the gentleman from Virginia, who,
    to his benefit, misstated and mischaracterized my statement
    before the committee. I am happy to have the record read back.
    I did not say the world was divided between our friends and our
    enemies.
        I believe the record will reflect that I said that we have
    friends, and we have--I think I used the term, we have
    countries that are not our allies; we have countries that
    oppose us; and we even have enemies in the world.
        Now that didn't strike me as a binary world view.
        And let me just say that, the gentleman from Virginia knows
    that I respect his passion. I don't respect the way he has
    treated my freshman colleague in his thoughtful legislation,
    but I respect him personally.
        And I just, my view of this, as someone that supports
    foreign aid--and I thought Mr. Deutsch's remarks were very well
    taken. I believe the record of this committee will reflect I
    was one of the strongest advocates of the PEPFAR program. I
    worked very closely with the former chairman of this committee
    to ensure a thoughtful bipartisan accomplishment during the
    last administration and during the last Congress to ensure that
    that extraordinary commitment to arrest the crisis of AIDS in
    Africa was met with the resources and the compassion of the
    American people.
        I believe in foreign aid. I just think, I think when you
    look at the type of recorded votes that this amendment
    addresses and you recognize the substantial portion of those
    votes are actually votes that have been taken against what I
    think is our most cherished ally, Israel, then there ought to
    be some consequences to that. What you subsidize, you get more
    of. And I think the gentleman's amendment is an attempt to
    simply say, let us not subsidize those that are more than half
    of the time voting against consistently against the United
    States and our ally, Israel and other interests.
        And that is it. I am not advocating a binary view of the
    world. I don't see the world in black and white. I am from
    south of Highway 40. I know the stereotypes. I know if you are
    conservative, you know, the liberal political class thinks you
    are either evil or stupid. I get accused of being both. I have
    a much more nuanced view of the world, and my colleagues on the
    committee who have known me for a few years know that. And I
    just I want to rise in strong support of this amendment.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman from Ohio yield?
        Mr. Chabot. It is my time, and I have several colleagues
    over here.
        Mr. Pence. I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Just one quick point, with all the
    discussion here this evening, I don't want to lose track of
    what this amendment is, and that is basically those countries
    that vote against us time and time again at the U.N. ought not
    to be getting assistance from the United States. The tax
    dollars shouldn't go to countries that oppose us over and over
    and over again at the U.N.
        It seems eminently sensible to me, and I will yield to the
    gentleman from California.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And that, of course, has been labeled as
    bullying. You are bullying someone if you say I am not going to
    give up my scarce resources that I could spend on my family or
    help other people who are in need overseas who are our friends;
    we are not going to give it to people who don't like us and
    vote against us in the United Nations.
        I needed to clarify my words as well because I believe that
    my position was also mischaracterized, although it sounds good
    to say that we are all a bunch of simpletons over here and
    believe in bullying.
        But let me note, you can believe that there is black and
    white in the world without having to believe that everything is
    black and white. And there are lots of nuances in the world.
    And the same mistake that you are making in analyzing Mr.
    Pence, you made in analyzing Mr. Rohrabacher. The fact is there
    are some people who are evil in this world, there are people
    who are very good in this world, and there are in-betweens.
        Black and white does exist. And I don't mind at all saying
    America should not be on the side and try our very best to be
    in the light rather than in the darkness with those people who
    stand for the good things that we believe in as a people,
    rather than those governments that are controlled by bullies
    and by sadistic gangsters, and just not because we are not
    going to give money to their governments doesn't mean that we
    are bullying the gangster.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Chabot. I would like to yield, but I am out of time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega is now recognized.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for introducing
    this legislation. I think it has merit. But there are some
    questions, and I want to share with the gentleman. I note with
    interest that you had mentioned four of those countries that
    probably vote the most with us in the United Nations, and they
    are the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the
    Marshall Islands the Republic of Palau and Australia.
        I note with interest if my good friend would also note
    that, yes, we ought to look at some--very suspicious of those
    who don't support us, but then even those who are very
    supportive of us in the United Nations, we have not honored our
    obligations.
        And let me just share this one instance with my good
    friend. We conducted 67 nuclear testings in the Republic of the
    Marshall Islands. We exploded the first hydrogen bomb in the
    Marshall Islands. And as a result of these testings, some 400
    Marshallese were subjected to very serious nuclear radiation.
    And I say to my good friend from South Carolina, to this day,
    our government has not honored not only giving proper medical
    treatment to these Marshallese people. To this day, they are
    still struggling and wanting to figure, when is my government
    going to honor those commitments in taking care of these people
    whom, frankly, destroyed their lives, their properties, their
    islands, simply because of what we did in the time that we
    conducted these nuclear tests?
        I might also add the fact it is very interesting that the
    reason why we stopped testing in the Marshall Islands, it
    wasn't because we wanted to desist from testing, it is because
    they found strontium-90 in milk products coming out of
    Wisconsin and Minnesota when this nuclear cloud went all the
    way from the Marshall Islands up to the continental United
    States.
        So I just wanted to share that little bit of history with
    my friend from South Carolina. It is good that we look at
    people who don't support us, but even those who are very
    supportive of us, we have not honored these commitments to
    these people.
        And I will yield to my good friend from New York.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. I thank the gentleman very much.
        I just wanted to respond to my good friend, Mr. Pence, and
    agree with him and add my fond recollection of the time that we
    shared the leadership of the Subcommittee on the Middle East
    and worked so closely together.
        We on this side surely do not question the intelligence or
    the evilness of our friends on the other side. We do question
    your judgment on some of the legislation that you have
    supported.
        We find it rather shocking when you question our devotion
    to liberty and our patriotism because that is your program and
    imply that it is your exclusive province.
        Let's start with that as a baseline. My good friend from
    Indiana cited Israel. And I don't want to put Israel in the
    middle of this debate because they don't deserve that. But
    certainly he is right in that a great number of the votes taken
    at the United Nations are anti-Israel, and sometimes there are
    some countries that aren't really anti-Israel but have to vote
    that way because of their circumstances.
        I think that if your intent is to look at what Israel would
    do on this vote, citing them as evidence, I think you might
    best be served by talking to the Israelis.
        I would suspect, and I have not consulted them on this, but
    I would strongly suspect that they would be absolutely aghast,
    aghast if we stopped our assistance to Jordan, which has the
    longest border with Israel and usually has their back, and even
    our aid to Egypt, who has a good part of the other border. That
    would be a disaster in my view. Check with them to see what
    theirs is. I don't think it is much different.
        Those are countries that don't vote with us 50 percent of
    the time and are very, very important to our interests and to
    what you cite as a motivation for some of your support for the
    measure, Israel's interest.
        Again, we really have to think about the consequences of
    what we are doing here and to whom the damage is done. It is
    certainly not in our American interest.
        And Madam Chair, if you would note my time has expired.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am so sorry. I am kvetching here
    with Mr. Berman. I apologize. Thank you.
        And now Mr. Gallegly is recognized--no. Definitely not.
    With him. With him.
        Mr. Gallegly, you have a brilliant motion I think.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        We have had a lot of debate on this issue in the past 2
    hours plus, and I would respectfully request that we move the
    previous question.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        I don't think that is open for debate so a recorded vote
    has been requested.
        The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
        Mr. Smith?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Burton. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes aye.
        Mr. Gallegly?
        Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo?
        Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
        Mr. Royce?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot?
        Mr. Chabot. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
        Mr. Paul?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
        Mr. Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack?
        Mr. Mack. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
        Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
        Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Poe?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Ms. Schmidt?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
        Mr. Rivera?
        Mr. Rivera. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
        Mr. Kelly?
        Mr. Kelly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
        Mr. Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Mr. Marino?
        Mr. Marino. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
        Mr. Duncan?
        Mr. Duncan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
        Ms. Buerkle?
        Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
        Ms. Ellmers?
        Mrs. Ellmers. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
        Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
        Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega votes no.
        Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Mr. Sherman?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
        Mr. Carnahan?
        Mr. Carnahan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
        Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
        Mr. Deutch?
        Mr. Deutch. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
        Mr. Cardoza?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins?
        Mr. Higgins. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
        Ms. Schwartz?
        Ms. Schwartz. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
        Mr. Murphy?
        Mr. Murphy. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson of Florida. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Wilson votes no.
        Ms. Bass?
        Ms. Bass. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
        Mr. Keating?
        Mr. Keating. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
        Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. I vote yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Engel?
        Mr. Engle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engle votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Royce.
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. McCaul?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul is recorded as aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 22 ayes
    and 18 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Speaker.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair recognizes herself for a
    clarification on a previous vote. It has come to my attention
    that Mr. Meeks was not reported by all the staff at the clerk's
    table as having voted on the recent--well it was recent at the
    time I wrote this--at the recent amendment by Mr. Payne. So,
    without objection, Mr. Meeks' vote, which does not affect the
    outcome of that amendment, shall be recorded as aye.
        Thank you to the clerks. And before recognizing Mr. Berman
    to offer an amendment, I recognize him for a unanimous consent
    request regarding the agreed text that we worked out on his
    previous prior amendment.
        Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, I seek unanimous consent that
    the amendment----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
        Mr. Berman. That was previously offered and then withdrawn
    in order to revise and based on the agreement reached be
    considered as adopted by unanimous consent.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection and in order to
    refresh everyone's mind----
        Mr. Berman. That was the repeal of the global gag rule. No.
    No.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Now you are being stupidly evil. So
    binary.
        Mr. Berman. And everything is black and white.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. So Mr. Berman is recognized for an
    amendment.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you if I
    could use my position as ranking member before I offer the
    amendment to take about 2 minutes to review the bidding.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Berman is recognized. Don't let the clock start,
    please.
        Mr. Berman. We spent a very long time on an amendment just
    now. The gentleman from California, my good friend, moved the
    previous question. I am not aware of whether there were
    speakers who sought to have recognition so I am not going to
    operate that that motion was made and thereby shut off people
    who wanted to speak on a very, very large and important
    amendment that was, this was not $1.5 million. This was a very
    different kind of an amendment.
        We did not see this title, which is taking so much time and
    will continue to take time, until Saturday night. If the
    majority is going to use its authority to close off debate when
    there are still members who are wanting to speak, not to stall
    or delay but simply on an important issue to express heartfelt
    views, then the minority is going to have to use the privileges
    at its disposal under the rules to retaliate. I hate getting
    into that kind of game. I think it is not productive.
        I had hoped last week, I met with my own Democrats in the
    caucus, I hoped we could work things out where we will have
    some issues we will agree on, and in the base text, we could
    work out some number of amendments and have a very quick
    markup. That was not to be the case. So be it. So all I want to
    say is I ask the chair and the members of the majority not to
    use that tactic again because the next time, we will then as
    fast as we dispose of amendments, we will think of amendments.
        Right now, we hear that there are approximately 30
    amendments proposed on our side, 35 on the majority side. My
    guess is in a spirit of trying to work things out, get
    reasonable times, and I have to say, allow the chair to finish
    this markup certainly before we leave here this week because
    she needs to and tomorrow, in fact, we are open to negotiating
    time limits, try to get understandings about how many of the
    amendments people are planning to offer can be dropped, or
    dealt with en bloc, look for all kinds of ways to accelerate
    this.
        So two things I would ask is, one, no more motions to close
    debate when there are people who want to speak, and secondly,
    that we think about a time we are going to recess tonight in
    order to come back tomorrow morning and finish up.
        I say this in the spirit of not wanting to take--we are not
    going to, in the end, you are going to get your bill out of
    this committee.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would yield
    whenever?
        Mr. Berman. I certainly will yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is the intention of the Chair if
    we can get an agreement that we complete consideration of title
    IV tonight to adjourn until 9 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, at which
    point we would resume consideration of title V. Would that be
    agreeable to everyone?
        Mr. Ackerman. If we could roll votes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If we can roll votes.
        Mr. Manzullo. Yes, let's roll the votes now.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Then shall I make that as a motion?
    What is the proper mumbo jumbo?
        I ask unanimous consent that we complete consideration of
    title IV tonight, debate and voice vote--is that a problem? We
    will roll the votes until tomorrow, and we will adjourn until 9
    o'clock a.m. tomorrow, at which point we would then vote on the
    amendments that we have debated and resume consideration with
    title V.
        And what is the proper mumbo jumbo? That was unanimous
    consent?
        Mr. Berman. Can I make a suggestion of adding something
    that will expedite the process----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. And work out time agreements on the remaining
    amendments----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Perfect.
        Mr. Berman. To titles V through XI.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Reserving the right to object, Mrs.
    Schmidt.
        Why don't you get on the microphone so we can all hear you.
        Mrs. Schmidt. I may have to object, depending on what time
    we are going to roll those votes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do you have a marathon?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No, I have a committee that I am chairing at
    10 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, so I would hate to miss votes. So can
    we roll the votes tonight until tomorrow morning at 9?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Tomorrow morning at 9, would that--
    is that good?
        Mr. Gallegly. Roll the votes at 9 o'clock.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 9 a.m. manana. Yippee, yippee,
    yippee. So without objection?
        Mr. Connolly. I have to object to 9 o'clock. I have got
    another commitment. I can be here shortly after that, but I
    can't be here at 9. And I don't want to miss votes; 9:15 would
    work.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 9:15. Yes. Who would like to be--I
    would like to recognize, Mr. Gallegly is recognized.
        Mr. Gallegly. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to my good
    friend and neighbor from California on the motion to move the
    previous question. And I understand and respect that. I
    personally thought that all the speakers that were in the queue
    had been asked. I would not have done that had I not. And as
    soon as I found that out I believe the gentleman would concede
    that I immediately withdrew and asked that I be placed in the
    queue for the purpose of making that motion. I have never ever
    tried to circumvent the process.
        However, I think that there was, in my opinion, adequate
    debate, particularly since there was no one else asking for,
    and I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman is correct.
        So without objection, has that motion been agreed to? So we
    will reconvene tomorrow. The time was 9:15.
        Oh, Mr. Pence.
        Mr. Pence. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object,
    if by tomorrow morning, the committee could clarify the meaning
    of the term ``mumbo jumbo'' for me. I have been here 11 years.
    I am not familiar with that in the rules, but I would withdraw.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, we will reconvene
    at 9:15 to have the votes.
        Mr. McCaul. Madam Chairman, how many votes will there be?
    Because I am managing a bill from 10 to 12 o'clock. How many
    votes are there going to be at 9:15?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Well, we are going to continue on to
    finish title IV. And I think maybe seven tops; three from Mr.
    Berman, two from Mr. Rohrabacher and two from Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Gallegly. Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir. Wait let me see, Mr.
    McCaul, are you done?
        Mr. McCaul. 9 o'clock. Would you object to 9 o'clock?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is not good for Mr. Connolly. I
    have got a dentist appointment. I have to floss--no, I am
    kidding.
        Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. One other suggestion I think would help the
    members, would also help expedite the process and be fair to
    everyone is if we have the vote at 9 o'clock or 9:15, whenever
    we agree on, but then we would do debate and schedule the next
    round for 12 o'clock or 12:30----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely, we would do that. Yes,
    sir.
        Mr. Gallegly. So we could flush the votes at that point and
    anyone who was concerned about being a part of the debate----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will consult the House schedule.
        Mr. Gallegly. [continuing]. Can physically be here and that
    may move things along.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will certainly try for that,
    depending on the House schedule and then--hold on, let me go to
    Mr. Ackerman and then Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Ackerman. I think you might want to alert the members
    that those who intend to offer those amendments on those
    sections have to be here to be in the queue, otherwise, they
    would lose the opportunity to make them.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I so agree.
        Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Excellent suggestion.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Just reserving the right to object, I would like
    to know, this is important. We will be debating the Mexico City
    Policy and if members are here, I think we can probably safely
    assume what the result will be. But if attendance were to
    result in the loss----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No we are going to----
        Mr. Smith. I am saying tomorrow, so I would ask my
    colleagues on the Republican side, and perhaps any friends on
    the Democrat side----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Let's not yell, yell, yell.
        Mr. Smith. So, please, assure us that you will be here
    because otherwise a vote in favor of abortion could occur.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is okay--oh, right now.
        Mr. Berman. Are you trying to fix the outcome?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly says yes, 9:15. Mr.
    Smith says yes; 9 o'clock? Mr. Connolly or----
        How about 8:30?
        Mrs. Schmidt. Madam Chair, if we are going to be voting, we
    are not going to be debating the votes, we are just going to be
    casting the votes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Voting. Voting. I will say call the
    roll, boom, and we will do it.
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, I just point out both Mrs.
    Schmidt and I agreed 9:15 would work.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. 9:15. We have got a deal.
        Mrs. Schmidt. But we start at 9:15.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We are very confident we can be
    done, if people would be here at 9, we will have the glazed
    doughnuts, 9:15 we start rolling, and Mr. Berman is recognized
    because that motion has been adopted.
        All right. Mr. Berman.
        And Mr. Berman, if I could, I keep yapping, I am sorry, the
    floor tomorrow will have votes from starting at 2:15. Does that
    mean that we can have a hearing until that vote? We don't have
    to break until then. And I will shut up. Mr. Berman is actually
    recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. Berman. Amendment 036.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman, would you mind repeating the
    number please?
        Mr. Berman. Zero--no. No. It wasn't that one.
        I have got a lot of papers. It is amendment 613.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, while they are looking for
    the paperwork, I would make a----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me just 1 second.
        Let me just make sure that they start distributing the
    amendment. And is it proper for me while the amendment is
    brought up to recognize someone else?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Just a point of personal privilege.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Very quickly, I want to remind those
    members who are leaving that I have two amendments, one would
    eliminate all aid to Pakistan. Another would eliminate all aid
    to Iraq. They might be important enough for your interest. I
    just want to make sure you knew it was going to be on tonight.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        And the amendment of Mr. Berman is being distributed.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, I just, before I speak to my
    amendment, I just point out that since we just passed an
    amendment to knock out all aid to countries that didn't vote
    with us 50 percent of the time, we have already eliminated all
    aid to Pakistan and Iraq. As well as----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And now the----
        Mr. Berman. How many times do you want to do it?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Can the clerk report the amendment?
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman.
    Strike section 412----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And hold on 1 second because I want
    to give Mr. Berman the attention that he deserves.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Berman. I hope I get better than that.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. There was just a question
    about maybe if everyone is here before 9:15, we could start a
    little bit on the roll call votes without having anyone skip
    because of that, if everyone happens to be at Dunkin Donuts
    right here next to us in the side room, some people were
    wondering if we can start the roll call votes before 9:15 if
    there is a whole lot. They have already left. So sorry. My job
    was to relay that, votes begin at 9:15.
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, this amendment would strike
    section 412 of the bill, which reinstates and, by the way and
    very importantly, expands the Mexico City Policy or the global
    gag rule as it is appropriately known.
        Madam Chairman, I want to be clear. For almost four
    decades, U.S. law has prohibited the use of U.S. Government
    foreign assistance to fund abortion as a method of family
    planning. The language in the bill represents a cruel and
    harmful policy that prevents poor women and families around the
    world from gaining access to essential information and health
    care services.
        This provision is far more extreme than any policy that was
    implemented under the Executive Orders of President Reagan,
    Bush 41 or Bush 43. Why? Why does it go further? Because it not
    only prohibits family planning assistance to local health care
    providers in poor countries, it bars all forms of assistance to
    such organizations, including funding for HIV/AIDS, water and
    sanitation, child survival and education.
        Even President George Bush insisted on exempting HIV/AIDS
    assistance from the global gag rule restrictions.
        I do find, we all have very strong feelings on the
    fundamental issue that is raised by this language and by my
    amendment, but I find it very, very ironic that in the name of
    right to life, we would be cutting off funds that are saving
    tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives right now,
    because these organizations are giving the medications, the
    counseling and the education to the people who either are or
    very likely to be in a population that will be, could be
    inflicted with AIDS and HIV. Let's not make it more difficult
    for poor women to access quality care. Let's support programs
    that enable women and families to make decisions to ensure
    their health and the health of their families.
        The language in this bill is a dramatic expansion of
    restrictions previously in place.
        I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike
    this offensive and expanded global gag rule, and I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Could you reset the clock? Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Today most African and Latin American countries protect the
    lives of women and children from abortion. Indeed, prior to
    January 2009, the pro-life Mexico City Policy guaranteed that
    unborn children in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere
    not be put at risk of death by the nongovernmental
    organizations we fund. The U.S. funded family planning and did
    so robustly, but not those foreign nongovernmental
    organizations that perform or actively promote abortion.
        Every human life, Madam Chair, is precious and sacred and
    worthy of respect. No one--and I say again--no one is
    expendable. Thus family planning funds, and the NGOs that they
    empower, cannot be allowed to be the Trojan horse for the
    global abortion industry.
        Americans agree with our efforts to reinstate Mexico City
    Policy. Indeed, the Gallup Poll, by a margin of 2 to 1, 65 to
    35 percent say they oppose President Obama's Executive Order
    reversing the Mexico City Policy.
        Madam Chair, stripped of its many euphemisms, abortion is
    violence against children and often harms women emotionally,
    psychologically and physically. Abortion methods either
    dismember the fragile body of a baby to death or poison the
    infant, or chemically induce premature labor, leaving the
    immature child unable to cope with his or her new environment.
        The opponents of the Mexico City Policy love to denigrate
    the policy by dismissing it as the gag rule. Respectfully, we
    are talking about lobbying for abortions in foreign capitals,
    and we are also talking about gagging babies. Many of the
    poisons actually cause the child to suffocate and to die. So
    the real gagging that occurs actually occurs as a result of an
    abortion.
        The U.N. Millennium Development Goals, number 4, calls for
    reducing child mortality rates by two-thirds from 1990 levels.
    It is clear that numerous cost-effective interventions need to
    be expanded to save children's lives. These include treatment
    and prevention of disease as well as vaccinations, clean water,
    food and nutrition and oral rehydration, antibiotics and drugs
    to inhibit mother-to-child HIV transmission.
        Abortion, on the other hand, is by definition child
    mortality and it undermines the achievement of the fourth
    Millennium Development Goal. There is nothing benign or
    compassionate about procedures that dismember, poison, induce
    premature labor or starve to death a child. RU-46 widely used
    by pro-abortion NGOs has two effects on the child. First the
    baby is starved; he or she cannot get nutrition inside the
    womb. And the second chemical induces labor, delivering what is
    usually a dead baby.
        Indeed, the misleading term ``safe abortion'' misses the
    point that no abortion, legal or illegal, is safe for the child
    and that all can be fraught with negative health consequences,
    including physical, emotional, and psychological damage to the
    mother.
        Talk of unwanted children reduces children to mere objects
    without inherent human dignity and whose worth depends on their
    perceived utility or how much they happen to be wanted. Let me
    just remind my colleagues that the studies, and there are mega
    analysis studies that show this, that there is a significant
    risk of psychological harm, major depression and elevated
    suicide risk to women who resort to abortion.
        The Times of London reported, and I quote them, senior
    psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link
    between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous
    history of psychological problems. They found that women who
    have had abortions have twice the level of psychological
    problems and three times the level of depression as women who
    have given birth or have never been pregnant; 102 studies have
    shown those kinds of outcomes, including elevated suicide risk.
        Abortion is also harmful to children born subsequently to
    women who have had an abortion. At least 113 studies show a
    significant association between abortion and subsequent
    premature births, including one study by Shah and Zhao, they
    found a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth and a
    staggering 93 percent after two abortions--36 was after one.
        What does that mean for the children? Preterm birth is the
    leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world
    after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk
    of suffering a myriad of problems from chronic lung disease,
    sensory deficits and cerebral palsy.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        The time has expired.
        Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I rise in strong support of Mr. Berman's amendment. I think
    the important point to begin with is that no taxpayer dollars
    since 1973 have been spent to provide or promote abortion
    services.
        And the global gag rule, the claim that has often be made
    in support of this, is that it will reduce the number of
    abortions. It does not. In fact, access to international family
    planning services is one of the most effective ways to reduce
    the need for abortions. It will lead to an increase in the
    number of unsafe abortions.
        In addition to that, family planning can also prevent
    maternal and child deaths, unintended pregnancies, unsafe
    abortions and, of course, the spread of HIV and AIDS and other
    sexually transmitted disease. The World Health Organization
    estimates that more than half a million women, more than one
    woman every minute, die each year from pregnancy or childbirth-
    related causes, and 99 percent of those women live in
    developing countries.
        There was a report done in 2004 that found that
    complications for pregnancy and childbirth are the leading
    cause of death for teenaged girls in the developing world. This
    gag rule would be unconstitutional if it were applied here in
    the United States. It forbids countries from engaging in
    activities that are legal in their own countries. Family
    planning providers that don't sign the global gag rule not only
    lose funds, they also lose donated contraceptives, including
    condoms, and the United States is responsible for 37 percent of
    all donated supplies of contraceptions. Clinics that are
    declined funding because of the gag rule cut services, close
    clinics and increase fees, making access to health care
    nonexistent for some women and more expensive for others.
        Mr. Berman's amendment will save the lives of countless
    women by ensuring they have access to quality reproductive
    health care, have important information about family planning
    and, in fact, will ultimately lead to a reduction in number of
    abortions.
        There will be an increase of unsafe abortion procedures if
    the global gag rule is put into place.
        I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Berman's
    amendment.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I oppose this amendment.
        First off, I do want to read section 412 because it is six,
    little lines. It says none of the funds authorized to be
    appropriated by this act or any amendment made by this act may
    be made available to foreign nongovernment organizations, that
    is, NGOs, that promote or perform abortion, except in the cases
    of rape or incest or when the life of the mother would be
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
        So Mr. Cicilline's concern that the life of the mother
    would not be recognized if there was an abortion that was
    needed has been handled in this amendment.
        And this isn't going to cut off foreign aid to countries,
    but to NGOs within the countries. And quite frankly, what I
    have been saying all night is this: The American public doesn't
    want us to give out foreign aid, period, case closed, as my
    wonderful father would say. But we have to consider foreign aid
    in a responsible way.
        Americans have also said time and time again, they don't
    want public dollars spent on abortion. When the President, in
    January 2009, lifted the Mexico City Policy, which is basically
    what we are talking about, the American public responded and
    overwhelmingly said they disagreed with the President.
        Now they didn't say they disagreed with abortion. They just
    disagreed with the Federal funding of abortion. But you know
    the latest poll in May of this year shows that the American
    public is even conflicted on abortion because, really, when you
    read this Gallup Poll, they are really pro-life. But in
    addition to whether you want to argue whether they are pro-life
    or they are not, they clearly don't want their tax dollars
    spent to fund abortions, either here or abroad. But let's go
    beyond that. You know there is----
        Mr. Cicilline. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Mrs. Schmidt. No, I will not. So exceptions for rape and
    incest are in here. So when we think, oh my gosh, what is going
    to happen to a mother that is in one of those situations?, that
    exception is there.
        We talk about family planning, and while we may have
    different views on family planning, I don't think any of us
    really want to say that the ending of the life of a child is
    part of family planning. And that is really what abortion is.
    It is not about terminating a fetus. It is about ending an
    innocent life.
        And we all know that.
        Now you might think that is okay, but that is really what
    abortion is all about.
        When we talk about maternal morbidity, it is not reduced
    because you take away--it is not increased because you take
    away the Mexico City Policy. In 1984, when Reagan really
    implemented the Mexico City Policy, maternal morbidity rates
    didn't go up. They actually stayed the same and in some cases
    have gone down, because we actually have the exception for the
    life of the mother if an abortion--if the child is causing the
    mother to have her life compromised. So the Mexico City Policy
    really does not increase morbidity. It doesn't increase the
    death rate for women.
        The final thing is that it really doesn't hurt the women,
    period, because when you ask a mother, whether they are
    starving here or they are starving abroad, what they want is
    clean water, food, shelter and clothing. They are not saying,
    give me an abortion. And so for NGOs that want to help women,
    we are saying, we will give you the money to help you. You can
    help women. You can get them a condom. You can get them
    contraceptives. But if you are going to also allow them to have
    an abortion, we are not going to give you the taxpayer dollars
    for any of it, because money is fungible. And the American
    public expects their taxpaying dollars to be used in the way
    that they believe is justifiable.
        And quite frankly, if you took a poll today, Madam Chair,
    people would be against foreign aid. So we have got to be
    careful about how we spend it. Because when I go back home and
    I have to argue why I am going to vote for this bill, I better
    be armed with the facts that I haven't misspent the public
    dollars and I haven't misspent their trust. And with that, I
    yield back the balance of my time and urge my folks to vote no
    on this amendment. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I want to say, I certainly can appreciate the sincerity
    on both sides of this debate. It is never an easy one. But
    there are several real troubling aspects of the text in the
    bill in front of us that make this different.
        For one thing, Mexico City has always been, the Mexico City
    Policy has always been an Executive Order started under Ronald
    Reagan. I worked here in the Capitol in the United States
    Senate in the Foreign Relations Committee when it was first
    adopted as an Executive Order of then-President Ronald Reagan.
    It was subsequently overturned with another Executive Order by
    President Clinton. Reinstated under the second President Bush
    in an Executive Order, and now, once again, overturned by this
    President, President Obama.
        What we are doing in the bill in front of us is changing
    that. We are codifying the Mexico City Policy in law, and that
    is crossing a threshold that I think is significant. Because it
    would preclude the free debate about this very difficult topic.
    And frankly, as our colleague from Ohio was sort of noting,
    public opinion, depending on what question you ask, can be very
    volatile on the subject and, frankly, can be even contradictory
    on the subject.
        Secondly, in codifying Mexico City, this bill would
    actually significantly broaden its reach and implications. It
    would silence organizations on providing abortion counseling,
    even with their own segregated private funds, and it would
    overturn a policy exception even George W. Bush, arguably the
    single most conservative pro-life President we have ever had,
    in his Executive Order regarding this policy, he said this
    policy shall not apply to foreign assistance, furnished
    pursuant to the United States leadership against HIV/AIDS,
    Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003.
        He understood that there were some other health issues that
    had to be carved out over and above the health and life of the
    mother. So that if an NGO was engaged in those activities, they
    got a carve out because he recognized, George W. Bush
    recognized how important, what a primacy, in terms of health
    policy had to be put on those activities. We are undoing that
    exception with this statutory language. So we are not just
    codifying his Executive Order, we are actually changing it and
    significantly restricting a woman's right to exercise control
    of her body and her choice.
        My colleague from Rhode Island rightfully pointed out the
    other side of the coin of those who would draw a dramatic
    picture about the exercise of abortion. And that other side of
    the coin is damage done to young lives by not having a choice,
    by not even being made aware of the choice because we put a gag
    rule on international NGOs if they wish to be the recipients of
    any U.S. money. And I think that is unfortunate. Frankly, I
    think it is un-American.
        We may not like the policy, but to gag it, to prohibit it,
    to again sequester any funding should you in fact dare to have
    an opinion different than ours I think does damage to U.S.
    interests. And I think more importantly, it actually affects
    lives, the lives of women all around the world.
        So while I respect both sides of this debate, I must
    support enthusiastically Mr. Berman's amendment. This language
    goes way too far and does way too much damage in codifying for
    the first time a policy that in my view was unwise to begin
    with.
        Mr. Smith. Would my friend yield?
        Mr. Connolly. I certainly will with 26 seconds.
        Mr. Smith. I think as the gentleman knows, since you worked
    here in the late 1990s, under the Clinton administration we
    codified a major portion of the Mexico City Policy. It was a
    compromise, but it did get codified in law. This is a 1-year
    proposal we have pending before us. So there is no precedent in
    the codification of the Mexico City Policy.
        Mr. Connolly. I have 1 second, and I gladly give it back to
    the chairman. It is just the kind of guy I am.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        So generous. I am overwhelmed. Mr. Fortenberry is
    recognized.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The hour is late, I am tired. All of you I am sure are
    tired as well, so it is a difficult moment to talk about such a
    serious issue. Because this issue has left a deep wound, I
    believe, in the soul of this country. To correct something that
    was suggested earlier, the number of abortions since its
    legalization has skyrocketed in this country. And since the
    widespread introduction of government involvement in providing
    contraception as well, the number of abortions has skyrocketed.
    So, so much for safe, legal, and rare.
        Let's just take a hard look at what this is. Abortion is so
    often the result of abandonment of someone in need. A woman
    left scarred, lonely, may turn to that as an option. And I just
    think that is a failure on the part of our society to be big
    enough and bold enough to say as a community that we love and
    care and will provide the resources enough to help get you
    through no matter how difficult.
        On top of that now, as official U.S. policy, we want to
    export this woundedness. It is a form of neocolonialization by
    the West of the worst aspects, the most divisive aspects of
    what has afflicted us as a people. But really, beyond that,
    what is at issue here is whether or not the taxpayers should
    pay for it, whether the taxpayer of the United States should be
    complicit in the act of abortion by providing money to
    organizations who are entangled with it. That is the core issue
    here.
        So I want to commend my colleague from New Jersey for
    suggesting that this language be put back in, that we move in a
    direction of hope and healing, that we conform our foreign
    affairs assistance to that which is life-affirming, that we do
    not undermine familial and tribal and cultural norms in other
    places with our own deep despair and woundedness because we
    have not resolved this in the right way in our own country.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Fortenberry.
        Ms. Schwartz is recognized.
        Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This is always a difficult issue, and I certainly want to
    give some allowance or understanding for the strength of
    feeling on the other side, not universal on the other side of
    the aisle, but strong feelings about this. But just as we have
    had this discussion about access to family planning and women's
    health services in this country, and the importance of
    understanding that as family planning services are a part of
    that women's health services, that to deny services to women
    here, the access to vital women's health services because of
    access to abortion in a separate way is coercive in its own
    way, and obviously something we feel very strongly about. And
    fortunately, the other side of the aisle was not successful
    here.
        But to do this same thing, to try and do the same thing
    internationally, particularly in countries that are much poorer
    and without access to health services really just compounds the
    issues, poverty, poor sanitation, scarcity of health services,
    scarcity of health professionals, distance, lack of
    transportation, you name it. It just makes it even that much
    more difficult for women to access the full range of women's
    health services that they want and they have a right to in
    their own countries. And I just want to give some statistics,
    because this is not just a small thing to say to women in these
    other countries that because some people in this country feel
    so strongly about abortion, we are going to deny women who we
    are giving aid to, to have access to the very vital health
    services that they need to be healthy, to be healthy mothers,
    and to be healthy in their own lives, and to be able to live
    full and fulfilling lives themselves.
        Every day, thousands of women die in pregnancy and
    childbirth. Out of 215 million women who want to delay or cease
    child bearing, one in six women of reproductive age are in need
    of effective contraceptive methods. That is what we are talking
    about, is access to family planning and contraceptive methods.
    AIDS is the leading cause of death among women of reproductive
    age. This is in many of the 150 countries that are served by
    this funding. We know that women who are served also get help
    in childbirth and clean birthing kits and the provision of
    midwives and skilled birthing attendants.
        The effectiveness of the family planning funding and the
    women's health programs that we have around the world have made
    such a difference in women's lives. And to deny them access is
    really going to have dramatic effect on, again, their ability
    to live full and active lives, the ability for them to be able
    to have healthy children, and to be strong and healthy mothers
    as well.
        So what we do through the family planning programs
    internationally is to help women to be able to be successful.
    And understand, too, some of these programs are provided in
    post-conflict and disaster situations. These same hospitals,
    the same providers may be providing a full range of services.
    But what we are talking about is providing money for family
    planning.
        To deny these funds, and I do support Mr. Berman's
    amendment in striking this language, is so important again for
    the health of women around the world in order for them to be
    able to make these decisions. To be able to strike this
    language will save women's lives. It will ensure healthier
    mothers, and healthier babies, and healthier families, and more
    successful women in these countries. And to deny them, to turn
    back the clock for women around the world, as has been the
    attempt to turn back the clock for women in this country, does
    not promote women's health or women's success or women's
    ability to be all they could be.
        I feel strongly about that for American women. I think we
    should not try and do the same thing. I am strongly against
    doing the same thing, to denying to access to family planning
    and critical women's health services through our aid programs
    around the world.
        With that, I actually do have a few seconds. You will take
    your own time. So I will yield my few seconds to Mr. Cicilline
    to add some words to my thoughts.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. And I thank the gentlelady for
    yielding.
        I just want to respond to the gentleman who raised the
    concern about taxpayer funding. Since at least 1973, no
    taxpayer dollars have been spent to provide or promote abortion
    services. That is the Helms amendment to the Foreign Operations
    Appropriations bill. Again, I think we have to be very clear
    about that: Nothing in this proposed amendment would provide
    funding to promote or provide abortion services. That remains
    unchanged. I disagree with that policy, but that remains
    unchanged. And I wanted to just respond to the gentleman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
        And thank you, Ms. Schwartz, for the time.
        Ms. Buerkle is recognized.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered
    by Mr. Berman.
        I am really uncertain as to where to start this discussion
    because I am so offended as a woman, a mother of six, a
    grandmother of soon to be 11, a registered nurse, and someone
    who has been involved in health care my entire adult life. The
    words I hear from the other side, it begins by calling it a
    global gag rule. Say it what it is. You want to fund abortion
    with taxpayer dollars. That is a much--you know, it is much
    more palatable when you can talk about a global gag rule.
        Ms. Schwartz, you talk about helping women be all they can
    be by paying for their abortions with American taxpayer
    dollars. That is an insult to women, to say that they cannot
    function and be all they can be without paying for abortions.
    This is--and it is late--this debate----
        Ms. Schwartz. Would the gentlewoman yield? This is about
    women having access to health services.
        Ms. Buerkle. I am sorry. I did not yield my time. This is
    not about whether or not we are in favor of abortion. This is
    about using taxpayer dollars for abortions. But we have got to
    tell the truth here. And referring to this as a global gag
    rule, talking about every day, thousands of women die from
    childbirth, one in six women is in need of contraception. If
    you read section 412, all it talks about is providing taxpayer
    money for abortions. It doesn't talk about HIV/AIDS. It doesn't
    talk about contraceptives. It doesn't talk about any of the
    other health issues that we are happy to provide funding for.
    This 412 talks about taxpayer dollars being used for abortions.
        And if we are going to have a debate about this issue and
    wiping out this section of this piece of legislation, then we
    have got to be honest. And we have got to be honest with the
    American people. You are proposing to use their tax dollars to
    fund abortions worldwide, to push this culture of pro-abortion,
    anti-life agenda throughout the world in countries where
    abortions may be illegal.
        We are still pushing this, as my colleague, Mr. Fortenberry
    said, this culture that we have embraced in this country, in
    countries where they have decided that all life is valuable,
    and it should be protected.
        So I rise in strong opposition to this. And I ask the other
    side to please be honest about what we are talking about here.
    Don't couch these terms in a language such as global gag rules.
    Talk about using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide.
    And we know, the polls show it clearly, the American people,
    whether they are for or against abortion, they do not want
    their tax dollars to be used for abortion.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Ms. Buerkle, may I have the rest of your
    time?
        Mr. Buerkle. You may. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. I would like to clarify something that Mr.
    Cicilline said. Yes, the Helms amendment, which has been
    reauthorized by Congress since its inception in 1973, prohibits
    the use of Federal tax funds for abortion as a method of family
    planning overseas. The Helms amendment is a good standard, but
    it should be made into permanent law. And the Mexico City
    Policy takes the necessary step. President Reagan realized that
    taxpayer money was supporting NGOs overseas that promoted and
    performed abortions as a part of family planning and issued a
    memo during a population conference in Mexico City to halt that
    practice. That is how the Mexico City Policy got its name, from
    Ronald Reagan.
        And it has been kept in place through the Presidency of
    George H. Bush, rescinded by Clinton in 1993, reinstated by
    George W. Bush in 2001, and was rescinded again by President
    Obama in 2009, which is why we want to codify it into law
    today. So all we are doing is taking what Reagan wanted to
    clarify with Helms and put it into law today.
        And as far as Mrs. Schwartz's concern with family planning,
    and I do agree that we do need to help these women overseas, as
    long as the NGOs aren't providing abortion or funneling these
    people to an abortion clinic, they can keep the money. But the
    minute they provide abortion or talk about giving these women
    access to abortion, the money is cut off. And that is not
    something that is just the will of this Congress, that is
    really the overwhelming will of the American people in this
    country. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt.
        And thank you, Ms. Buerkle, for your statement.
        Mr. Engel is recognized at this time.
        Mr. Engel. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This is a very sensitive issue. And I have friends on both
    sides of this issue. And I know the heartfelt feelings on both
    sides of this issue. This is something that I never point
    fingers at anybody, because things are very heartfelt. I know
    Mr. Smith and Mrs. Schmidt are two of my best friends here in
    Congress. And I know how heartfelt they feel about this.
        I would ask unanimous consent that my statement go into the
    record.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you.
        And I just want to read two paragraphs of what the effect
    of this rule is: In Zambia, the Family Life Movement of Zambia,
    which is a faith-based anti-abortion organization, was stymied
    in efforts to expand programs because the global gag rule
    disqualified Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia, a
    partner organization. The Family Life Movement of Zambia
    promotes abstinence among young people in Zambia and did not
    provide contraceptives of any kind.
        For those young people who were sexually active, the Family
    Life Movement of Zambia would refer them to the Planned
    Parenthood Association of Zambia, where they could receive
    information about condoms and other contraceptives.
        But the global gag rule has forced the Planned Parenthood
    Association of Zambia to close three of its nine rural outreach
    programs and cost them more than $100,000 worth of condoms and
    other contraceptives.
        I mean, I happen to believe, heartfelt my belief, that
    contraception leads to less abortions, not to more abortions. I
    respect people's religious views about it, but it seems to me
    that if you are providing people with family planning, they are
    less likely to want an abortion or need an abortion because
    they would not become pregnant.
        Let me read this second example. In Kenya, the Family
    Planning Association of Kenya, which did not provide abortion,
    had to cut its outreach staff in half, close three clinics that
    served 56,000 clients in traditionally underserved communities,
    and raise fees at the remaining clinics. One of the clinics
    that closed housed the unique well baby center, that provided
    comprehensive infant and postpartum care, making it easier for
    women to receive critical follow-up care. That well baby center
    is now lost to the community.
        So what I want to say to my colleagues is there are really
    two sides of a coin. Many of us who, frankly, struggle with
    this issue feel very strongly that people have a right to make
    a personal choice and that things should be available to women,
    particularly poor women, particularly women all around the
    world who don't have access to contraception, they should be
    allowed to be provided with the tools necessary to make these
    very personal decisions.
        And so I think that the global gag rule, and I don't mean
    any disrespect for my New York colleague, I think that that is
    not something that should be codified. I think that is
    something that is very important to have these women provided
    with the services.
        If you don't want them to have abortion services, surely
    there cannot be objection to contraception or to condoms or
    things that can prevent AIDS and disease. I think it is just
    putting our head in the sand and pretending that these problems
    don't exist. So, again, this is a very, very difficult issue,
    and I certainly respect everyone's views, but my view is that I
    will support the Berman amendment because I don't think that
    these restrictions ought to be put on these women.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel.
        Ms. Ellmers is recognized.
        Mrs. Ellmers. To my friend, Mr. Engel, your points, I
    understand where you are coming from, but you know, the point
    is that this particular section of this bill deals with
    abortion and abortion only. And I am going to read it: Section
    412, Preventing Taxpayer Funding of Foreign Organizations That
    Promote Or Perform Abortions. None of the funds authorized to
    be appropriated by this act, or any amendment made by this act,
    may be made available to any foreign nongovernmental
    organization that promotes or performs abortion, except in the
    cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother would be
    endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
        This is not talking about contraception. This is not
    talking about other forms of women's health issues. I am a
    nurse. I don't read that here. This has to do with abortion and
    abortion only.
        Mr. Engel. Would the gentlewoman yield?
        Mrs. Ellmers. I will yield at the end of my time--I don't
    believe the clock was started, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I am so sorry.
        Mrs. Ellmers. To the point of the feelings of the American
    people, when President Obama put back the provisions for
    funding for family planning--and let me clarify, family
    planning, which would include all of the things that you said--
    family planning providers may be at the least popular thing he
    has done so far. This was an Executive Order that forbade
    Federal Government money from going to overseas family planning
    groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling.
    Fifty-eight percent of Americans opposed it, 35 percent
    supported it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mrs. Ellmers.
        Thank you so much. The time has expired. I think that we
    might have messed up on the clock for you, because it doesn't
    seem like you were there for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Ellmers. No, I don't think so.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. May I ask unanimous consent that she
    be given 2 more minutes? Because I know that that wasn't 5.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you. My point, again, is very simple. I
    understand the position that my friends have on this issue.
        But this particular section of the bill has nothing to do
    with family planning other than the thought that abortion would
    be part of family planning. And this is against family
    planning. I completely and totally am against this amendment
    put forward by Mr. Berman. And if I do have time left, I would
    like to yield to my colleague from Ohio.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
        And I just want to echo that what this says is as long as
    these NGOs are doing family planning other than abortion, they
    get money. But the minute they include abortion as part of
    family planning, which I believe all of us here will agree that
    the ending of a life should not be part of family planning--I
    think it is counterintuitive to the whole nature of family
    planning--that then those moneys would not be given because
    moneys are fungible.
        Mr. Cicilline. Will the gentlelady yield to a question?
        Mrs. Schmidt. The Helms amendment, which has been in place
    since 1973, had to be resupported by Reagan with the Mexico
    City Policy because money was being used for abortions. Nobody
    is against family planning. But the public in the United States
    is against using our taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions,
    whether it is here or it is abroad. And all this amendment does
    is codify something that Ronald Reagan did in 1984, which was
    continued, except under the Clinton administration and the
    Obama administration. And all it does is codify a standing
    position of the Helms amendment that had wiggle room, that
    Ronald Reagan took the wiggle room out of with abortion. I
    yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mrs. Schmidt.
        And Mrs. Ellmers' time has run out.
        I would like to recognize Mr. Murphy for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Listen, I think it is clear we are not going to bridge some
    pretty substantial divides of opinion on the underlying
    question. But I think what you hear from our side is a very
    sincere concern for the unintended consequences of the
    underlying policy.
        I accept the Hyde provision, and yet I have a lot of
    trouble with the Mexico City Policy because of the underlying
    facts here. And the facts are this: Within months of the Mexico
    City Policy being reinstituted in 2001, 16 different African
    countries immediately had shipments of contraception from the
    United States ceased. Millions of African women lost access to
    basic contraception. That is the reality of what happened. That
    is not in the United States' interests. The reality is that
    71,000 women in this world die from unsafe abortions. And
    though the Mexico City Policy doesn't specifically prohibit
    care for post-abortion treatment, it essentially prohibits
    providers from having the equipment necessary to deal with that
    care. So you are putting at risk tens of thousands of women who
    have unsafe abortions because they don't have providers who can
    deal with it because of the Mexico City Policy.
        And while my colleagues keep on talking about this just
    being about prohibiting funding to providers that provide
    abortion, that is not what the policy says. It says provide or
    promote. And that is why it is called a gag policy. Because you
    could be a family planning provider who has never performed an
    abortion, who has never referred anyone to an abortion
    provider, and all you want to do is advocate on that issue, and
    you are shut down under this policy.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Murphy. I will finish, and then I know Mr. Cicilline
    wants some time as well. So when you say provide and promote,
    that is why this becomes called the gag policy. And as we spend
    billions of dollars as a Nation trying to promote democracy,
    trying to tell other nations that they should have vigorous,
    open debates about policy, it seems pretty inconsistent to then
    say that the one issue that is off limits is abortion; that we
    want you to openly debate everything, but we are going to cut
    off funding to anybody that wants to debate this particular
    subject on one side of the subject. And that is why it is
    called a gag rule, because it seems to run contrary to decades
    of investment in open conversation and open democracy.
        Let me yield to Representative Cicilline.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just
    wanted to underscore the point that my friend from Connecticut
    just made with respect to the performance requirement, that
    this actually prevents family health agencies from making
    either a referral, someone who doesn't perform an abortion, but
    it really interferes with the ability of a physician or health
    care provider to have a candid and full conversation with a
    woman about a whole range of health care choices. And we ought
    not be interfering with the relationship between a woman and
    her physician and the ability of a physician to share in a
    complete and professional way all of the options available to a
    woman as she makes important health care decisions. It
    undermines that relationship as well. So I think that is one of
    the other dangers of this. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
        I am pretty sure that the time has run out.
        Mr. Murphy. I miraculously got 4 more minutes.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you for understanding, Mr.
    Murphy and Mr. Cicilline. I would like to yield now to Mr.
    Burton. Let's look at that clock.
        Mr. Burton. Madam Speaker, I yield my time to the gentleman
    New Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. I thank my friend for yielding.
        Let me just say to my colleagues on both sides of this
    issue, I certainly respect each and every one of you, but I do
    believe that we are forgetting someone, a child who is growing,
    developing, maturing each and every minute of every day, who,
    when abortion is performed, is decimated. It is an act of
    violence. If you did the exact same thing to a newly born child
    or a 1-year-old child, or even as we saw during the partial
    birth abortion debates, where the scissors were literally
    thrust into the brain of a child and then the brain sucked out,
    simply because that was done while the child was almost in
    utero, abortion proponents defended it and did so. Bill Clinton
    vetoed the bill twice; it finally was approved and signed into
    law by George Bush. It is violence. Why is that so hard to
    understand? The methods, the act is an act of violence.
        Whether it be legal or illegal, abortion is violence
    against children. It also is highly injurious to women's
    health. I mentioned earlier the numbers of women who suffer
    chronic deleterious effects to their psychological health. The
    studies couldn't be more clear. Read them. Over 100 studies
    show it, no matter where the studies are undertaken. Whether it
    be in the Nordic countries, New Zealand, or anywhere else,
    including the United States, the women suffer. Not immediately,
    but it has a lag time. It is an intermediate and a longer-term
    terrible psychological impact that is largely disregarded by
    the abortion rights proponents.
        Let me also say to my colleagues that in 1984, I offered
    the first amendment on the Mexico City Policy and frankly, the
    U.N. population fund ban because of forced abortion in China.
    And opponents got up, including Olympia Snowe, now over in the
    Senate, and others, Sam Gejdenson, who used to be a member from
    Connecticut, said no one will accept these safeguards, so the
    money will lie fallow; it will not go to family planning
    organizations.
        After that year was over, with the Mexico City Policy the
    law of the land, virtually every dollar was allocated, either
    obligated or spent, by a family planning organization. And just
    like any grant money, there are always more grant requests than
    we have money to fund, whether it be in our own districts for
    name the issue or name the project. So all the money was
    accounted for. So when I hear how family planning dollars were
    reduced or restricted, nothing could be further from the truth.
        During the Bush era, 2002 to 2007, this is USAID numbers,
    Ethiopia, family planning went up from $5 million to $19.5
    million, a 300 percent increase; Haiti, a 144 percent increase;
    Pakistan, a 1,100 percent increase; D.R. Congo, 800 percent
    increase. This is family planning money going to organizations
    that accepted the safeguards and provided family planning, and
    not the demise and the wounding of a baby and the wounding of
    their mothers. This is all about who we fund.
        My colleague from Ohio talked about the Helms amendment. We
    found in the early 1980s that the Helms amendment was infirm
    because money is fungible. The organizations figured it out.
    They simply do a little bit of bookkeeping and segregation of
    funds, and if they did that--assuming they did, they were
    unfettered in their ability to promote abortion and to
    perform--and again when you talk gag rule, a very, very poor
    choice. Maybe the news media will amplify it, and you think you
    have a public relations coup on your hands, but frankly, it is
    such a misleading term. We are talking about lobbying in
    capitals all over the world. And the people we give this money
    to, frankly, are our surrogates. They are ambassadors, in a
    way. They are doing things that we hope they will do, whether
    it be family planning or other kinds of health care
    interventions. But they set up shop in country after country,
    and they try to topple the pro-life laws.
        But they also, and this is where the gag rule language
    falls totally flat, what about the child? The language is,
    promote and perform, except in cases of rape and incest and
    life of the mother. And you know, the debate that now has been
    engaged on Planned Parenthood domestically; I love the way
    Planned Parenthood domestically is going into overdrive trying
    to suggest that only 3 percent of what they do actually is
    about abortion. That 3 percent is over 900 abortions every
    single day in Planned Parenthood clinics around this country.
    That is the kind of movement that will follow if IPPF and the
    other pro-abortion groups are not inhibited in their promotion
    of performance of abortions. Nine hundred a day is a lot of
    dead children and wounded mothers.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Deutch is recognized.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This is a very personal issue for all of us. I am sensitive
    to that. But really what is at stake here is whether our
    taxpayer dollars are going to fund abortions. That is what we
    should be debating.
        I understand that it is the goal of some of my friends to
    outlaw abortion all together. I understand it is the goal to
    stop all abortions from being performed. I understand that. And
    they are entitled to that view.
        But what we are talking about here is whether taxpayer
    dollars should be funded. And for almost four decades, for
    almost four decades, no taxpayer dollars have been spent to
    provide or promote abortion services overseas. The Helms
    amendment, renewed annually by Congress, forbids these
    activities. It is not happening. The gag rule has failed. And
    it is a gag rule. It gags overseas counseling. It gags overseas
    community groups, health experts, and prevents them from
    discussing access to safe and legal abortion--legal abortion--
    even when this needed counseling is funded with their own
    money, kept separate from Federal dollars.
        This is not a debate about Planned Parenthood, but I can't
    help, since the point has been raised, to point out that it is
    the same debate that takes place domestically, and we had this
    debate before, and I trust we will have it again. I understand
    the efforts, the goals of some of my colleagues to stop all
    abortions. But as long as abortion is legal, then I believe
    that while we ensure that there are no taxpayer dollars going
    to it as required by law, that we don't turn around and
    penalize those groups who are helping to ensure that of the
    more than 46,000 women around the world who die annually, that
    other families won't face that same fate. Millions more suffer
    debilitating injuries and disabilities.
        And if we impose this global gag rule again, we will only
    exacerbate the situation. The level of harm from unsafe
    abortions is quite high. Twenty one million unsafe abortions
    every year. Nearly all of them in low-income countries. More
    than 95 percent of abortions in Africa and Latin America are
    performed under unsafe conditions.
        And while it may be the goal to end all abortions for some
    of my colleagues, the fact is this gag rule is unnecessary. It
    shuts down debate. It will force clinics to close. It will make
    outreach efforts to try to reduce the number of unsafe
    abortions to cease. That is what is at stake here. I will
    finish where I started. I know how difficult an issue this is.
    But the law as it currently exists is quite clear that taxpayer
    dollars cannot be funded.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Would the gentleman yield? Would the
    gentleman yield? Right here. I am right here.
        Mr. Deutch. I will yield.
        Mr. Fortenberry. So let me try to clarify what you are
    saying. You support the Helms law, and you believe taxpayer
    dollars should not be going toward abortion. Are you saying
    that?
        Mr. Deutch. No. What I am saying is that the Helms law has
    been renewed----
        Mr. Fortenberry. Because I thought you might be able to
    accept our position on this if you were saying that. But you
    are not.
        Mr. Deutch. What I am say is that the Helms law, because it
    has now been almost 40 years, it has been renewed, that this
    gag rule is unnecessary and is damaging. And what we are
    ultimately striving for, those who put forth the Helms
    amendment, which is preventing taxpayer funding of abortions,
    is already the law. This will result in changes that will be
    damaging to women, that will yield only more abortions, unsafe
    abortions. So I support this amendment, and urge others to do
    so as well. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I would certainly agree with my colleague as he began his
    statement when he talked about one's belief in abortion is a
    very personal, very, very personal issue. And let me just note
    that I wasn't always opposed to abortion, and I didn't really
    start thinking about it until later on. But once I started
    thinking about it, and once I came to the conclusion that we
    are talking about the life of a child, at that point, there was
    just no other direction.
        Let me note that God blessed my family with triplets 7
    years ago. And I will tell you we struggled to have children.
    And we followed those children as little babies from very early
    on in their development. And you could see that beep beep beep
    on the screen. And it really, once you have gone through that,
    it is very difficult to think that we are not really talking
    about a baby after that. Because we know that that early stage
    led to these wonderful children that I have in my life right
    now.
        And I think that these medical steps taken to snuff out the
    potential for life while in the mother's body was the taking of
    a human life. And I think that that is something that when
    someone actually comes to that conclusion, that we are talking
    about human life, we are talking--that then there is just no
    choice. And I think that maybe when I am talking to my
    colleagues, I am just hoping that their eyes will be opened, as
    mine were, to the fact that we can't let some baby be killed
    with some central planning or some idea about health care,
    general health care in mind.
        Now, let me just note that, again, we are not talking
    necessarily just about abortion. Here the only thing we are
    really talking about today is the taxpayer dollars being used
    to sponsor abortion. So even if you don't agree that life, as I
    saw it, and inside my wife after 2 or 3 months appeared, that
    that was life, even if you disagree with that, you would
    probably--you should be able to agree that taxpayer money
    shouldn't be used if there is that type of question. And so
    many wonderful people are on both sides of the argument. But if
    someone who you know is honest believes it could be a baby, you
    don't want their money to be taken from them in the name of
    killing a baby. So it is not about abortion; it is whether or
    not the government is going to be paying for abortions, and in
    this case, whether or not we are going to be permitting U.S.
    dollars that are sent overseas to help with family planning for
    poor women overseas, whether or not that money can be used for
    abortion. And to show you how, and I think just how obsessed
    the other side is with making sure that there can be abortions,
    that they are insisting so much that abortion not be excluded,
    that they are willing to give up all of the money that is going
    into these clinics in order for them to have the right to
    advise a woman or provide a woman with abortion.
        There are no restrictions that anyone is considering on
    family planning. The only restrictions are being placed on
    abortion. So if someone says that they would rather just not
    have family planning at all unless I can advocate abortions
    because it is not complete family planning unless you can
    actually recommend that, I don't buy that. I don't buy that at
    all.
        And I would yield my remaining time to Mrs. Schmidt.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mrs. Schmidt is recognized for 50
    seconds.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
        Some people have been saying the Helms amendment is enough.
    But I would like to remind them why we got the Mexico City
    Policy in the first place. It was when President Ronald Reagan
    realized that taxpayer money, under the Helms amendment, was
    supporting NGOs overseas that promoted and performed abortions.
    Money is fungible. We know that. And so he, at a population
    conference in Mexico City, he put a halt to the practice, hence
    the term Mexico City Policy. We want to keep that in place. We
    don't want to give Presidents the opportunity to allow it to go
    back to a loosey-goosey Helms amendment that allows it to be
    fungible money. We want to codify the intent of Helms. Mexico
    City codifies the intent of Helms. And that is all this is
    about.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
        I believe that the time is done.
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Who is asking?
        Oh, Mr. Connolly, yes.
        Mr. Connolly. Just a quick, funny observation. When I
    worked with and for Senator Jesse Helms, the idea that----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I don't know under whose time, but I
    will be glad to----
        Mr. Connolly. Well, just I find it funny that anyone would
    refer to him as loosey-goosey on any subject, let alone this
    one.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
        And Mr. Poe is recognized.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I yield my time to Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        I will be very brief. I just want to remind my colleagues
    that we really have known for more than 60 years what actually
    saves women's lives. It is skilled attendants at birth,
    treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood. I actually
    held a hearing in this room, and a World Health Organization
    physician told us that if women had access to safe blood in
    sub-Saharan Africa, some 44 percent of maternal mortality
    disappears. They don't have access to it. And I work with a lot
    of NGOs, including one that pushes safe passages to ensure that
    women are well-resourced as they approach the time of the
    birthing of their child in order to preclude either a dead baby
    and/or a dead mother. It is all about how we respond to both.
        Abortion, I do believe, needs to be looked at as an
    abandonment of both, certainly of the child, and I would argue
    equally the mother. A landmark study by the Bill and Melinda
    Gates Foundation and published in the British journal Lancet in
    2010, backed up by a WHO report about maternal mortality, shows
    that we are making progress, not as much as all of us would
    like, but it is some 40 percent lower than in 1980. But
    contrary to prevailing myth, the study underscored that many
    nations that have laws prohibiting abortion also have some of
    the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, including
    Ireland, Chile, and Poland among them.
        Let me also point out to my colleagues that, you know,
    Bernard Nathanson founded NARAL, Betty Friedan, Lawrence Lader,
    and Bernard Nathanson, the leading abortionists in the 1960s
    and the 1970s. He actually ran the largest abortion clinic in
    New York City. Dr. Nathanson quit doing abortions and wrote in
    the New England Journal of Medicine, ``I have come to the
    agonizing conclusion that I have presided over 60,000 deaths.''
    And he said what brought him to that conclusion. He was working
    in St. Luke's Hospital on prenatal interventions, blood
    transfusions, prenatal surgeries, which then were really in
    their infancy, but have now blossomed to the point where
    children can be treated for all kinds of diseases and anomalies
    while still in utero. But he came to the conclusion that it was
    schizophrenic to, in one operating room to be treating that
    child as an unborn patient, one of his patients, and then in
    another operating room to be dismembering, or chemically
    poisoning, or in some other way committing an act of violence
    against that child.
        You know, we have seen breathtaking breakthroughs in the
    area of fetal surgeries over the last decades, ever since
    Nathanson made that discovery in his own heart and mind. We
    need to look at the unborn child as a patient who may be in
    great, desperate need of intervention. Abortion is antithetical
    to that. It kills. And not all the babies die, especially when
    there are twins involved. And I have actually met some abortion
    survivors. One woman, who was the object of a chemical
    abortion, saline amniocentesis, that didn't work all the way,
    and she now has cerebral palsy as a direct result of that. So
    some of these children do survive. The reason for partial birth
    abortion, according to the originator of that terrible method,
    he has said is that it is one way of precluding a live birth,
    in other words, an abortion where the child is a survivor.
        Years ago, CDC used to note that some 500 children per year
    would survive later-term abortions. Now the abortionists try to
    ensure that that possibility is precluded by using the most
    lethal means possible to kill the baby. The Mexico City is all
    about holding harmless the child, as I said earlier, equally
    the mother. Abortion is not health care. We provide three
    exceptions in the language. The three exceptions were in the
    original Mexico City promulgated by Ronald Reagan by regulation
    back in 1984. And that would be rape, incest, and life of the
    mother. But after that--and that is a very, very small number
    of abortions. And we recognize a child dies there as well. So I
    would urge my colleagues to at least give this some additional
    thought.
        These children need your help. You need to be an advocate,
    or at least consider being an advocate for them. Why does
    wantedness dictate whether or not you have a right to live?
    Birth is an event that happens to each and every one of us; it
    is the beginning of a life. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Poe, do you yield back?
        Mr. Poe. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4
    and the prior announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on
    this measure, Mr. Berman's amendment, is postponed until 9:15
    a.m. today, Thursday.
        Such a sad statement, today, Thursday.
        We have Mr. Berman, I know that we have other members who
    have amendments as well. Mr. Rohrabacher has two amendments, I
    believe, and Mr. Fortenberry has two amendments.
        Mr. Rohrabacher, may we go to one of your amendments?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I would be very happy to, but I was asked
    by your staff to perhaps allow Mr. Berman 5 minutes if he
    wanted to present something.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All right.
        Thank you, Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman has an amendment on the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Berman
    of California. Strike section 411 and insert the following:
    Section 411. Quadrennial diplomacy and development review. (a)
    Review of diplomacy and development. (1) In General. Not later
    than December 15, 2014, and every 4 years thereafter, the
    Secretary of State (in this section referred to as the
    ``Secretary'') and the Administrator of the United States
    Agency for International Development (in this section referred
    to as the ``Administrator'') shall complete a comprehensive
    examination----
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the
    reading be dispensed with.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Correct. That is true. And the Chair
    reserves a point of order, recognizes the author for 5 minutes
    to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The last time we marked up a State Department authorization
    bill in this committee, in June 2009, we included a requirement
    for the administration to undertake a quadrennial review of
    diplomacy and development.
        The idea was a bipartisan one. In addition to the provision
    in our bill, there was a bill introduced by a Republican, Mac
    Thornberry, requiring a quadrennial review of foreign affairs.
    At the time our bill was under consideration, the State
    Department was strongly opposed to that provision. However,
    shortly after it passed the House, they decided to do the
    review anyway. Just like the State Department.
        The initial review was completed in the middle of December
    2010. And one of the things they found was that in order for
    our development assistance to become more efficient and more
    effective, and I repeat it, in order for the development
    assistance to become more efficient and more effective, USAID
    needed to have control of its own budget. And I quote from the
    QDDR that I made reference to,

            ``Effective development depends on the strategic
            deployment of resources that advance particular
            programs and align with overall policy goals. USAID
            must have sufficient control of its budget to
            systematically deploy its resources where they will
            have the greatest impact. To ensure this essential role
            in budget preparation and funding requests, USAID has
            created a new Office of Budget and Resource Management
            (BRM), charged with developing USAID's annual budget
            proposal and overseeing budget execution.''

    To alleviate any concerns that this office would be
    duplicative, the QDDR explains that the Deputy Secretary of
    State will consolidate and review the USAID and State budget
    components, and the Director of foreign assistance resources,
    who is located at State, will analyze and integrate all foreign
    assistance budgets. The F bureau at State and USAID's new
    budget office are currently working together on finalizing the
    Fiscal Year 2011 foreign assistance allocations.
        Yet without a single word of explanation, section 411 of
    this bill specifically prohibits and repeals the new USAID
    budget office. I assume this is nothing more than a political
    stab at the administration. There is no foreign policy
    objective to be advanced by this, no budgetary savings to be
    accomplished. USAID's budget office costs no extra money. The
    16 total staff positions now assigned to that office were
    funded by reallocating funding and positions from other bureaus
    and offices at USAID.
        If anything, the new office will result in significant
    budget savings, as USAID is finally allowed to start matching
    resources with results, instead of being told what to fund,
    regardless of whether the program works or not. My amendment
    would replace section 411 with a statutory mandate to continue
    doing the QDDR every 4 years like the Defense Department does
    in its Quadrennial Defense Review. Just as there was no special
    authorization or appropriation of funds for the first QDDR
    process, the State Department and USAID managed to do it within
    their regular budgets. This amendment does not require or
    authorize any additional funds.
        I really urge the committee to consider the mistake in
    knocking out this USAID budget office. If you want to abolish
    USAID, consolidate with the State Department, have all the
    foreign development assistance going from the State Department,
    I understand that. If you want to separate USAID completely
    from the State Department and give them all the authorities, I
    understand that. But what I don't understand is having USAID
    separate from the State Department, although under the
    Secretary's direction, but not having the ability to budget
    their own operations or determine the extent to which their
    programs are meeting their goals. This is a fundamental
    capacity of reforming and making foreign assistance more
    efficient.
        I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back my 7
    seconds.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
        And I apologize for going to you right away. I thought this
    was an amendment that you were going to offer and take out,
    whatever, withdraw.
        Mr. Berman. I could find one to do that with.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. I apologize.
        Mr. Rivera is recognized.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My understanding of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
    Development Review, or the QDDR, is that it was an attempt to
    advertise the elevation of civilian power and aimed to set out
    a new blueprint for U.S. foreign assistance, with the objective
    of making foreign assistance more effective and accountable.
        In trying to achieve those objectives, it failed in
    achieving its goal. It not only failed to adequately address
    the underlying fundamental issues, such as distinguishing clear
    lines of authority and accountability between the Department of
    State and USAID, but more importantly, failed to provide a
    meaningful assessment of overall U.S. assistance efforts abroad
    and the effectiveness of such spending.
        Instead, the QDDR suggested an actual expansion and growth
    of government, recommending the additional hiring of Federal
    employees, the establishment of more bureaucracy, the
    establishment of more offices, and the call for ongoing
    assistance programs without evaluating their actual
    effectiveness. So, in other words, the QDDR's recommendations
    have done little to change the business as usual attitude that
    has characterized our failed strategies for the past 50 years
    within U.S. assistance efforts. So, for all those reasons, I am
    going to oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to
    do as well.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Do any
    members seek recognition? Hearing no further speakers, pursuant
    to committee rule 4 and the prior announcement of the Chair,
    the recorded vote on this amendment is postponed until 9:15
    a.m. today, Thursday.
        Again, so cruel.
        Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 33.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
    Rohrabacher of California. At the end of title IV of the bill,
    add the following: Section 4xx. Limitation on assistance to
    Pakistan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no
    funds made available to carry out this act or any amendment
    made by this act may be used to provide assistance to Pakistan.
    Strike part V of subtitle B of title IX of the bill (relating
    to security assistance to Pakistan).
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        And the amendment is being distributed, so we will give it
    just a few seconds.
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chair, would you entertain a question
    while we are waiting?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Connolly. You may recall that I have written you and
    the ranking member on what I think are the need for
    comprehensive, in-depth hearings on U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
    I am just wondering if you have had a chance to review that
    request and what, if any, position you have on it.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. I think if the gentleman would
    yield, I believe that we want Secretary of State Hillary
    Clinton to be present for that. So I am sure that she will get
    back to us soon. We will do so.
        And with that, Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thank you very much. My amendment
    takes Pakistan off the list of countries for which we will
    borrow money from China to support, then stick our children and
    grandchildren with the responsibility of paying off the debt.
        In other words, my amendment eliminates our aid going to
    Pakistan. The Pakistani ISI, their equivalent of the CIA,
    through its long support of Osama bin Laden in the years
    leading to 9/11, is directly responsible for the violent death
    of thousands of our people. To this day, they still support the
    Taliban, which of course the ISI, the Pakistani CIA, created,
    as well as they support other terrorist organizations who are
    killing U.S. soldiers, U.S. military personnel as we speak.
        So what good has all of our aid to Pakistan done? We have
    given out since 9/11 over $18 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.
    Our billions of dollars in aid have not pulled Pakistan away
    from China, nor ended Pakistan's support for terrorists
    operating in Afghanistan and India. Osama bin Laden, who was
    the one who personally organized the slaughter of those 3,000
    Americans on 9/11, was given refuge in Pakistan for 5 years.
    And when our Special Forces killed him, Pakistan arrested those
    who helped us find him. Making matters worse, Pakistan is in an
    alliance with China, and has been for a number of decades. It
    is actively pursuing a China-backed alignment with Iran against
    the United States. And Pakistan is actively engaged in trying
    to convince other governments to ditch the United States and
    cast their lot with China. They obviously consider the United
    States a strategic enemy. Yet they keep taking our money, and
    we don't fault them for that. We should fault ourselves. They
    are treating us like fools because we are acting like fools.
    The Obama administration has already cut some aid to Pakistan,
    a third of it in fact. So why play games? Let's make our intent
    clear. No more American money should go to a regime that
    actively participates in the murder of American civilians and
    soldiers. We have been playing the sucker for too long.
        It is time to stop. We should cut off the billions of
    dollars we have been giving to Pakistan. And we should
    energetically seek a new strategic relationship in South Asia
    which puts us on the side of India, a democratic government,
    rather than the side of a government which is aligned with
    radical Islam and Communist China.
        Well, I ask my colleagues to support this effort. We should
    have the courage to say, now is the time to recognize the Cold
    War is over. That is what started our relationship with
    Pakistan to begin with. And we should now, instead of hanging
    on to that relationship in a way that is proving detrimental to
    us because Pakistan, itself, is allied with our enemies, move
    to try to set a new strategic relationship with India. And the
    first step to doing that and creating a more peaceful world is
    to quit giving support to a country that is engaged in anti-
    American activity and undermines our national security.
        So I would ask my----
        Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield for a question?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly would.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Just a question. Has my colleague given
    thought to the unintended consequence that, by doing this, what
    we risk is destabilizing an already-rickety Pakistan and
    leading to a far worse outcome in terms of----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, we have been hearing that for years.
    And it is not an unintended consequence; it is something that
    you--it is a risk. It is risk that you take. Every time you
    take a step forward to try to create a better world, you are
    taking a risk that something may go wrong. And, in this case,
    that is a risk that--I think it is riskier to continue in the
    relationship that we have had with Pakistan than it is to try
    to demand a change in the status quo.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        My friend from California says this is a matter of courage.
    Do we have the courage, can we summon up the courage to cut it
    off? The aid to Pakistan, that is. I say it is question of
    wisdom. It is not about courage.
        Congress is correct to conduct additional scrutiny over the
    assistance to Pakistan. We in the United States are very
    rightfully skeptical of Pakistan's commitment to fighting
    extremism following the many incidents that have come to light
    in the weeks following the killing of bin Laden. I even have
    some problems with the base bill in terms of what it does with
    Pakistan, which I will address not in an amendment but in a
    motion to strike the last word later in this markup.
        But cutting off all assistance to punish Pakistan, without
    proper consideration of the national security ramifications of
    doing so, is lazy, it is shortsighted, and it is quite
    irresponsible.
        I meet with Indian Government officials all the time about
    this issue, and I have never heard one of them suggest that
    they thought it was in their interest for us to cut off every
    aspect of our economic assistance to Pakistan. To the contrary,
    they want to see civilian institutions built. They know that
    the direction that Pakistan could be headed leads to chaos and
    massive instability, implied in the question from my friend of
    Virginia to the author of this amendment.
        And the other thing that should be part of this amendment,
    if it makes sense, is, if you are going to cut off all
    assistance here to Pakistan, decide that Pakistan is the enemy,
    this is one of those rare issues that are black and white, and
    align ourselves with India. You ought to at least, on behalf of
    our troops in Afghanistan, call for the immediate withdrawal of
    all our troops in Afghanistan. Because what you are proposing,
    without withdrawing our troops in Afghanistan, puts them in so
    much greater jeopardy than they are even now. Our effort in
    Afghanistan, supplying our troops there, remains highly reliant
    upon continued Pakistani cooperation, both in terms of access
    to Pakistani territory but also with regard to Pakistani
    intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation.
        Is it as good as I would want? Absolutely not. Are they not
    doing things they should be doing? You are absolutely right.
    But Pakistan's strategic location, the possession of nuclear
    weapons, the ongoing insurgency along the country's border with
    Afghanistan makes it imperative for the U.S. to keep the lines
    of communication with Pakistan open.
        It is in our national security interest--not an entitlement
    program, not some obligation, but our national security
    interest to ensure we have a productive relationship with
    Pakistan, both for the short-term gains in Afghanistan and for
    long-term regional stability. Unless we are able to find a path
    toward that stability in South Asia, we could potentially find
    ourselves in a similar situation years from now.
        This becomes all the more difficult if we were to
    significantly cut--to abolish all security and economic
    assistance to the country. And I point out, the amendment is
    drafted not to the Government of Pakistan, not simply to
    economic assistance, but all assistance of any kind to the
    people of Pakistan, through NGOs, through any other mechanism.
        I urge my colleagues to oppose this well-intended but
    wrong-headed amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I yield my time to
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't know how much more Pakistan has to
    do to prove to us that they are not our friend and, in fact,
    are our enemy and that if we rely on them for our security, we
    are going to get hurt, as we have been hurt.
        Let's just--again, our relationship with Pakistan started
    during the Cold War. When I came here 22 years ago, let me note
    that I was Pakistan's best friend in Congress, because I had
    been working in the Reagan administration in the Cold War,
    during the Cold War.
        And times have changed. The Soviet Union has disintegrated.
    India, which was in a positive relationship with the Soviet
    Union, is no longer an ally to our adversary. Instead, what we
    have now is a former ally, Pakistan, who has gone its way and
    has allied itself, now, in this world, with America's worst
    enemies. Radical Islam is Pakistan's ally, if not their brother
    and sister. The Pakistani Government, and especially their ISI,
    helped create the radical Islamic threat that threatens us
    today.
        Who is our--okay, what is the second threat that we face?
    China. We have a looming China. And guess what? Pakistan is
    China's best friend. So Pakistan is best friend to the two
    forces in the world that most threaten the United States.
        For us to continue giving them billions of dollars is
    insane. Let's just recognize the world is different, and try to
    establish a new status quo which will, indeed, create a more
    stable world.
        We can't just create an illusion that the Pakistanis are so
    important to us because they cooperate with us in intelligence.
    Intelligence? The ISI is the focal point of their intelligence,
    and we rely on the ISI for guidance? I think that most people
    understand that the ISI has been lying to us and has been
    responsible for supporting radical Islam and creating that
    threat to the world all of these years.
        Let's admit that times have changed and try to create a
    better future, not trying to keep ahold of an illusion that the
    Pakistanis are still our friends. We can make a more peaceful
    world by making sure that India is our friend.
        And I would disagree with my colleague totally, when he
    suggests that India wouldn't want us to move closer to India
    and eliminate this alliance that we have had with the Pakistani
    Government? No. I think that India understands that Pakistan
    has allied with China.
        And let's get back down it. The Chinese, through Pakistan,
    have what? Have been engaged in one of the worst proliferations
    of nuclear technology in recent--actually, in the history of
    the nuclear problems. The fact is that China has worked through
    Pakistan to provide nuclear material and know-how to North
    Korea, to Iran.
        And if there is a threat in the world today, yes, Pakistan
    is that threat. But that is not any reason that we should
    continue giving them money. Talk about bribe money. No, we
    should be trying our very best to develop a new system of
    alliances that will help create the world that is a more
    peaceful world. And that does not include living in a dream
    world, that Pakistan can be relied upon.
        And I do agree--and I will end with this. My colleague has
    made me a challenge, and the challenge is, you can't be in
    favor of eliminating this aid to Pakistan unless you are
    calling for an immediate withdrawal of American troops from
    Afghanistan. Well, let me make it very clear: I think there
    should be an immediate withdrawal of all American troops from
    Pakistan. This is a no--or, from Afghanistan. This is a no-win
    situation, no matter what is going on, but especially when we
    are living in a dream world and giving money to Pakistan while
    it conspires----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time----
        Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. To kill American troops.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Has expired.
        Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to
    give my time over to our ranking member.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. I don't want to dwell on this too much, but I
    wonder, do we think about what we have done and what we say and
    see if there is any relationship between the two?
        The gentleman talks about the flowering of a new strategic
    relationship with India, an alliance deep--the world's
    greatest, the world's oldest democracies coming together. I
    love the idea. And about 1\1/2\ hours ago, the gentleman voted
    to eliminate that very little economic assistance we give to
    India because they don't vote with us 50 percent of the time at
    the U.N.
        At what point do we have to be accountable for what we do
    and square it with what we say? Give me a break.
        Again, I repeat that I spend a great deal of time with
    Indian officials; I have not only never heard them suggest that
    we cut off all economic assistance to Pakistan, I have, to the
    contrary, heard them suggest that they want a stable Pakistan.
    What they don't want is a Pakistan that is taking our military
    assistance to use it in some military confrontation with India.
    They want it to be focused on counterterrorism, not on the
    India-Pakistan conflict.
        So this ally you want us to join up with--and I want us to
    join up with them, as well--number one, I don't think the best
    way to start that alliance is by saying, we are prohibited from
    any more PEPFAR cooperation because they don't vote with us at
    the U.N.; and, secondly, when we hear what they want, they
    aren't suggesting what this amendment does, they are opposing
    what this amendment does.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time, I just want----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to add on to what the
    gentleman from California was saying. And I submit to my
    friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, the situation in Pakistan is not a
    simple one. In fact, it is a very complicated issue, sometimes,
    historically, on issues that have come about not necessarily
    because of our doing, but that is just the way it is. Just as
    we understand on the border line between Afghanistan and
    Pakistan there are 12 million Pashtuns living in Afghanistan,
    where all the Taliban are, and then just across the border are
    27 million Pashtuns living in Pakistan.
        And I can appreciate my good friend's concerns, but I think
    it is not as simple as----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. If the gentleman would remember----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. We are talking about a nuclear power. And
    when you add in the nuclear issues, that changes the whole
    landscape on how we deal.
        My hope and desire, hopefully, that part of our national
    policy is that we should establish friendships with both
    Pakistan and India.
        And I yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I hope the gentleman remembers that, about
    20 years ago, the two of us----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, I----
        Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Were on the Afghan-Pakistan
    border----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Of course.
        Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Sleeping in a fortress. And I
    think you got the shotgun and I got the pistol. Or it was one
    way or the other.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time, I can say to the good
    gentleman, I still remember that day. We were in Peshawar.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yep.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And we met with a lot of the tribal
    chiefs there in Pakistan. We went to Afghanistan.
        But what I just wanted to share with my good friend is that
    I think denying this funding, which I think is--I thought it
    was only $8 billion, and now I realize it is $18 billion since
    we have established this relationship.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But then to understand, too, we have to
    give Pakistan some credit when the Soviet Union decided to
    invade Afghanistan, for which Pakistan played a very critical
    role----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. That is right.
        Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. In terms of how we were
    trying to be helpful.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And those days are over.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And I just wanted to share that with my
    good friend.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to--oh, Mr. Connolly.
    I am sorry.
        Mr. Connolly. I am sorry, Madam Chairman, but I----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Usually, you are more aggressive in
    seeking time. Have we mellowed you?
        Mr. Connolly. Yes, you have. You really have.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. That is how you get after 1 o'clock
    in the morning.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I want to say that, in listening to my friend from
    California, my heart wants to go where he goes. My head,
    however, says, as Mr. Faleomavaega said, it is more complicated
    than that.
        I think his critique of Pakistan's behavior is
    devastatingly on point. And I think we have to acknowledge
    that. This has gone beyond the realm of a troubled
    relationship. And the behavior across a broad spectrum--nuclear
    behavior, new reports about collaboration, allowing North Korea
    to develop a nuclear capability; actual hostile firing on the
    border against U.S. allies, if not U.S. troops; the compromise
    of intelligence on very important missions within Pakistan,
    aimed at what is ostensibly a joint goal of putting out of
    business insurgents and terrorists; of course, the obvious one
    with respect to bin Laden's location for 6 or 7 years in the
    middle of a military retirement community--who knew?--stretches
    credulity and strains the relationship.
        Having said that, it is a nuclear power. And for good or
    real, we need each other at some level. We can't simply walk
    away and abandon the relationship.
        And I listened carefully to my friend's answer. I don't
    know the answer, but I do think this: We, as policymakers,
    cannot afford to simply say, I am willing to roll the dice on
    the unraveling of Pakistan and the outcomes that may flow from
    that.
        So, for all of these reasons, I would be troubled by simply
    precipitously ending any and all aid right now to Pakistan,
    though I am tempted.
        And I would suggest to my friend from California that he
    may want to think about joining me in the request I have put
    before the chairman and the ranking member. I think this is--
    and it is going to sound strange--but I almost think this is a
    Vietnam hearing moment for this committee. You know, J.W.
    Fulbright, the then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee, actually helped change the course of U.S. policy by
    having an in-depth series of hearings covering Vietnam rather
    exhaustively. And I think the time has come for some, at least,
    mini-version, frankly, that covers all aspects of the U.S.-
    Pakistan relationship to help air these issues and these
    problems and, hopefully, to help us find some common ground
    with what next steps are.
        And I would renew that request and urge my colleague to
    think about joining, on a bipartisan basis, in making--not to
    even imply there is any resistance. I just think that moment
    has come.
        But, at this time, I would have a lot of trouble crossing
    the precipice and pulling the plug entirely on aid to Pakistan.
    But I must confess I am not unsympathetic with the motivation
    and the analysis our good friend from California has put behind
    us. And----
        Mr. Fortenberry. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. I would yield, certainly.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. Just to note on your point as to how we
    properly think through the dynamics you well outlaid, our
    colleague Frank Wolf has proposed the formation of an Afghan-
    Pakistan study group. Now, I believe before you came to
    Congress, the Iraq Study Group was formulated, and it made a
    significant impact on policy, I believe, and I think made a
    significant contribution in turning that situation around.
        I would just submit that for your consideration because
    that is out there, and I would like to see that actually gain
    some momentum.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague.
        Mr. Faleomavaega?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to add also to the
    gentleman's comment about Senator Fulbright and the Vietnam
    war. I recall Senator Byrd, throughout the whole time when we
    were going through the Iraq crisis, he singlehandedly, again,
    on every point of contention in terms of whether or not the
    policy was really sound before we committed our troops--and, of
    course, I don't need to say what happened.
        But I just wanted to say that, of interest, that is
    something that we should all learn from what Senator Byrd had
    warned us against, and the very things that he said. It is
    almost like saying, ``See? I told you so.'' But anyway----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
        ``I left my heart in Islamabad.'' It doesn't have the same
    ring.
        So, hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule
    4--oh, Mr. Rivera. Thank you. I would not want to jump ahead of
    you. Of course you are recognized.
        Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, with your
    permission, I respectfully request to yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I will try not to take the entire 5
    minutes.
        So we got $18 billion that we have provided for Pakistan
    since 9/11--$18 billion. And from all the intelligence reports
    that we have been privately briefed on, we know full well that,
    as we have been handing them that $18 billion, they have been
    supporting elements in Afghanistan who are killing American
    troops. We know that.
        And we now know that Osama bin Laden, who was the
    mastermind behind slaughtering 3,000 American civilians, that
    they were hiding him the whole time. I guess they didn't really
    notice he was, as you say, in the middle of that city with all
    those other military people around him. No, we know they knew
    that.
        So I guess now we just want to continue along; we don't
    want to really try to create a new status quo in South Asia.
    No, we have to do that. We have to do that or we can expect
    even more problems, more killing of our people. Because the
    people who run the Pakistani Government, especially their
    military and their ISI, obviously look at the United States as
    their enemy. Perhaps it is because of cultural differences.
    Whatever reason, they think that they need to be against the
    United States, even as we give them billions of dollars and
    they plot to murder Americans.
        I wonder if giving them money, does anyone think that
    generates a respect or is going to make the relationship
    better? It is going to make it worse. They think we are fools,
    because we are fools. Nobody in their right mind gives money to
    someone who is killing their civilians and being involved with
    an organized, worldwide movement to kill Westerners, to kill
    people of another religious faith. Nobody in their right mind
    does that.
        And we also know that we are borrowing money to give to
    them. Every penny that we give to them, yes, I am afraid every
    penny of that money is being borrowed, because, you know, that
    60 percent of the budget that we aren't borrowing is going to
    take care of the needs of the American people. These things are
    being borrowed. And we are borrowing money from China in order
    to give to Pakistan, which is China's ally, which is China,
    which is doing China's bidding. And I guess China must think we
    are stupid, too.
        So now we are going to borrow that money, and who is going
    to pay for it? Our children and our grandchildren. They are
    going to pay it back because we are acting stupid today. Not
    just stupid, we are acting irresponsibly and we are acting in a
    cowardly way, because we are afraid of what is going to happen
    if we change the way we do things with Pakistan.
        The future belongs to people with courage and insight and,
    yes, wisdom. It is not wise to give money to people who are
    engaged in killing your population. It is not wise to give
    money to someone who has allied themselves with Communist
    China, which is the world's worst human rights abuser and sees
    itself as a global adversary of the United States.
        While we have India next-door, who would like to be part--
    and I reject the notion that they don't want to be part of a
    new strategic relationship with the United States. Okay? And I
    believe that India would--and, by the way, I would say,
    probably India will vote with us more in the United Nations if
    we quit financing the terrorists who are going into their
    country and murdering their civilians. Because the attack in
    Mumbai that represented the slaughter of their civilians
    started out in Pakistan, and we know that. And we know the ISI
    was involved.
        Let's face reality. Let's have the courage to face reality
    and start building a new world.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And that is what this is. We can start by
    defunding Pakistan.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And now I am not going to jump the
    gun and say, ``Hearing no further speakers.'' Does any member
    wish to be recognized?
        Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4
    and the prior announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on
    this amendment is postponed until 9:15 a.m. today, Thursday.
    Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher, would you like to have your other
    amendment?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher has an amendment at
    the desk. The clerk--sorry, sorry. I forgot that, Mr. Deutch,
    that you were not on the list. I forgot.
        Mr. Rohrabacher, would you hold it a second?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. As a matter of courtesy and seeing that it
    is so late anyway, yes, I would be----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Deutch has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will
    report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr. Deutch
    of Florida. At the end of title IV, insert the following:
    Section 4 [blank]. International narcotics control and law
    enforcement. For international narcotics control and law
    enforcement programs, not more than $1,597,000,000 is
    authorized to be appropriated to the President for Fiscal Year
    2012.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        The amendment is being given out, and Mr. Deutch is
    recognized to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        In the spirit of my previous amendment, offered some 12 or
    13 days ago, I would like to highlight another critical area of
    assistance beyond development that was omitted from the base
    text. The international narcotics control and law enforcement
    account funds the State Department's counternarcotics,
    transnational crime, and police training programs.
        These programs are focused where security situations are
    the most precarious. Funding in Fiscal Year 2012 will support
    Liberia's transition to peace through funding of police
    training and justice institutions. It will strengthen law
    enforcement and judicial institutions in Latin America and
    Mexico. It will train judges in Afghanistan and fortify
    criminal justice sectors in West Africa.
        We talk a lot, Madam Chairman, in Congress about fighting
    terrorism and crime. We all agree that we need to reduce
    violence in Mexico and safeguard our borders. This account, the
    international narcotics control and law enforcement account, is
    a key way to do that, and we should acknowledge so by
    authorizing it.
        I would point out, Madam Chairman, that my amendment
    authorizes this account at the Fiscal Year 2011 budget amount.
    My previous amendment, if you recall, by unanimous consent, we
    adopted the President's budget, which seemed preferable. I
    would accept that amendment, in which case we would be funding
    this, rather than the $1,597,000,000, the President had
    requested $2,511,000,000. If you wanted to entertain that, I
    would gladly accept that amendment.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch, will you be willing to
    accept victory?
        Is this higher, or is this lower? Let me have that number
    again, the 2012 and your amendment.
        Mr. Deutch. The Fiscal Year 2011 number that is in here is
    $1,597,000,000. The President's requested amount, which is the
    number that we used for nonproliferation and antiterrorism,
    that number is $2,511,838,000.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, sorry. We are just looking at
    the President's request, and apparently we have a different
    number that says--$1,511,838,000.
        Sorry. We were looking at different numbers--wrong numbers,
    incorrect numbers.
        So what we are doing is that we are looking at the
    President's number, which is Fiscal Year 2012, which is
    $1,511,838,000.
        Mr. Deutch. So I will look forward to claiming victory at
    the earliest possible moment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes. Sorry for the victory tease.
    That is not right. So if we could just suspend for a few
    moments.
        So, Mr. Deutch, since the numbers that we had had are
    different--and I apologize--you still have time to continue to
    speak on your amendment. Would you like more time on your
    amendment, Mr. Deutch? Sorry for the fuss. No?
        Then we are once again teasing you with victory. Yes, we
    are teasing you again with victory. They are saying that we
    will accept the amendment.
        Stalling works with us every time.
        Mr. Deutch. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        So that amendment has been accepted. Thank you. I am glad
    we went to you, Mr. Deutch.
        Now, I have----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
    Rohrabacher of California. At the end of title IV, add the
    following: Section 4xx. Limitation on assistance to Iraq. None
    of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or any
    amendment made by this act may be used to provide assistance to
    Iraq unless the President certifies to the appropriate
    congressional----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We will consider the
    amendment as having been read. And Mr. Rohrabacher is
    recognized.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        The current government, under Prime Minister Maliki, in
    Iraq is realigning Iraq with Iran. That is a reality that we
    have to face. And, of course, my amendment would recognize that
    reality and say, well, let us not fund this transition, and
    let's basically get our troops out and end our involvement in
    that country, rather than not admitting reality.
        So, Prime Minister Maliki's ruling coalition is dependent
    on a Shiite radical, Mr. al-Sadr, who is very well-known. And
    while he is an important part of their coalition, we know he is
    also an open agent of Iran.
        Prime Minister Maliki has been and continues to be
    unresponsive to American requests to keep even a minimal
    detachment of American troops in Iraq. Why? Because the mullahs
    in Iran want all U.S. forces out of Iraq, and Prime Minister
    Maliki is doing their bidding. That was made clear when, under
    his authority, Iraqi troops invaded Camp Ashraf, a refugee camp
    for Iranian dissidents, and massacred unarmed residents,
    leaving 35 dead and hundreds more wounded.
        The United States has already spent $1 trillion and nearly
    4,500 lives, not to mention the tens of thousands who have been
    wounded, trying to liberate and rebuild Iraq, only to have a
    government come to power that is in league with the Iran
    mullah's regime, who is our worst enemy in the region and
    perhaps in the world. The mullah dictatorship in Tehran is the
    most dangerous and violent terrorist state in the Middle East,
    and Maliki is buddy-buddy with them.
        Well, enough is enough. American troops won the war, but
    U.S. State Department bureaucrats have lost the peace. Only a
    new government in Baghdad, one that is grateful for our
    liberation of the Iraqi people from the monstrous Saddam
    Hussein dictatorship and which will be willing to repay,
    perhaps, when they are prosperous, repay the United States for
    what we have expended on their behalf and the behalf of the
    Iraqi people, only then would it be worth for the United States
    to continue aid and support for Iraq.
        Such a government does not exist, however, and it is not in
    the offing as we consider this bill. The ingratitude of the
    current Iraqi Government for all of the sacrifice by Americans
    on their behalf is overwhelming and should dictate that no more
    American blood, nor money, should be expended on their behalf,
    especially when we have to borrow the money in order to provide
    it for them.
        My amendment would shut off the spigot. Those who thumb
    their noses at us after the expenditure of blood and treasure
    that we have given to the people of Iraq do not deserve more of
    that treasure and certainly not more of our people's blood.
    They deserve not one more red cent from the United States.
        And, in that, I am quoting a spokesman from the Maliki
    government, who, after a recent codel where it was requested
    that they might consider the fact that once Iraq is wealthy--
    because it has greater oil and gas reserves than Saudi Arabia--
    that they might consider paying back a little bit to the United
    States because we are entering a financial crisis, responded,
    ``Not one red cent.''
        Well, with that in mind, why do we continue to give money
    to them, millions of dollars to them, at a time when we have to
    borrow the money to give it to them? So I would suggest that
    the State Department funds for Fiscal Year 2012, that is $2.36
    billion, that we decide not to send that to them, and instead--
    we should not be giving them----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Money at a time when we are
    broke and they don't have gratitude.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Do members seek recognition?
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Yes, Madam Chairman. I think I am going to
    oppose this amendment.
        So let me just go through this again. We authorized the
    war. The gentleman voted aye. We spent, by his terms, $1
    trillion on the costs of defense and economic. And for the last
    $1 billion, if they give us back $999 billion, we will give
    them another $1 billion. I don't think they are going to take
    that deal.
        Where was the gentleman on this issue when the
    administration was talking about, this war will pay for itself
    with reimbursements? Where were the conditions on the money
    then? Where were the conditions on all those appropriation
    fights in the 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006 period of time
    when we were asked to spend more and more to deal with all of
    the problems we were confronting? There was never a suggestion
    that those appropriations would be limited. We are going to do
    it on the last $1 billion?
        The issue of whether or not to provide any more assistance
    to Iraq should be decided on its own merits, not on a condition
    they pay us back the $999 billion that we have already spent
    trying to bring freedom and democracy there, to a greater or
    lesser extent successful, depending on where you are coming
    from on that issue. And I don't think this amendment is worthy
    of support.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield my time to Mr.
    Rohrabacher, Chairman Rohrabacher.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you very much.
        Let me just note that when we--I think one of the biggest
    mistakes that I have made as a Member of Congress was believing
    the Bush administration when they told us we had to go into
    Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein. I admit it, I made a mistake.
    And I think it is important that we do admit our mistakes and
    make up for it and not just continue down with policies that
    are taking our country into bankruptcy and continuing leaving
    our people in harm's way.
        Yes, I voted--but let me note that when my Democrat
    colleagues suggested an amendment, early on, that would have
    required the Iraqis to repay the money that we were spending to
    liberate them, I was one of the few Republicans, Mr. Berman, I
    was one of the few Republicans that sided with the Democrats
    when that amendment was proposed. I think there were three of
    us. And so I am not Johnny-come-lately to the idea that they
    should have been required to pay the price that we were putting
    out to liberate them from Saddam Hussein's vicious and
    monstrous dictatorship.
        Let me also note that the Kuwaitis repaid us when we
    liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's troops. There is no
    reason in the world why we couldn't expect that same position
    from the Iraqis.
        And let us note that your party actually proposed that
    early on. I know because I sided with you and supported it.
    Well, now that they have committed that expenditure, I don't
    think it is wrong, the fact that we are going into a financial
    crisis, to ask them to repay some of that money.
        And maybe we could also ask them--maybe it would be a good
    idea for them not to ally themselves with America's worst enemy
    and the worst enemy of freedom and security and stability in
    that region. They are allying themselves with the mullah
    dictatorship in Iran. There is no reason why we shouldn't ask
    that they not do that and use our influence and, if they decide
    that they are going to do it, pull our support for them. Let
    them know there are consequences if they ally themselves with
    people who are dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the
    instability of the region and enemies of the United States.
        Let me also note, I don't think there is anything wrong
    with holding a government accountable for massacring civilians,
    massacring unarmed people at a refugee camp, doing the dirty
    work for the mullah regime. And if there was anything that
    indicated that these people--that the current Government of
    Iraq are going to be doing the bidding of the ayatollahs and
    the mullah regime, it was this massacre that happened of
    unarmed people at Camp Ashraf.
        So, considering all of those details and the points that I
    have made--number one, the Kuwaitis repaid us; number two, it
    was the position of your party, Mr. Berman, that suggested
    repayment early on, which I supported; and the current trend
    among the leadership of Iraq today is to head toward making an
    alliance with our enemies, the mullahs in Iran--all of that
    suggests to me that we should cut off spending any more of our
    limited money to support that regime.
        And we should get our troops out of that country as soon as
    possible, as well. So whether it is Afghanistan or Iraq, it is
    time for us to start building a better future and having the
    courage to leave behind policies that are counterproductive and
    helping our enemies.
        And so that is why I would suggest it is time to stop
    acting like fools and financing our enemies and financing
    people who are making themselves allies of our enemies. I would
    ask my colleagues to support my amendment to defund the foreign
    aid that is going to Iraq.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any members seek recognition on
    the Rohrabacher amendment?
        Thank you.
        Hearing no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4
    and the prior announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on
    this amendment is postponed until 9:15 a.m. today, Thursday.
    Thank you.
        And just for clarity--I am not good with the mumbo jumbo--
    without objection, the amendment offered by Mr. Deutch on
    international narcotics control and law enforcement is adopted.
    Because I said it is ``accepted,'' and that is not the right
    phrase. So, just to be clear.
        And now we have Mr. Fortenberry's amendment.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. Fortenberry. No. 66.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Which one, sir?
        Mr. Fortenberry. 66. Oh, I am being told no. I don't know
    why.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think it is--she has the right one
    for you. You can trust her. I don't know about that one on your
    right, but the one in front of you.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Can I ask unanimous consent to hear that
    one right now, even though it has been moved to----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It has to be on this title, as we
    had discussed.
        Mr. Fortenberry. I know, but I have sat here for----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. We were pretty clear. I am
    sorry. We are on title IV, and that is the one that we will be
    debating. And we will be debating it until it ends. So whatever
    you have for title IV, we will take.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Well, let's move to the first one we have.
    I think we have two.
        Well, Madam Chair, while we straighten out the other issue,
    No. 64.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will let us know if that
    is on title IV?
        Ms. Carroll. Yes, ma'am.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Great. The clerk will report the
    amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
    Fortenberry of Nebraska and Mr. Payne of New Jersey. At the end
    of title IV, add the following: Section 4xx. Sense of Congress
    regarding reducing malaria prevalence and----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. With unanimous consent,
    we will dispense with the reading. And Mr. Fortenberry is
    recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment. And I think
    that we are on our road to victory.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I should say from the outset, I am pleased to join my
    colleague, Mr. Payne, in this amendment, who co-chairs the
    Congressional Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases Caucus,
    in sponsoring this amendment related to U.S. global leadership
    on malaria.
        For members who are not a part of the caucus, you might ask
    why the United States leads the world in this particular
    disease. Simply because it is hard for Americans to sit idly by
    while the vulnerable are afflicted by a treatable and
    preventable disease. Our leadership on this is good for
    humanity. It also builds good relationships in some of the most
    troubled countries across the world. And like much of our
    humanitarian assistance, it aids in global stabilization and,
    therefore, national security.
        Malaria is a life-threatening but preventable disease that
    the U.S. defeated in the 1950s, but other nations are still
    struggling to eradicate it. The majority of those killed are
    pregnant women and children under 5 years old. A child dies
    every 45 seconds from malaria in Africa alone. And 98 percent
    of all malaria deaths occur in just 35 countries, the majority
    of which are in sub-Saharan Africa.
        But we can end this disease. America has asserted strong
    global leadership to help vulnerable persons, particularly
    children. We have seen that investments in malaria and
    neglected tropical diseases control efforts reap significant
    success, but the serious work does also remain. This amendment
    simply reaffirms our commitment to global leadership on working
    to end malaria deaths by 2013, and I urge my colleagues to
    support this essential----
        Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Fortenberry, if you will
    yield to Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Yes. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is
    a very good amendment and I intend to support it. But I do have
    to say that none of the goals that you want to see achieved,
    and they are very important, and I am very glad you are doing
    this--but none of them can be achieved when you don't allow
    assistance to countries that are below the median in the
    Millennium Challenge's corruption index, or didn't vote with us
    more than 50 percent of the time.
        All I ask is somewhere we square what we want to see happen
    with what we do on these other amendments and rationalize the
    two together because you outlined a whole series of things we
    want to accomplish and you can't do it----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Reclaiming his time, Mr.
    Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. I know it is late. Am I dreaming or have I
    heard this before?
        Mr. Berman. You mean the notion that we should be
    accountable for how amendments relate to each other?
        Mr. Fortenberry. It was an attempt at levity, but clearly
    it was missed.
        Mr. Berman. It was definitely missed, but I am not sure any
    level of levity would have been caught.
        It was not an attack on your levity.
        Mr. Fortenberry. I understand. All right. I still control
    the time. Do you have anything else to say? Or I will yield
    back. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I believe that we like
    the amendment and we are ready to accept it. And before I call
    for the vote, I would like to tell you, Mr. Fortenberry, that
    if we just change the title in your next amendment, it will be
    kosher.
        Mr. Fortenberry. How do I do that, Madam Chair?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will show you magically. And
    hearing no further speakers--oh, yes, Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. I would like to think about that amendment the
    gentleman wanted to offer, was supposed to come in title VIII.
    Why not let that come in title VIII so we can learn a little
    more about this amendment which I have never seen until a
    couple of minutes ago, rather than--was it in title VIII?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I think he misclassified and it--and
    I won't get in the way of this, Mr. Fortenberry. Let's just end
    with this amendment.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Are we still in the malaria amendment?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We would like to pass your amendment
    and--no? We would like to consider it, of course. But hearing
    no further speakers, pursuant to committee rule 4 and the prior
    announcement of the Chair, the recorded vote on the Fortenberry
    amendment on malaria with Mr. Payne is postponed until 9:15
    a.m. today, Thursday.
        Now, we will start the discussion on Mr. Fortenberry's
    other amendment. And let's get in the proper posture and then
    you will make your suggestion of having it be at the proper
    place.
        We have not called it up. Would you like to be in a
    colloquy with Mr. Fortenberry before we call up that amendment?
    Mr. Fortenberry?
        Mr. Fortenberry. Are you recognizing me, Madam Chair?
        Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Before I call up your amendment,
    Mr.--what is your name? Berman--has a question and he is
    wondering about the proper title.
        Mr. Berman. All amendments that are, with the exception of
    this amendment, have been for title IV have been completed.
    There are no outstanding amendments. My preference if we--there
    is no amendment ready to be offered at this time because there
    is no amendment at the desk, as far as I understand it, that
    amends title IV. I prefer, but that point may no longer be
    correct. Is there an amendment at the desk on title IV?
        Ms. Carroll. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Berman. And is it stapled? I'm just kidding.
        Ms. Carroll. No, it is not.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Fortenberry has an amendment at
    the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2583 offered by Mr.
    Fortenberry of Nebraska. At the end of title IV, add the
    following: Section [blank]. Statement of policy and report on
    sex-selection abortion.----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We need to have a copy of that
    amendment. While that is handed out, Mr. Fortenberry is
    recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I apologize for the confusion here.
        It was my intent to offer this in section 4 all day. But I
    do offer this amendment to draw attention to an abhorrent human
    rights violation that the United States has not yet officially
    acknowledged in its annual human rights report, namely the
    practice of targeting unborn girls for abortion simply because
    they are girls.
        The United States Congress has condemned China for this
    practice, but I believe it is time to elevate international
    scrutiny of this new human rights effrontery. The tragic
    practice known as gendercide, the intentional infanticide of
    baby girls, which reports indicate has claimed the lives of
    over 100 million girls in China and is responsible for a
    staggering demographic imbalance in that nation will also drive
    the pernicious practice of human trafficking in the future.
        According to a 2006 Zogby poll, 86 percent of Americans
    think that discriminatory practice of sex selected abortion
    should be illegal. And across the political spectrum, this
    serious issue is being given much more attention. The U.N.
    population fund, for instance, found that 50 million are girls
    missing in India because of gendercide. A recent survey by
    TrustLaw, a project through Reuters, ranked India as one of the
    worst countries for women in the world because of this plight.
        Amnesty International as well has shed light on this
    problem recently.
        Madam Chairman, I think as a government, we also need to
    shed light on the issue of sex-selection abortion, which has
    been widely denounced by the U.S. medical community.
        One way to do that effectively is to call it out for what
    it is, and make sure that the United States is on record in
    opposition to this egregious human rights violation.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hearing no further requests for
    recognition, the question occurs on the amendment----
        Mr. Smith. I will be brief.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those in favor, signify by
    saying----
        Oh, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. I know it is late, but this is an
    extraordinarily important human rights issue, and I do thank
    the chair for yielding. Where are China's missing girls? By the
    tens of millions, they are gone, victims of the earliest form
    of discrimination against the girl child, sex-selective
    abortion. Ten years ago--ten years ago--the U.S. Department of
    State reported in the Country Reports of Human Rights Practices
    that there may be as many as 100 million girls missing. And
    they cited Chinese demographers in stating that.
        China's forced abortion policy, and, as a direct
    consequence, its missing girls, constitutes a massive crime
    against women and the girl child. And as my colleague, Mr.
    Fortenberry, pointed out, it is also creating a huge magnet for
    sex trafficking.
        Finally, everyone remembers Chai Ling, that great leader of
    China human rights at Tiananmen Square, and combating human
    rights and pushing for freedom. She now heads up a group called
    All Girls Allowed. And what they are trying to do at All Girls
    Allowed is to make the world aware of this horrible crime of
    gendercide, especially as it relates to sex-selective abortions
    where ultrasounds are used to find, discover the sex of the
    baby, and when the girl is discovered, she is decimated. She is
    destroyed.
        She said at a press conference that I was a part of just
    the other day that the three most dangerous words today in both
    China and in India are: ``It's a girl.''
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Smith.
        Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Aye.
        Opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it, and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        And with that, I believe that we, our committee is recessed
    until 9:15, will be the first vote as agreed upon.
        So come early.
        Grab a good seat. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Thank
    you, Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you Mr.
    Rohrabacher. Hardy ones until the end.
        [Whereupon, at 2:15 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    be reconvened at 9:15 a.m., Thursday, July 21, 2011.]