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

                     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
                    YEARS 2012 AND 2013 FOR THE TRAFFICKING
                    VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000, AND FOR
                    OTHER PURPOSES; AND TO PROHIBIT FUNDING
                     TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND

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

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                            H.R. 2830 and H.R. 2059

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 5, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-118

                                   __________

            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
    70-662                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                          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
    ROBERT TURNER, New YorkAs
        of October 5, 2011 deg.
                       Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
                 Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   MARKUP OF

    H.R. 2830, To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2012 and
      2013 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and
      for other purposes.............................................     3
      Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2830 offered by
        the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in
        Congress from the State of New Jersey........................    66
      Amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
        H.R. 2830 offered by:........................................
          The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from
            the State of California..................................   106
          The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of California.............................   109
          The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of Connecticut...................   112
          The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of Nebraska......................   119
    H.R. 2059, To prohibit funding to the United Nations Population
      Fund...........................................................   125
      Amendments to H.R. 2059 offered by:............................
          The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in
            Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia...............   142
          The Honorable Karen Bass...................................   147
          The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of New Jersey, and the Honorable William
            Keating, a Representative in Congress from the
            Commonwealth of Massachusetts............................   154
          The Honorable Donald M. Payne..............................   157
          The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress
            from the State of Rhode Island, and the Honorable Allyson
            Schwartz, a Representative in Congress from the
            Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.............................   164
          The Honorable David Cicilline..............................   173
          The Honorable William Keating..............................   177
          The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy........................   181
          The Honorable William Keating and the Honorable David
            Cicilline................................................   186
          The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in
            Congress from the State of New York, and the Honorable
            Frederica Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the
            State of Florida.........................................   193

                                    APPENDIX

    Markup notice....................................................   202
    Markup minutes...................................................   203

      TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2013 FOR THE
    TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND
           TO PROHIBIT FUNDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock 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.
        Before we move to today's business, I would like to take a
    minute to welcome our newest member, Representative Bob Turner,
    who was appointed to the committee just this week. He is a
    lifelong resident of the neighborhoods of New York's Ninth
    District that he now represents.
        Congressman Turner won the special election in that
    district just over 3 weeks ago. He is known to many for his
    successful career as an executive and an entrepreneur in media
    and television industries.
        But I suspect that what he is most known for is his role as
    husband to Peggy for 46 years now. And she is a dedicated
    foster care nurse. He is a father to their five children and a
    grandfather to their 13 grandchildren.
        And we are glad that he has joined us. He is known for his
    charity work on behalf of adoption services in his area.
        We look forward to his valuable contributions to the
    important foreign policy work of the Committee on Foreign
    Affairs in the weeks and the months ahead.
        So please join me in welcoming Congressman Turner with a
    brief round of applause.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Turner. Thank you and thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
        Next time you speak when I yield you the time. [Laughter.]
    Or this thing gets flung over there.
        Mr. Berman, I do not know if you want to make any opening
    remarks.
        Mr. Berman. Just join the chairman in welcoming you. And
    look forward to working with you in what I sometime refer to
    as--it is like going to graduate school where you do not have
    to take any tests or get any grades.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Well, thank you.
        Well, today we will have a pop quiz because we are going to
    proceed on to today's business. At the outset, without
    objection, let me note that all members may have 5 legislative
    days to submit remarks on either of today's bills for the
    record.
        Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill H.R. 2830, the
    Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011.
        Ms. Carroll. H.R. 2830, to authorize appropriations for
    Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 for the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, the bill is
    considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
        [H.R. 2830 follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In addition, without objection, the
    bipartisan amendment in nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
    Smith, which was previously provided to your offices and which
    all members have before them, is made the pending business of
    the committee, is considered as read, and is open for amendment
    at any point.
        [The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2830
    follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I will now recognize myself for
    remarks on this measure, followed by my friend, the ranking
    member, the bill's author, Mr. Smith, and then any other
    members who seek recognition.
        As many here know, every year hundreds of thousands of
    people are trafficked around the world, most of them women and
    girls. Millions more are trapped within their own countries,
    forced to work in dangerous labor and sexual servitude.
        This form of modern-day slavery is an affront to human
    dignity as well as a major source of revenue for international
    criminal syndicates. This scourge is not limited to a
    particular geographic region or only to developing countries.
        Ultimately the tragedy of human trafficking lies not in
    statistics but in the individual lives, hopes, and dreams that
    are being crushed for a particular person, in a particular
    place, today.
        I am proud of the bipartisan, leading role that the House
    and this committee have played in moving the fight against
    human trafficking from a non-issue to a priority of our United
    States Government.
        I especially want to commend the leadership of my good
    friend from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, the author of the original
    Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which became law 11 years
    ago this month, who is the author of the bill before us today.
        I also want to recognize the long-standing efforts of the
    ranking member, Mr. Berman, with whom we worked on the last
    enacted reauthorization bill, the William Wilberforce
    Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which he
    introduced in 2008.
        We can take some solace in the fact that these efforts have
    dramatically raised the international profile of this slavery
    and have prompted a number of countries to pass their own anti-
    trafficking statutes. There has also been a rise in the number
    of international prosecutions for trafficking, over 6,000 last
    year, leading to over 3,600 convictions.
        But so much more remains to be done. Trafficking arrests
    vastly outnumber prosecutions and convictions. And 22 countries
    have earned the dubious distinction of the worst Tier III
    status in the State Department's annual rankings, an increase
    of ten countries since the last report. This means that those
    countries, which include the perennial rogues such as Iran,
    Cuba, and North Korea are not trying to meet even the most
    basic anti-trafficking standards.
        For all of these reasons, this bill, which conditions and
    strengthens our anti-trafficking activities in a fiscally-
    responsible manner, is vitally important.
        I want to thank Mr. Smith, Mr. Berman, and all of those
    involved with this bipartisan effort. I support Mr. Smith's
    amendment in the nature of a substitute and remain committed to
    moving his bill, H.R. 2830, forward.
        I now am pleased to yield to my friend, the ranking member,
    for his remarks on this measure.
        Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And
    thank you for scheduling the markup so promptly.
        For the last 11 years, the Trafficking Victims Protection
    Act, authored by our colleague, Chris Smith, has provided
    protection and assistance for victims of trafficking,
    authorized public awareness prevention campaigns, and
    strengthened the prosecution and punishment of traffickers.
        The bill before us today builds on the successes and
    lessons learned over the last decade. Many of us, including the
    author, supported a more comprehensive version of this
    reauthorization bill that was introduced a few months ago.
    Regrettably, that bill had to be scaled back due to cost and
    jurisdictional issues.
        Let me take just a moment to highlight a couple of
    important provisions from the comprehensive bill that will not
    be included in this version, the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        One is establishment of a Department of Defense director of
    anti-trafficking policies. And the second relates to foreign
    labor contracting. Both of these would have addressed the
    urgent problem of fraudulent and deceptive labor recruitment in
    the United States and among DoD contractors, particularly in
    Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Many of the contractors charge exorbitant fees for their
    services, forcing workers into debt bondage. Many of the
    workers are underpaid, ill treated, and deceived about their
    conditions of employment. They are housed in atrocious living
    conditions, starved and unable to leave the camp or return home
    as they have no travel papers.
        These kinds of problems are stark reminders that we need
    stricter regulation and monitoring of labor recruiters. So if
    we are truly serious about combating modern-day slavery in all
    its forms, we have to fund a way to fund these programs.
        Having said that, this bill does include a number of
    important provisions that will help prevent, deter, and monitor
    trafficking in the U.S. and abroad.
        The bill calls on the President to support public/private
    partnerships to generate youth employment opportunities to
    prevent trafficking. It asks the President to prioritize the
    initiatives for potential trafficking victims who are also
    refugees, internally displaced, stateless, victims of natural
    disasters, and other marginalized communities.
        It also requires the Department of Labor to report on the
    list of goods from countries believed to be produced by forced
    or child labor in foreign countries as well as the United
    States. And it encourages the Department of Justice and Health
    and Human Services to make reasonable efforts to raise public
    awareness for the national trafficking hotline.
        These are just a few of the ways in which this bill will
    strengthen our efforts to fight the trafficking of persons
    worldwide. I commend the author for introducing it, the
    chairman for sending it for markup, and urge my colleagues to
    support this legislation.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
        At this point, I would like to recognize the author of this
    measure, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global
    Health, and Human Rights, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to
    thank you for scheduling this markup, for your strong support
    for this anti-trafficking legislation, and for your many inputs
    as we went and drafted it.
        And I want to thank Mr. Berman for being the prime
    cosponsor, for his authorship of the Wilberforce Act just a
    couple of years ago.
        This is one of those examples I think where we can have
    very strong bipartisan cooperation to combat modern-day slavery
    in all of its forms, whether it be sex trafficking or labor
    trafficking.
        This is the fourth reauthorization of the Trafficking
    Victims Protection Act. And we have learned many lessons over
    the past decade. And we have made great strides in combating
    this fundamental human rights abuse. Women, children, and men
    around the world continue to be victimized and this effort is a
    very real remedy to that situation.
        It is critical we continue the United States leadership and
    efforts to end human trafficking, both domestically and abroad.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute takes into the
    account the extreme fiscal constraints that we face in our
    country and the need to reduce our Federal deficit. Much to my
    regret, the cost of several provisions in H.R. 3830 and now the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute necessitated their
    removal for consideration at this time.
        However, it is my sincere hope and expectation that
    important initiatives such as the creation of a special anti-
    trafficking office within the Department of Defense, something
    I pushed for 8 years, failed every time, but we will stay at it
    until we get that, and a comprehensive mechanism to regulate
    foreign labor contracting will be back on the table when
    resources are available. And especially with the latter, when
    the Senate shows some interest in backing it.
        We know that there is very strong opposition to that. There
    is a GAO report in the Senate version. Hopefully that will
    cause a change of heart over there.
        A number of important provisions for preventing and
    prosecuting trafficking and protecting trafficking survivors do
    remain in this amendment. One would give the Secretary of State
    the authority to limit the validity of the passports of
    registered sex offenders to 1 year or such period as the
    Secretary would deem appropriate.
        The need for this authority became apparent when the
    Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reported last year
    that over 4,500 registered sex offenders were issued passports
    in Fiscal Year 2008. And, of course, they are good for 10
    years. Who knows where they are going? What they are doing? We
    can only suspect. This includes an offender who was convicted
    of attempted rape of a child with special needs. And another
    who attempted sex with a 2-year-old girl.
        The State Department clearly needs this authority to limit
    the travel of such individuals who are likely to engage in
    severe forms of human trafficking in other countries.
        Furthermore, the amendment would authorize assistance to be
    used to protect vulnerable populations at risk of severe forms
    of human trafficking in post-conflict situations and
    humanitarian emergencies, provide additional tools to prosecute
    sex trafficking abroad, and increase monitoring of forced child
    or sex labor here in the United States.
        It also expands the information to be included in the
    Attorney General's annual report to include any contracts
    terminated by a Federal agency as the result of human
    trafficking by a contractor and whether any employees have been
    disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for violating the zero
    tolerance policy.
        I would also point out, and this came right out of your
    hearing, Madam Chair, when we looked at the Peace Corps and
    sexual violence that was being committed against women who were
    Peace Corps volunteers. It became apparent at that hearing, and
    I did ask some questions of the Peace Corps director, whether
    or not the Peace Corps was involved with the interagency
    trafficking task force. He said no. That legislation or that
    language is now included so the director of the Peace Corps
    will become part of the task force.
        So thank you to all of my colleagues for their support. And
    again, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Ranking Member
    Berman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
        Before we move to consider other amendments, do any other
    members seek recognition to speak on the underlying Smith
    amendment in the nature of a substitute?
        Ms. Bass is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking
    Member Berman for prioritizing the reauthorization of the
    Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
        Human trafficking continues to be a reality for as many as
    27 million people throughout the globe. Fortunately, advocates,
    survivors, and dedicated Members of Congress, like many in this
    room today, have shed light on this complex challenge and
    created laws to help stop this exploitation.
        I am proud to join in their efforts to strengthen policies
    that prevent human trafficking, prosecute perpetrators, protect
    victims, and build effective partnerships.
        I would also like to extend my gratitude to Representative
    Chris Smith for his tireless leadership in combating human
    trafficking. Even before the first incarnation of the
    Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, he has pushed to
    improve the ways in which the United States responds to human
    trafficking and has continually worked to implement creative
    solutions to prevent this exploitation.
        Representative Smith, I commend your diligence and
    dedication. And I look forward to continuing to work with you
    on this issue.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Bass.
        I will now recognize Mr. Gallegly for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I believe we must do our part to provide the tools to
    combat trafficking of persons both worldwide and domestically.
    However, while I am very supportive of the improvements made in
    this amendment and have great respect for my good friend
    Chairman Chris Smith--or the author of the bill, Chris Smith,
    and all of the work that he has done over the years on
    trafficking, and I agree with his objectives 100 percent.
        Having said that, I still think that there are some issues
    that I have concern with regarding the legislation. As the
    chairman of the Immigration Policy and Enforcement
    Subcommittee, I must state that I have some objectives--
    objections to several provisions of the bill under the
    Immigration Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
        While I know that we are not here to mark up these parts of
    the bill today, I must make it clear that the legislation does
    have what I consider some problems that need to be addressed
    before we move to the floor.
        I do not believe we can require law enforcement to grant
    continued presence within 15 to 30 days to an alien who may be
    a victim of trafficking. Law enforcement needs more time to
    verify an individual's identity, veracity of information, and
    so forth.
        We cannot afford to shift the standard so that all a victim
    applicant has to do is claim they are trafficking victims to
    obtain continued presence. Because law enforcement cannot do
    the job under many of the provisions under the bill, I think we
    need to really be careful as we move this bill forward so that
    we do not compromise the objectives that I think more of us, if
    not all of us, share in Chris Smith's focus on doing everything
    humanly possible to eliminate or mitigate to the limits of our
    ability the issue of human trafficking. But we also have to be
    careful that we are not allowing individuals to use trafficking
    as a conduit to--as a claim and not just for real purposes.
        So I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes herself to say that she agrees with
    the gentleman from California, that he is right in stating that
    this committee's jurisdiction does not extend to the areas that
    he has alluded to. The bill has been further referred to the
    Judiciary Committee. We will be marking up the sections of the
    bill that are under our jurisdiction.
        And with that, Mr. Connolly is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And I commend my
    colleagues, Mr. Smith of New Jersey and the ranking member, Mr.
    Berman of California, for introducing H.R. 2830.
        This bill authorizes appropriations for the next two fiscal
    years for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. TVPA
    created the State Department's Office to monitor and combat
    Trafficking in Persons (TIP), an office which has supported
    more than 450 projects to combat modern human slavery in 109
    countries.
        The office publishes the annual report, which ranks
    countries according to their compliance in combating human
    trafficking. No country is spared from being named and shamed
    in the TIP report.
        According to the 2011 report, the United States is a
    source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and
    children subjected to forced labor, debt bondage, document
    servitude, and sex trafficking. As recently as June of last
    year, an article in a Richmond-based magazine described the
    prevalence of such activity in the Richmond area.
        The article detailed a 2006 FBI case that involved Korean
    women being used in brothels from Rhode Island to Virginia.
    Similarly, there were reports in the Washington Post that year
    about massage parlors as fronts for prostitution rings. Such
    examples show how human trafficking takes place within our very
    own borders.
        The United States has not been passive with regard to the
    issue. Over the last decade, the TIP office has actively fought
    human trafficking through provisions laid out in the Victims of
    Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2010.
        The annual TIP report is a credible, detailed survey of
    violations in various countries, the office to monitor and
    combat trafficking of persons in the State Department under the
    leadership of Ambassador CdeBaca fulfils much needed duties in
    the United States foreign policy apparatus. The TIP office
    works to combat the issue of human trafficking and is a great
    example of a government-funded investment that pays dividends.
        I look forward to supporting the underlying legislation and
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
        The Trafficking Victims Protection Act has brought great
    changes throughout the world. I strongly support this
    reauthorization and glad to be a cosponsor. I commend Mr. Smith
    from New Jersey, the chairman, and the ranking member for
    bringing this to this committee.
        It is critical we continue program to prosecute traffickers
    and protect the victims. Because of the TVPA, we can no longer
    be blissfully ignorant of the dastardly crime happening
    throughout the world and even in the United States. Countries
    all over the globe have been forced to take a hard look at
    trafficking within their own borders and create policies to
    address this crime.
        In my travels to Eastern Europe as a part of this
    committee, I have discussed with people there the issue of
    human trafficking or slavery as it should be called. The way it
    works is this. Young women who cannot find work or jobs learn
    through the Internet or some ad in the local newspaper about
    employment somewhere else in the world, either in another
    country or even sometimes in their own cities.
        So they leave home, maybe from the nation of Ukraine or
    Romania. And they meet up with another person. It is usually a
    male. And he promises that he will take care of them. He will
    find them a job. And they will be happy.
        And, of course, what they end up doing is becoming a piece
    of property, a forced individual into prostitution, a slave of
    this individual. The male does what he can to sell that young
    female into slavery and even slave labor.
        Back home where the young female comes from, their families
    many times never even know what happened to their daughter or
    to their sisters. Sometimes then eventually when the slave is
    of no use in the prostitution racket, she just disappears and
    without knowledge of her parents.
        This takes place in countries throughout eastern Europe and
    other nations as well. But we cannot overlook the fact that
    human trafficking happens here in the United States of America.
        Here is the way it works here and it happens in my hometown
    of Houston, Texas. Young women--either adults but many times
    minors from a foreign country are smuggled into the United
    States illegally by someone who promises that when he gets them
    to the U.S., he will have a job waiting for them where they can
    work and send money back home to their families.
        In some cases, these young women have actually paid the
    trafficker to smuggle them to the United States, expecting that
    job that they were promised. Once they are in the United
    States, they become the property of the sex trafficker. And he
    forces them into prostitution.
        And he uses threats against them. It is as simple as if
    they do not cooperate, the slave master will have the family
    killed back in their home country. So what decision does a 14-
    year-old girl make when she is threatened that her family will
    be killed if she does not cooperate? Tough decision and many
    times they make the decision to continue in prostitution with
    the hope that their parents, their brothers and sisters, will
    not be murdered.
        The victim does not speak the language. She is in the
    United States and the person says cooperate and work for me or
    you will be punished and your family will be killed. So they
    chose the alternative they think they have to choose and become
    a slave and traffic it into the United States and allow the
    person to use them as property in the trafficking business.
        What a dastardly deed that is occurring in this country and
    other countries. But thanks to the TVPA, these international
    victims now have access to services so they can help recover
    from their exploitation.
        And we cannot forget about domestic victims as well. Young
    girls from our own neighborhoods are being forced into slavery,
    many times sex slavery. Their childhood, their innocence is
    stolen in the name of greed by some slave master.
        We must ensure that these victims have access to services.
    And we must make sure that they are treated as victims of crime
    and not criminals and not treated like prostitutes. Human
    trafficking is slavery. And as we fight for human rights
    throughout the world, we must fight to stop this slavery in all
    forms. Treat the young women as victims, not criminals. And
    then we need to take care of the customers and, of course, the
    traffickers and make sure they get their day in court.
        So I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the
    same. And that is just the way it is.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Chabot is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I just want to take a moment to commend the gentleman from
    New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for his work on not only this
    legislation but for all the work he has done over the years in
    the area of human trafficking.
        I was traveling in South Asia last week and on Friday had
    the opportunity to visit an orphanage in Kathmandu called Mytai
    Nepal. The program benefits sexually abused girls, abandoned
    children, victims of trafficking, girls and children infected
    with HIV and hepatitis B, and returnees from Indian brothels,
    among others. It is a truly amazing operation that gives hope
    to women and girls who once had no hope whatsoever.
        And I have to say that visiting there was one of the more
    moving experiences that I have ever had. When I told folks
    there that I would discuss this when I got back here at the
    visit with Congressman Smith, who has worked on these
    humanitarian issues for many years, they all told me that they
    were actually well aware of Mr. Smith's efforts around the
    world. They were grateful for what he has done on behalf of
    exploited women and children, you know, around the world,
    particularly in Nepal.
        So I just wanted to bring the gentleman best wishes from
    those as far away as Nepal who he has aided. And I commend him
    for offering this legislation today.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no further requests for time,
    we will now move to consider amendments to the underlying Smith
    amendment.
        Mr. Keating. Madam Chair, if I could?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sorry.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be very brief.
        I just wanted to underscore one aspect of this legislation.
    For the last 12 years before being elected, I was a district
    attorney. We worked exceedingly hard with local law
    enforcement, with state law enforcement, with regional
    officials, particularly in the area of Boston with special task
    forces that were there.
        And our frustration during that whole time was we were at
    the last stage, the receiving end of trying to deal with this
    and the frustration of saying more has to be done, not just at
    the national level but also in the international level.
        So as we go forward with this legislation, I just want to
    commend the author. And I want to say that this is very
    important legislation. So often we deal with international
    issues here in the committee. This is one that will have an
    effect right back home as well.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no requests for recognition,
    we will now move to consider amendments to the underlying Smith
    amendment. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the
    following amendments, which the ranking member and I anticipate
    will be noncontroversial, be considered en bloc. And the
    amendments are in your packets.
        Amendment 30, offered by Ms. Bass, requiring a one-time
    report on Internet-facilitated trafficking; Amendment 59,
    offered by Mr. Royce, expressing the sense of Congress on
    trafficking in Cambodia; Amendment 49, offered by Mr. Murphy,
    directing the State Department Trafficking Office to encourage
    large business entities to publicly disclose their anti-
    trafficking efforts and policies; and Amendment 82, offered by
    Mr. Fortenberry, making amendments to Title IV of the 2008
    Trafficking Reauthorization Act concerning child soldiers.
        [The amendments referred to follow:]Bass 030 deg.

        Royce 059 deg.

        Murphy 049 deg.

        Fortenberry 082 deg.

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any of the amendment authors wish
    to be recognized to explain their portion of the en bloc
    amendments?
        Mr. Fortenberry is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, for
    calling this hearing and your leadership in this regard.
        In 2008, at a markup for the William Wilberforce
    Trafficking Victims Act, this committee did something very
    courageous. We stated that the policy of our nation will be
    that children, no matter where they are, belong on playgrounds
    and not battlegrounds. Children should not be forced to become
    soldiers.
        And we would not sit idly by and passively underwrite this
    pernicious form of human trafficking known as child
    conscription.
        The problem now is this. National security waivers continue
    to be given to countries found guilty of this human rights
    abuse. We know that these waivers must be rare and temporary
    and meaningfully intended to help stop this pernicious
    practice.
        So this body unanimously passed an amendment to the State
    Department authorization bill to require the President to
    report to Congress 15 days before issuing another waiver as to
    what credible and verifiable steps are being undertaken in
    those countries to implement a plan of action to end the
    recruitment of and demobilize child soldiers.
        The State Department authorization bill also included
    language prohibiting the use of peacekeeping operation funds
    for countries cited for child soldiers violations.
        So, Madam Chair, my amendment today is simple. It simply
    amends section 404 of the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection
    Act to retain both of these provisions because strengthening
    our child soldiers policy is essential to our anti-human
    trafficking efforts.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. I yield.
        Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This is--
    all four of these amendments that are part of the en bloc
    amendment are very good amendments. I particularly want to
    mention that I think we should not be casually waiving the
    restrictions on child soldiers in providing military
    assistance.
        And I think both the notification provision and the
    requirement for some action by that government to start the
    corrective action of that situation is a pretty reasonable
    requirement for this. And I urge adoption of this and the other
    amendments in the en bloc.
        Mr. Fortenberry. I thank the ranking member for his
    support. I yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
        Ms. Bass is recognized to explain her amendment.
        Ms. Bass. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am offering a bipartisan amendment that will investigate
    and prevent human trafficking online. With the widespread use
    of the Internet, the sale and trafficking of individuals has
    gotten easier and increasingly anonymous.
        While the Internet has helped to connect the world, it has
    also created a haven for the exploitation of men, women, and
    children. Cloaked by computers, online traffickers and
    perpetrators can gain 24-hour access to vulnerable children and
    individuals.
        So the amendment calls for the State Department to
    spearhead an interdepartmental study on Internet-facilitated
    trafficking and proposed methods to prevent these crimes. You
    know often when we are talking about trafficking, we are
    talking about children and young people, women around the
    world. But this also relates to people inside the United States
    and in particular children.
        I also wanted to thank Representative Chabot and
    Representative Wolf for serving as the original cosponsors of
    the bill, which is now, you know, included as an amendment for
    this. But I also want to mention that another part, the
    language in the bill references children in the United States.
    And we did just launch a foster care caucus this morning with
    my colleague, Mr. Marino.
        We just came from the first meeting of that caucus. And I
    am excited that there is a part of this bill that has language
    in it that addresses who we essentially train the child welfare
    system, people in the system, so that they can recognize
    trafficking since we know that a lot of young people in our own
    country are involved in trafficking, especially with the
    Internet and the expansion of Web sites such as Backpage.
        So thank you very much. That is my amendment. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass.
        Mr. Royce is recognized to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to also
    congratulate Mr. Smith for his dedication in trying to call
    attention to this.
        But to also note that a number of NGOs and Dateline
    continue to focus on Cambodia. And the fact that it is a magnet
    for those preying on the youngest.
        Predators travel halfway around the world in order to link
    up in remote Cambodian villages with children, some as young as
    three. There are 30,000 children in that country that have been
    sold into this type of servitude.
        And my chief of staff, Amy Porter, traveled to Cambodia to
    work with these children rescued from the brothels there. And
    we have had a number of hearings in this committee and in the
    Lantos Human Rights Commission that have spotlighted these
    abuses.
        We have got the NGO groups that work in the country and the
    eyewitnesses reporting that the Cambodian Government continues
    to actually hamper and get in front of these investigations and
    block these investigations. The local police and government
    officials are often pocketing very lucrative profits out of
    this.
        So it is time to go on record against these really horrific
    abuses that have become endemic there. And the State Department
    needs to hold Cambodia accountable. That is the sense of this
    amendment.
        It finds that Cambodia should be designated as a Tier III
    country. When I brought this up with Ambassador Luis CdeBaca to
    reconsider when they were downgrading Cambodia, at a time when
    the situation was getting worse in-country, they sadly
    indicated well, this was the step they were going to take.
        They are taking the pressure off of Cambodia. We have to do
    exactly the opposite. We have to put them back up as a
    designated Tier III country. And that is what this amendment
    would do.
        And I thank you, Madam Chairman, for putting it in the en
    bloc amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
        Mr. Murphy is recognized to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you very much to Congressman Smith for his
    leadership on this bill.
        This bill, at its foundation, has the idea that our
    Government and our State Department can do so much more to try
    to prevent the child trafficking and forced labor that is still
    endemic to so many places around the globe.
        The amendment that is included in this en bloc that I am
    offering would recognize that we have another partner in this
    effort to combat human trafficking and child trafficking. And
    that is our corporate community.
        Already some of the world's biggest and most expansive
    corporations have joined together in an organization called the
    Business Coalition against Human Traffic. It is Coca Cola, JP
    Morgan, Delta, The Body Shop, to name a few.
        And this amendment, which has as its genesis, the
    legislation offered by Carolyn Maloney, would encourage
    companies, through the State Department, to post on their Web
    site their policies for preventing forced labor, slavery, and
    human trafficking.
        And the amendment outlines a number of suggested steps that
    companies can take as part of that policy, whether it is
    requiring audits of their suppliers to makes sure that their
    supply chain does not have any of these elements to force labor
    or human traveling, whether it be training for people in the
    supply chain to again make sure that they are dealing only with
    responsible and humane contractors and suppliers
    internationally.
        This amendment would simply try to encourage these big
    companies with over $100 million in global receipts to post on
    their Web sites the steps that they are taking. And we hope
    that this amendment would encourage major international
    companies with long supply chains that are not already doing
    these types of audits throughout their international business
    platforms, to do so and then make those audits and make that
    information available.
        This really has to be a comprehensive effort at stopping
    human trafficking that starts with the government, that starts
    with the very good underlying bill, but it can also include a
    private consensus that is already developing around this
    business coalition that this amendment can facilitate.
        And I thank the chair and I thank the sponsor of the bill
    for allowing this amendment to move forward.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        Mr. Smith. Just very briefly.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Bass, Mr. Murphy, Mr.
    Royce for their amendments. I think they all are very, very
    important additions to the legislation.
        I would point out to Mr. Murphy that the language he is
    offering is an encouragement. And I think that is very
    important.
        Carolyn Maloney and I do have a bill in that parallels the
    California bill, which would be much stronger but it would use
    the SEC rather than the trafficking office. And I have checked
    with Luis CdeBaca, our Ambassador-at-Large for human
    trafficking. He is very supportive of this effort, feels that
    they can accommodate it, and do it. And, again, it is an
    encouragement rather than something that is mandatory. So I
    think it is a good strengthening amendment.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Do any other members seek recognition on the en bloc
    amendments?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hearing no further requests for
    recognition, the question occurs on the en bloc amendment. All
    those in favor, say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the en
    bloc amendment is agreed to.
        Are there any other amendments to the trafficking measure?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hearing no further amendments, the
    question is on agreeing to the bipartisan Smith amendment in
    the nature of a substitute, as amended.
        All those in favor say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
        Without objection, the underlying bill, H.R. 2830, as
    amended, is agreed to. And I now move that the Bill H.R. 2830
    be reported favorably to the House as amended.
        All those in favor say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        The ayes have it. And the motion to report favorably is
    agreed to.
        Without objection, the bill, as amended, will be reported
    as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute,
    incorporating the amendments adopted by the committee. And the
    staff is directed to make technical and conforming changes.
        This ends the trafficking bill consideration.
        And pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2059, to
    prohibit funding to the United Nations Population Fund.
        The clerk will read the bill.
        Ms. Carroll. H.R. 2059, to prohibit funding to the United
    Nations Population Fund, be it enacted by the Senate and House
    of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress
    assembled, section 1, prohibition on funding to the United
    Nations Population Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of
    law, the Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the
    United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
        [H.R. 2059 follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The bill is read and open
    for amendment.
        As your offices were previously notified, before moving to
    amendments, I will recognize myself and the ranking member for
    general remarks on the bill followed by the author of the bill,
    Ms. Ellmers. And then any other members who seek recognition.
        This morning the committee will mark up H.R. 2059, which
    prohibits funding to the United Nations Populations Fund, or
    UNFPA. The purpose of this legislation is simple. To prevent
    U.S. taxpayer dollars from benefitting coercive abortion and
    sterilization programs.
        China's policy of coerced abortions is one of the most
    visible and deplorable human rights abuses. It has contributed
    directly to the elimination of millions of young girls, which
    has increased the demand for trafficked women and girls in the
    region.
        But instead of condemning China's behavior, UNFPA not only
    supports China's coercive one-child policy, but commends it as
    a ``model'' for population programs across the globe.
        In 1999, a UNFPA represented stated, ``China has had the
    most successful family planning policy in the history of
    mankind in terms of quantity. And with that, China has done
    mankind a favor.''
        Now U.S. law is clear. The Kemp-Kasten Amendment, first
    enacted in 1984, states that U.S. assistance cannot be provided
    to any organization that ``supports or participates in the
    management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
    sterilization.''
        The late Congressman Jack Kemp had stated that UNFPA
    funding would likely be effected by his amendment, ``because of
    UNFPA's involvement with a program of coercive abortions in the
    Peoples Republic of China.'' Pursuant to this amendment, three
    previous administrations have stopped assistance to UNFPA.
    Justifying this cut off of assistance, then Secretary of State
    Colin Powell stated in 2002, ``UNFPA's support of and
    involvement in China's population planning activities allows
    the Chinese Government to more effectively its program of
    coercive abortions. Therefore, it is not permissible to
    continue funding UNFPA at this time.''
        The State Department has repeatedly found that UNFPA
    refuses to provide detailed information on its activities in
    China. In December 2010, the Vice Minister of China's National
    Population and Family Planning commission thanked UNFPA for,
    ``its constant support to China's population and family
    planning undertakings during the past 30 years or more.''
        UNFPA continues business as usual, and last year it
    approved another 5-year operations plan for China.
    Unfortunately, the Obama administration has failed to enforce
    U.S. law, claiming that the Kemp-Kasten amendment does not
    apply to UNFPA.
        Accordingly, congressional action is necessary to prevent
    U.S. taxpayer dollars from continuing to benefit USFPA in
    contravention of U.S. law.
        I would note that, while some claim that UNFPA does not use
    U.S. funding for its programming in China, we all know that
    money is fungible. Directing U.S. funding to UNFPA activities
    in other areas of the world simply frees up other funding for
    their China program.
        There are far better uses of U.S. taxpayer dollars than
    funding for the UNFPA. In fact, UNFPA clearly does not need
    U.S. funding. Reports indicate that UNFPA has built up reserves
    and unspent funds of $500 million.
        UNFPA's annual report for 2010 indicated that its budget
    totaled $870 million, a record amount. So why when Americans
    are facing a struggling economy, skyrocketing deficits, and
    crushing debt should our taxpayer dollars go to an organization
    that supports coercive abortion and is flush with cash. Again,
    there are much better uses for taxpayer funds than sending
    millions to UNFPA.
        And so I thank the distinguished gentlelady from North
    Carolina, Ms. Ellmers, for introducing this important bill. I
    strongly urge my colleagues to support it in its current form.
        And I now am pleased to recognize the ranking member for
    his remarks on this measure.
        Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        And thank you on this issue we disagree. This legislation,
    like the State Department authorization bill we marked up in
    July and the U.N. bill we will soon consider, I believe will
    undermine America's influence and standing in the international
    community. It is an example of civilian cut and run par
    excellence.
        Tragically, the bill takes aim at poor women and children
    in the developing world, women and children who all too often
    suffer from the effects of disease, war, rape, and a host of
    absolutely horrid conditions that few of us can even begin to
    imagine.
        Rather than helping these desperate people, as UNFPA seeks
    to do, this legislation makes them pawns in a debate over
    social issues that often seem divorced from reality. Indeed I
    can think of few other organizations subject to more
    misinformation, misunderstanding, and outright falsehoods than
    UNFPA.
        I know that discussing UNFPA generates a lot of emotion
    among some of my colleagues. But that does not mean that
    passionate arguments should be allowed to trump the facts.
    UNFPA does not promote abortion as a method of family planning
    period.
        UNFPA is guided by the Cairo Programme of Action, which is
    quite clear in saying, I quote, ``in no case should abortion be
    promoted as a method of family planning. All one has to do is
    visit UNFPA's Web site to find that,'' UNFPA does not support
    or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
        And directly addressing the issue raised by the chairman,
    the State Department in the last administration, not the Obama
    administration, conducted an investigation of the UNFPA and
    found, ``no evidence, no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly
    supported or participated in the management of a program of
    coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the People's
    Republic of China. In fact, the UNFPA opposes coercive family
    planning methods and opposes China's one-child policy.
        I know that for many here, UNFPA's own words and those of
    the State Department on this issue may ring hollow. So would
    ask you to consider the position of the late Henry Hyde, the
    author of the Hyde Amendment, when he was chairman of this
    committee, he passed a very tough U.N. bill through the house,
    which would have ended a great deal of U.S. support for the
    U.N. But in his bill, he decided not to try to defund UNFPA.
        Today we are being asked to permanently end assistance to
    an organization working to prevent cholera among pregnant women
    and people living with HIV/AIDS in Haiti, lowering the maternal
    mortality in Rwanda, protecting women in Kenya fleeing from
    famine and war across the Horn of Africa.
        Rather than lobbing another grenade in our culture wars,
    this committee should be working to strengthen maternal
    mortality prevention efforts, improve the capacity of health
    systems in the developing world, and protect women from rape as
    an instrument of war.
        If you want to prevent abortions, this is what we should be
    doing. And that is exactly what UNFPA does.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman.
        And at this point, I am pleased to recognize the author of
    the measure, the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina,
    Ms. Ellmers, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And thank you to all the members who have helped to
    cosponsor this very important bill.
        Madam Chairman, the American people have spoken. On May
    31st, I introduced a bill to prohibit funding to the United
    Nations Population Fund, which was the winning YouCut program
    for that week.
        This bill, H.R. 2059, has now reached an important stage,
    making it to the committee for markup and review. It cuts $50
    million from our Foreign Affairs budget by disallowing the
    Secretary of State to make a contribution to the UNFPA.
        The United National Population Fund, the principle unit
    within the United Nations for global population issues, is the
    world's largest source of population and reproductive health
    programs without doubt. For the last 30 years, however, there
    has been contentious debate about whether the United States
    should financially contribute to the UNFPA because it aids
    China's coercive family planning programs and policies.
        In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan withheld all U.S.
    contributions to the UNFPA after determining that it was
    supporting and participating in the co-management of China's
    population program. Under the Bush administration, which was
    pointed out by ranking member Berman, there was subject to a
    State Department investigation, and yes, Mr. Berman is correct.
    However, that report also went on to say that China maintained
    coercive elements in its population restrictions in counties
    where UNFPA operates.
        China maintain coercive elements in its population programs
    in law and practice. And Chinese leaders viewed population
    control as a high priority and remained concerned over
    implications of socioeconomic changes. As a result, it was
    recommended that the U.S. should release not more than $34
    million in previously appropriated funds. But that over time,
    it should monitor the allocation of this program and
    subsequently President Bush withheld U.S. funds from UNFPA due
    to concerns that the organization supported or participated in
    what the administration viewed as a program of coercive
    abortion and involuntary sterilization in China.
        The Obama administration and the 111th Congress resumed
    contributions to UNFPA. UNFPA has been widely denounced for its
    involvement in China's one-child policy, which relies on forced
    abortion and sterilization.
        Whether or not you believe the U.S. should be borrowing
    money from China to fund U.N. projects in China, U.S. taxpayers
    should not be forced to fund the program that violates
    provisions in the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which bans U.S. aid to
    organizations involved in the management of coercive family
    planning.
        Proponents of the program argue that the monies are
    separate. And that we are throwing out good programs with the
    bad. However, in 2008, the State Department issued a report
    that showed clear violations because the UNFPA funnels money to
    the various Chinese agencies that enforce the coercive policy
    and forcibly abort and sterilize as a matter of standard
    operating procedure.
        If the Chinese wish to do such things, they should not
    expect funding from the United States' hard-earned taxpayers.
    The American taxpayer deserves to know where their hard-earned
    money is going. And we must do our part to make people
    accountable.
        H.R. 2059 cuts $50 million from our Foreign Affairs budget
    by disallowing the Secretary of State to contribute to the
    UNFPA and deserves our support.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentlelady from North
    Carolina.
        Before we move to consider amendments, I am pleased to
    recognize members to speak on the underlying bill.
        Mr. Connolly of Virginia is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam
    Chairwoman, as you know, I have great and deep respect for you.
    But I do not have great and deep respect for this particular
    bill and this particular process.
        This is nothing short of a smear campaign against an
    international organization of which we are a member that
    promotes and protects the health of women and their children
    all over the world.
        The State Department report referred to is the 2008 State
    Department report. The 2009 State Department report actually
    determined that there is no violation by UNFPA of the terms of
    Kemp-Kasten. The facts, however, do not matter because we have
    decided to make UNFPA a symbol of our support for a particular
    cause, irrespective of the consequences.
        Some of the loudest voices in this committee who champion
    the human rights of the unborn and, to their credit, had real
    trouble however supporting the same human rights for those who
    were born but happened to have a different sexual orientation.
    I was at this dias that night when we could not get some of the
    loudest champions of this particular cause to embrace that
    particular cause. And from my point of view, a human rights
    violation is a human rights violation, irrespective of status.
        So consistency is not our strong suit here. But picking on
    the UNFPA as an easy target, irrespective of the fact that its
    record is clean, and what it is doing to protect women and
    women's health is essential, without which we are going to
    jeopardize the lives of women in developing countries all over
    the world, and the consequences, very real, does not matter
    because we are making a big political point that will energize
    our base. And the consequences be damned.
        So I am not going to support this bill. And I will have an
    amendment later to try to make sure that at least one aspect of
    women's health is protected, Madam Chairwoman.
        I think this is a sad day for this committee.
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. I would.
        Mr. Berman. Just because in this general debate, I think
    the point you made deserves some affirmation.
        The author of the bill makes the argument that because
    UNFPA operates in municipalities and counties in China where
    the Chinese Government or the local governments practice
    coercive family planning practices that they are culpable. The
    logic of that escapes me.
        Are the American companies who do business in those
    counties or municipalities of China culpable? Are the American
    tourists who visit that culpable? Without having a nexus
    between what UNFPA does in the specific practices, that
    argument just does not hold water. And I think the committee
    should reject it.
        Do not hold UNFPA responsible for what a sovereign country
    does, as obnoxious as it is, unless you have an allegation of
    advocacy and support that has not yet been presented.
        Mr. Connolly. And reclaiming my time, thank you, Mr.
    Berman, for that insight. I would also point out that if you
    actually look at the record of accomplishments since UNFPA was
    actually founded as a specialized U.N. agency and you look at
    fertility rates and birth rates in the developing countries,
    more and more families have successfully be able to plan and
    space children, infant mortality has dropped, survivability has
    increased.
        You know the family planning efforts, combined with the
    health efforts and initiatives to protect women's health,
    especially pregnant women and new mothers, has actually paid
    off huge dividends in both improving the status of morbidity
    and mortality in the Third World and in making sure that child
    survival rates have significantly and dramatically improved.
        And we are about, in passing this bill, to turn our back on
    all of that progress because of a political issue that I think
    does not hold up under scrutiny, as you suggest, Mr. Berman.
    And with that, I yield back.
        Ms. Ellmers. Oh, may I?
        Mr. Connolly. Yes, yes, of course.
        Ms. Ellmers. Thank you.
        I would like to address--Mr. Connolly, thank you. And to
    ranking member Berman, again, as you have pointed out, that is
    not my assumption. That is actually the 2002 Bush
    administration investigation which--and I will read on here in
    my 19 seconds left--that the $34 million previously
    appropriated funds to the UNFPA until China ends all forms of
    coercive cohesion of law and practice and that no U.S.
    Government funds should be allocated to population programs in
    China and that appropriate resources, possibly from the U.S.,
    should be allocated----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Connolly's time has
    expired.
        Ms. Ellmers. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I
    rise in strong support of Ms. Ellmer's legislation, thank her
    for offering it, and for the courage to stand up for women in
    China.
        You know it is interesting, 3 days after President Obama
    was sworn in, he directed the administration to resume funding
    for the UNFPA. So there was no careful analysis as to the
    complicity of the UNFPA in the barbaric one-child-per-couple
    policy.
        China's one-child-per-couple policy constitutes massive
    crimes against humanity. The sheer magnitude of the loss of
    human life, the babies as well as the women's lives who have
    been utterly hurt, and I will get to this in a moment, by this
    policy has no parallel in human history. The one-child-per-
    couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal.
        Illegal, imagine that. Any member here who has a sibling or
    who has more than one child, the Government of China tells you
    when and if you can have that child and under what
    circumstances because you do not necessarily get a birth-
    allowed certificate just because you want to have a child.
        There are no single moms in China. Let me say that again.
    Single moms are forcibly aborted. I held my 30th hearing on
    human rights abuses in China. And just 2 weeks ago, Chai Ling,
    the great human rights activist who was a Tiananmen Square
    hero, one of the most wanted people by the government,
    testified right here or in 2200 I should say, and talked about
    how she had been forcibly aborted three times, three times
    because she was an unwed mother. And that is part of their
    rules.
        I would ask members to read the regulations. Look at the
    national policy. And most importantly, look at the 2008 report
    that was done by the Department of State. John Negroponte,
    Secretary Negroponte pointed out, and this is, I think, the
    crux of it or the key, UNFPA program, this is his words, all
    UNFPA programming relating to contraceptive and reproductive
    health incorporates and defers to Chinese law and regulation.
        The national law and provincial regulations are the
    framework for China's coercive birth policies. China, the UNFPA
    comports, implements, supports. And if you look over the 30
    years of what the UNFPA has done in China, it has been to
    aggressively defend the one-child-per-couple policy to all
    comers, critics here in the Congress, critics anywhere in the
    world. And now in particularly south to south work, they are
    actually exporting child limitation policies to Africa and
    elsewhere.
        The population and refugee Assistant Secretary, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary, asked a series of 38 questions to the
    UNFPA back in 2008. There is no transparency. We are not told.
    And we are not told what it is that the UNFPA does in China,
    what their teaching materials are made up of. And when asked
    about audits and internal reports, we were told to pack our
    bags. We will not tell you. These are all confidential.
        So we are expected to fork over $50 million of hard-earned
    taxpayer dollars. And they will not even tell us what they are
    doing, what the teaching materials look like. And the bottom
    line is, what is the consequence? Broken women and dead babies.
        I would finally just say to my colleagues that I hope the
    members will read this report. You know we are talking about
    dictatorship. We are talking about a U.N. agency that has aided
    and abetted a one-child-per-couple policy that we would never
    accept in the United States, that no democracy, I do not think,
    would allow to happen.
        And yet because it is a dictatorship and the UNFPA can
    operate under cloak and concealment and not provide
    information, again there is no transparency, women are being
    exploited as never before.
        Five hundred women per day commit suicide in China
    according to the World Health Organization. At my hearing, I
    had three women who had been forcibly aborted. And they told
    their horrific stories about how they were told you are out of
    plan. You do not have permission to carry this child to term.
    Therefore, you will be aborted.
        Again, look at what the UNFPA does in China. They
    completely and totally adhere to Chinese law. They are just
    following orders. When did we hear that before?
        I hope members will join with Ms. Ellmers. Support this
    legislation. Because when Mr. Berman, and I certainly respect
    the ranking member, we have other programs that we could
    provide money to for important life-saving maternal health
    issues and the like----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. UNFPA has disqualified itself.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Deutch of Florida is recognized.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, saying
    that the UNFPA supports the one-child policy in China does not
    make it so. But I would like to talk about what the UNFPA does
    support, what the UNFPA does to really stand up for women's
    rights and human rights.
        And I would like to talk about two of the areas that often
    are not addressed. The first is the leadership role that this
    body has played in combating female genital mutilation. Female
    genital mutilation comprises all procedures that involve
    partial or total removal of the external female genitalia.
        What does it mean to women? It is a violation of human
    rights, the violation of human rights of girls and women. It
    reflects a deep-rooted inequality between the sexes. It
    constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It
    is nearly always carried out on minors. It is a violation of
    the rights of children.
        It also violates a person's right to health security and
    physical integrity, the right to be free from torture, the
    right to be free from cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, and
    the right to life when the procedure results, as it often does,
    in death.
        There is a lot of debate that is going to take place here
    about China's one-child policy. This organization does not
    support that. My colleagues have made that clear. And the
    debate, I suppose, will continue.
        But this organization has taken a leadership role in
    stopping female genital mutilation. Between 100 and 140 million
    women worldwide have undergone this procedure. Three million
    girls each year face the prospects of female genital
    mutilation.
        Because of the work that this body does that this bill
    wishes to defund, because of the work that they do, 6,000
    communities through Africa and the Middle East have abandoned
    the practice. We cannot turn our back on this important work
    that stands up for women's rights and helps protect women's
    lives.
        Madam Chair, that is not the only area that unfortunately
    is often ignored, the work that the UNFPA does. I would also
    point out that this organization, this body, is likewise a
    leader internationally in stopping obstetric fistula. Fistula
    is another serious problem in the poorest countries in the
    world.
        Again, we do not often talk about that because we get
    carried away in other debates. But the fact is where mothers
    give birth without any medical help, in many cases if a woman's
    labor becomes obstructed, she will endure days of painful,
    prolonged labor. Her baby is unlikely to survive. If the woman
    survives, her body is literally broken by childbirth,
    uncontrollably leaking bodily waste, these women are shunned by
    their families and communities. So many of them are young
    girls.
        There are a lot of people in the nonprofit world who are
    focused on preventing fistula, which can be prevented. But it
    is this body that this bill seeks to defund which has taken a
    leadership role.
        There is going to be a lot of heated debate over the course
    of this hearing, Madam Chair. And I appreciate it. But too
    often we lose sight of a lot of the good work that is done
    every single day by organizations that some choose to demonize.
    In this case, these two issues, stopping fistula, stopping
    female genital mutilation, are vitally important to preserving
    the rights of women and children around the world. This body,
    the UNFPA, has taken a leadership role. And for that reason,
    needs our continued support.
        I oppose this legislation, Madam Chair. And I appreciate
    very much the opportunity to focus on these two issues. And I
    yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        You know I think it is our responsibility to ensure that
    the money that is spent from our hard-working taxpayers is done
    in accordance with the laws. The UNFPA refuses to supply the
    United States with detailed information regarding its programs
    and activities in China.
        We have a responsibility to know how our money is being
    spent by organizations here and abroad. China's one-child
    policy breeds a culture of forced abortions and involuntary
    sterilization in addition to parents aborting their daughters
    in hopes that their sole child will be a boy. It is brutal and
    coercive and should in no way be assisted or enabled by U.S.
    tax dollars. This is the worst cruelty that can be imposed upon
    a woman.
        By essentially ignoring the Kemp-Kasten bill, what sort of
    message are we sending? By funding UNFPA, which has a history
    of giving to organizations like Marie Stopes, an organization
    that partners with national population and family planning
    commissions of China, a message is sent that the U.S. does not
    take coercive abortion and other human rights violations
    seriously. That is not a message I would ever want to send to
    our hard-working taxpayers.
        Defunding UNFPA was a YouCut winner voted on by the America
    public. The American people understand what the current budget
    situation is here and sent a message to us, their elected
    officials, to spend their tax dollars more wisely, cautiously,
    and effectively.
        According to a report prepared by the Norwegian Government,
    the UNFPA has a reserve of over $480 million in 2010, which is
    approximately the same amount as their regular income of 2009.
    In our current budget situation, we have no business supporting
    organizations that have the necessary cash on their own.
        It is argued that this money is not going to abortions,
    coerced or otherwise. But we know that money is fungible. And
    when we cannot get an accurate accounting from the Chinese
    Government as to how that money is being used, then that money
    should be taken away.
        There is an argument that the UNFPA does a lot of good
    things. And I agree that it does. But those can be paid for
    separately.
        And finally, we can take our money and use it elsewhere for
    other programs within the U.N. and other places. And if this
    program is so important, then let us let other member countries
    stand up and fill this gap.
        But, Madam Chair, it is imperative that our hard-earned
    taxpayer dollars from the hard-working Americans, are used
    appropriately, efficiently, and responsibly.
        We are at a place now where we have very serious concerns
    about how China is using this money. We have no accountability
    of how China is using this money. And we need to use this money
    in a better way to help people not just in the United States,
    but around the world, because all life is precious, unborn,
    born, poor, elderly. And it is our responsibility as a moral
    nation under God to respect life in all cases and all
    instances.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
        And let me express my strong opposition to this amendment.
    I would like to certainly speak in opposition to this
    legislation, which would eliminate funding for the United
    Nations Population Fund.
        Last week my office hosted a meeting with a group of
    women's health leaders. They worked in health services from
    Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania. And they were
    participating in a 2-week conference hosted by the Center for
    Development and Population Activities.
        The women told devastating stories about the impact of
    inadequate family planning on their lives and the lives of poor
    and rural communities in Africa. They spoke of the devastating
    impact of multiple unwanted pregnancies on the health and
    economic livelihoods of the mothers. They spoke of the trauma
    of unsafe, self-induced abortions, the pain and stigma of
    obstetric fistulas, the terror of gender-based violence. They
    talked about overstretched, overburdened, rundown health system
    that cannot meet the basic material health needs of their
    communities.
        And at the end of the meeting, they asked us to share their
    message today to those that wish to end family planning
    programs in Africa and the developing world. They want you to
    know that women of Africa want healthy babies. They want the
    ability to space their births. They desperately need family
    planning commodities in rural and poor communities.
        Women do not often have a real shot at improving the
    quality of life for themselves. As a matter of fact, since the
    program has been in existence, infant mortality is down. The
    life expectancy in Africa is increasing because of the fact
    that there are spaced children. And that it is not felt that
    they need to have eight and ten children in order to ensure
    their future.
        And so they asked us to increase its commitment to
    lifesaving family planning in the U.S. And to work for maternal
    health and child survival programs.
        So today I ask that we take their point of view into
    consideration as we debate this issue. We know that our
    constituents also have a point of view on our foreign aid
    spending. And we owe it to them to be honest about where their
    tax dollars are going.
        We have always heard about this overburdening of the
    taxpayers of America. But let me tell you about the truth of
    last year's U.S. contribution, $40 million, about one-hundredth
    of 1 percent of our budget. Now we know that one-hundredth of 1
    percent is very important because--and twice that is two-
    hundredths of 1 percent of the budget.
        However, I think when we talk about this cost to American
    taxpayers, we are really kind of overstating the situation.
    These programs help women to develop healthy babies, provide
    post-rape care and emergency obstetric care in post-conflict
    and disaster situations, help to the practice of female genital
    mutilation, prevent obstetric fistula, and prevent unsafe
    abortions.
        The truth is that the UNFPA does not provide assistance for
    abortion services or abortion-related equipment and supplies as
    a method of family planning. I will say again UNFPA's work
    reduces the need for abortion and the whole question of
    voluntary planning.
        I would also like to mention that we do hear so much about
    the China policy, which I totally oppose. One child, you know
    it is illegal to have a brother or a sister, but I always see
    us lavish with the Chamber of Commerce, the National
    Association of Manufacturers. I never hear the business people
    who talk about this coercive, one-child policy, people that
    support many folks on the other side.
        So I see the inconsistency. Why don't we tell our business
    community why don't you raise this issue as we raise it here?
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
        Ms. Buerkle is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in strong
    support of H.R. 2059.
        Our country has an obligation to spend our taxpayers'
    dollars wisely. And I would say first of all, if this is such a
    good program and they are not involved in China's coercive
    abortion policy, then they should just supply the detailed
    information that they have been asked for by the State
    Department. Their failure to provide what we have asked for is
    not transparency. And certainly leads one to believe that they
    are not being honest and forthright with how they are spending
    the money.
        I think even more than that, by ignoring Kemp-Kasten, the
    U.S. Government sends a message to oppressive governments, that
    coercive abortion and other human right violations are not a
    big deal. We not only give a green light to abusive governments
    to continue to abuse their people without fear of repercussions
    but we also signal that we will fund organizations and support
    them and subsidize their programs. That is the wrong message to
    be sending. Those are not principles consistent with the United
    States of America.
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Smith. Would my friend yield?
        Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. I thank my good friend for yielding.
        And just a quick response to my good friend from New
    Jersey. You know I actually raised the issue of China human
    rights abuses and coercive population control at the New Jersey
    Chamber of Commerce annual event here in Washington. And I
    bring it up all the time.
        And I also show the nexus with what population control,
    particularly the missing girls, 40-50 million missing girls in
    China today, if ever there was a crime of gender, it is sex
    selection abortion where a girl is targeted because she is a
    girl and then aborted. And in China that is so rampant.
        And so I have raised it at the Chamber of Commerce as I
    said to my friend.
        But Ms. Buerkle brings up a very, very important point
    about lack of transparency. I mention those 48 questions--let
    us see--38 questions that were posed by the Population Refugee
    Migration Bureau in 2008. And I would ask members to read those
    answers.
        When asked about what Marie Stopes International, the
    implementing partner for UNFPA in the health area was actually
    doing, UNFPA responded these are internal documents. And as
    such are for internal use only. Audit reports are internal
    management tools and are of a confidential nature.
        So we do not know what they are doing. They are absolutely
    non-transparent.
        And yet they want 50 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to carry
    on what clearly--and let me also say if my friend will continue
    yielding--look at what UNFPA spokespersons, including the
    executive director, Dr. Sadik, former exec director, said.
        He praised the one-child-per-couple policy. In 2002, Dr.
    Sadik got an award from the National Family Planning
    organization in China, the state-run organization, for their
    work.
        I met with Peng Peiyun, the woman who ran the program for
    years on one of several trips to China protesting a myriad of
    human rights abuses in that country. She kept saying over and
    over and over again in that conversation the UNFPA is here.
    They do not see any coercion. They support what we are doing.
    Not only do they support it, they are trying to export it to
    other countries under the guise of child limitation policies.
    So this is a very serious problem.
        I also say to my friends, yes, UNFPA may do some other
    things. But so do other multilateral organizations. So does
    USAID. Our dollars ought to go where we are not in any way
    complicit with these crimes against women--and that is not a
    smear, I say to my friend--these are crimes against women and
    children.
        Let us not forget at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal,
    forced abortion was called rightfully so, a crime against
    women. And a crime against humanity. It is no less a crime
    today.
        And in scope, in the vastness of its implementation in
    China, through its laws and regulations, which the UNFPA
    absolutely adheres to, that was the finding by the State
    Department in 2008--there has been no change. They have carried
    the water of the Chinese Government. They live within those
    parameters of those laws, one child, one child only. And yet
    when we ask questions, they say it is confidential. We cannot
    tell you what we are doing.
        I do believe that on behalf of the Chinese women and all
    those children who have been slaughtered and the Chinese women
    who have been so cruelly exploited, that the leaders of the
    UNFPA ought to be at The Hague for their complicity in these
    crimes. These are gross human rights abuses.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield for a question?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Buerkle's time.
        Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And it is 5 seconds.
        Mr. Connolly. I wonder if my friend from New Jersey would
    favor disinvestment of all U.S. businesses in China with the
    same line?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. No, Ms. Buerkle's time
    has expired.
        Mr. Cicilline is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Cicilline, could I have 3 seconds?
        Mr. Cicilline. Sure.
        Mr. Payne. All right. I would just like to tell my
    colleague from New Jersey that you are the exception to the
    rule. I have to agree that you are consistent with the Chamber
    of Commerce. And so I will want to have the record straight
    that I was not criticizing you per se because I have heard you
    criticize the Chamber.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
    Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their
    own beliefs. And to have strong opinions and beliefs.
        But the facts matter, particularly when we are dealing with
    issues of life and death. And UNFPA does not support the one-
    child policy of China. UNFPA does not provide abortion or
    abortion-related services. Those are the facts. And that
    matters.
        In fact, what makes those assertions particularly
    disturbing is that UNFPA does just the opposite. One of the
    basic tenets of UNFPA is to promote voluntary family planning
    and oppose all forms of coercion, targets, or quotas. So that
    is not the policy that UNFPA, the one-child rule is not the
    policy obviously that they embrace. And, in fact, the governing
    principles are just the opposite.
        The United States was instrumental in the creation of UNFPA
    in 1969. And today their work reflects our commitment as a
    country to saving lives, to slowing the spread of HIV and AIDS
    and to ending horrific practices like female genital
    mutilation. And most importantly, to promote the health of
    women and children in 151 countries around the world.
        And it is based on our long-standing belief that women
    deserve access to quality maternal and reproductive healthcare.
    And what has UNFPA done? They have, in a single decade,
    contributed significantly to reductions in maternal death in
    countries all over the world. Nearly every day, 1,000 women die
    in pregnancy. And almost all of those are preventable if they
    have access to quality reproductive healthcare.
        And so this bill today would eliminate those programs. It
    would eliminate the possibility to provide the kind of care
    that has saved so many lives, that has done so much to end this
    hideous practice of female genital mutilation, has done so much
    to deal with injuries of obstetric fistula, and other
    debilitating diseases.
        And so while I know there has been a lot of discussion
    about the one-child rule, and obviously that is something which
    is an anathema to everything that we believe in as a country,
    that is not what this bill is about. This bill ends all funding
    for UNFPA, for all of the programs that are helping to reduce
    deaths during pregnancies and childbirth, in helping to deal
    with disease and the transmission of disease, and for some of
    the most vulnerable populations all over the world.
        That is what the bill is about. There is nothing in here
    about China's one-child policy. In fact, it will end all of the
    incredibly successful and hard work of UNFPA.
        So the consequences of passing this bill and the impact it
    will have on children and women all across the globe should
    cause everyone to reject this piece of legislation. There is no
    question that if this bill passes, it will surely result in
    harm to women and children by ending important and life-saving
    access to reproductive healthcare and family planning. We
    should not do that.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        And I would like all members to give me some hand signals
    if you wish to be recognized.
        Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I see this legislation as a situation where the UNFPA does
    not want to be transparent about their records. Why is that?
    They have something to hide. Maybe something is taking place
    that we, as Americans, do not agree with.
        There are other reasons why this legislation, I think,
    should pass. And specifically one reason is China's one-child
    policy, which I think is an awful disgrace to the nation of
    China and their government.
        I will yield time to Ms. Ellmers.
        Ms. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
        And I would just like to follow up with some of the
    concerns that have been raised. And I think the overwhelming
    piece or point, I agree, facts do matter, to Mr. Cicilline.
    Facts do matter. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we do not
    have.
        The UNFPA does not provide us with facts. And Ranking
    Member Berman, you had pointed out that there are falsehoods
    and that there is misinformation about how this money is spent.
    I could not agree more. And that is exactly the reason that we
    have put this bill forward because when the American people
    were asked what is the situation, what would you say about
    cutting back on spending, this was it.
        Why? Because of the practices it supports, because of the
    lack of facts, because of the lack of information.
        You know we have also heard about the good work that UNFPA
    participates in. Things like working against female mutilation.
    Well, my question to you is enforced abortion, mutilation is
    part of that. What about that point? What about some of the
    other organizations that help to prevent, as has been pointed
    out, USAID has programs against the fistula preventions.
        These are all things that I think the American people are
    aware of. And they understand.
        You know in the past--and according to a 2008 report, when
    funding like this has been withheld, the European Union has
    come forward. In the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
    Spain, Luxembourg, Japan, UK have all come forward to help in
    these efforts.
        Why is it on the burden of the hard-working American
    taxpayer that they continue to fund a program that we know so
    little about, that we know participates in the Chinese one-
    child policy. They enforce this.
        Now whether or not the UNFPA says that they agree with
    that, money is fungible. The money gets put where it needs to
    go in these practices.
        Now this is the issue. Regardless of where you stand on
    these issues, I am a woman. I am a nurse. There is nothing I
    believe in more than women's health.
        The fact of the matter is the American people are forced to
    pay for a practice in other countries that we know nothing
    about. And that is the issue here. The American people have
    spoken about this. They have told us that they want an end to
    this wasteful spending, that they are participating in acts
    which are horrific.
        And I applaud the concerns that have been brought forward
    in this debate. I understand that there are some good things
    that get done. But by far, the inhumanitarian efforts that are
    put forward in things like this that the American taxpayers are
    being forced to pay for outweigh any of the minimal benefits
    that we have seen.
        Again, I say that because there are other organizations
    that help in these efforts. And the American taxpayer should
    not have to be forced to pay for this.
        And I yield back my time.
        Mr. Cicilline. Would the gentlelady yield for a question?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Is it Mr. Poe's time? Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Poe. Yes, I'll yield.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I would ask the sponsor, she just
    indicated there was a lot of good things or there are some good
    things that UNFPA does. Would you acknowledge then that your
    bill would prevent those good things from continuing? Because
    it eliminates funding and----
        Mr. Poe. I yield to Ms. Ellmers.
        Ms. Ellmers. Well, unfortunately, that is correct. And the
    reason that that is so significant is because of the lack of
    information that we have been able to obtain. Now again, I
    agree. That is unfortunate. However, there are other
    organizations that come forward in this aid. This is not the
    only form of funding for these needed agenda items. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. I yield to Ms. Schmidt.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 10
    seconds.
        Ms. Schmidt. There is some money in the account that could
    pay for those programs right now and it doesn't preclude other
    countries from funding this agency. So in answer to your
    question, yes, there are other ways to pay for those good
    programs.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe's time is----
        Mr. Poe. Expired.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Mr. Engel is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Look,
    everyone who is speaking this morning is heartfelt and feels
    very strongly about it. I am what you would call pro-choice,
    but I do understand my friends on the other side of the aisle.
    Many who have spoken this morning are good, personal friends of
    mine. And I understand the heartfelt feelings that those on the
    other side of the aisle have expressed regarding abortion and
    regarding all of the things they have said.
        I oppose the bill because I just don't think--this to me is
    like using a meat axe to get at everything because some are
    annoyed at some of the programs that have. I mean some of us
    are also annoyed at the United Nations, in general. I think
    it's time, frankly, to reassess a lot of U.S. contributions to
    the United Nations because the United Nations has not been
    balanced and fair in a number of instances, certainly in the
    Middle East and in the Israeli-Palestinian question and other
    questions as well. Those of us who have fought against
    dictatorships, whether it's in Cuba or other places, we get
    frustrated with the United Nations because they seem to tilt on
    the side of dictators and also it irks me, I'm talking about
    me, that the United States pays the yeoman's share of
    contributions to the U.N. and yet the countries of the U.N.
    kind of spit in our face. And it's kind of annoying.
        So some of that I think is inherent in this argument. And
    of course, the major thing is the whole abortion issue. I think
    UNFPA does do good work. I think access to contraception, my
    personal feeling, is important for women, particularly in the
    Third World, and women's healthcare is critical for individual
    health and family wellbeing and I just think that's important.
        So the UNFPA promoting voluntary family planning, it
    doesn't force anyone to do family planning, but it's voluntary
    family planning and does oppose all forms of coercion. I think
    it's a program that should be continued. It doesn't mean that
    we should keep writing blank checks. It doesn't mean that we
    should not monitor it. I think some of the concerns that have
    been voiced on the other side are legitimate concerns and I
    think we need to monitor things because I don't think that the
    United States can keep pouring money and not have any kind of
    oversight. I don't think that's right either. But I think to
    cut off the funding to UNFPA again is like taking a meat
    cleaver when all we need to do is ask questions and do it in a
    much more general way. So I oppose the bill, but I do hope we
    can keep the dialogue going. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. The
    Chair will recognize herself just to make a note. I know that
    we have some members who would like to speak, but I know Mr.
    Connolly had indicated that he has an amendment. And I think
    many of the arguments that perhaps our colleagues will be
    making could be applicable to argue on the Connolly amendment.
    Unless there's an overriding need to speak at this time,
    perhaps we could move to the amendment process. If Mr. Connolly
    offers his amendment, I don't know what it is, but I'm sure our
    arguments will be applicable to that as well. If that is all
    right, then we will have several amendments. So if the clerk
    will--would any member like to be recognized in order to offer
    an amendment? Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And then Ms. Bass and Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Connolly. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. I do not have the amendment.
        Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
    In section 1 insert ``and accept as provided in section 2''
    before ``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the
    following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in
    the case of contributions to UNFPA to carry out activities to
    prevent and treat cases of obstetric fistula.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Connolly follows:]

        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized. Well,
    the Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the author
    for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And given what the author
    of the defunding of UNFPA indicated in terms of her continuing
    commitment to women's health, and then her intention wasn't to
    deny the legitimate activities of UNFPA with respect to that
    health, I would hope she could support this amendment.
        This amendment addresses a very difficult subject,
    especially in developing countries among women called obstetric
    fistula. For those who haven't heard of the condition of
    fistula is frankly a hole. And obstetric fistula is a hole
    between the digestive tract and the reproductive tract. It is
    life endangering. It can lead to the natural abortion of a
    fetus and it can lead to ultimately the illness, sickness, and
    death of the carrying mother.
        If this was a rare occurrence, I suppose some might be able
    to turn their head and ignore it. But it's not rare. It's
    estimated that more than 2 million young women live with
    untreated obstetric fistula in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
    alone. Each year, 50,000 to 100,000 additional women are
    affected by obstetric fistula. How does it happen? In general,
    it happens because of prolonged labor without prompt medical
    intervention, usually a caesarian section. The risks of damage
    are heightened by pregnancy at too young an age, by harmful
    practices such as female genital mutilation and by the lack of
    timely access to obstetric care.
        So fistulas are actually preventable. They can be prevented
    by expanding access to family planning, skilled birth
    attendance, and emergency obstetric care facilities. The risk
    can be reduced by things like improving girls' nutrition and
    conducting educational campaigns. And when you prevent
    obstetric fistula, you also reduce infant mortality, something
    I know Mr. Smith and others absolutely share a concern about
    since most cases of fistula end up with a stillborn baby.
        Now only is obstetric fistula preventable, Madam Chairman,
    it's treatable. Fistula can be completely repaired up to 90
    percent of the time if survivors have access to a trained
    surgeon at a hospital providing fistula repair. The average
    cost of such treatment and post-operative care is about $300 in
    these countries. Sadly, most women with the condition do not
    know that treatment is available or they can't afford it.
        UNFPA is one of the world's leaders in addressing this
    problem. In 2003, UNFPA and its partners launched a global
    campaign to end fistula with the goal of making obstetric
    fistula as rare in developing countries as it is here in the
    industrialized world.
        My amendment is simple. If the money is used to prevent or
    treat obstetric fistula, we would provide that exemption for
    the overall ban on funding of UNFPA and I would yield to the
    distinguished ranking member.
        Mr. Berman. I could not have said it better myself. Between
    you and Mr. Deutch, you've made a compelling case.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman and yield back, Madam
    Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The Chair
    yields herself 5 minutes. And certainly the services in Mr.
    Connolly's amendment, they are noble goals, but the amendment
    presumes that whatever good activities the UNFPA conducts will
    cease unless it receives our U.S. taxpayer dollars. And that's
    simply not true. And I'm sure that we will have a series of
    amendments, not just on fistula, but there will be a series on
    other services that UNFPA provides, and they will use these
    services as cover to continue their practice.
        Given recent reports that UNFPA may be sitting on $500
    million in unspent reserves, it appears unlikely that they will
    run out of this money and probably will be able to resume their
    activities with whatever money they have still to spend.
        And further, UNFPA's noble goals are tainted by the fact
    that they are listed in this amendment and in many amendments
    to come for no other reason than to justify funding an
    organization that supports and participates in the management
    of China's unthinkable, brutal, one-child policy, a policy in
    which women are snatched out of their homes, forced into a
    clinic, and held down while their baby is killed and extracted
    from their bodies, all while UNFPA likely provides financial
    support to the agency responsible for these terrible abuses.
    Instead of boldly speaking out against the one-child policy at
    every opportunity, UNFPA gives cover to the Chinese Government.
    Regardless of what UNFPA claims, UNFPA does not enforce,
    monitor, or certify that UNFPA funds are not going to forced
    sterilization and coerced abortion. UNFPA does not hold
    recipient governments accountable and it refuses to share their
    records.
        Remember, fistulas on one continent simply cannot offset
    participation in the most draconian population control program
    on the globe. Fortunately, USAID already has a program for
    fistula prevention and repair, and the millions of dollars
    currently going to UNFPA could more transparently and
    effectively be directed through our bilateral assistance
    programs.
        One day fistula will be eradicated worldwide and when that
    day comes, I hope that we will be proud that the scourge of
    fistula was eliminated without using the suffering of women in
    Africa and other parts of the world to justify and mask the
    unthinkable suffering of women who are subjected to forced
    abortions in China.
        I'd like to yield my remaining time and then he will get
    his own time to Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise in
    opposition to the amendment and associate myself with the
    remarks of the gentlelady, the chair of the committee.
        In the late 1990s, I began an effort after being made aware
    of obstetric fistula by Dr. Wali from Modern Care to get a
    program that would combat fistula. I asked the Clinton
    administration, I asked the Bush administration. I finally got
    legislation passed as an amendment in my bill, H.R. 2601 that
    established a fistula program. The gentlelady from Florida was
    the chief cosponsor. It passed the House, failed in the Senate.
        I then talked to Kent Hill who was then the head of Health
    for USAID and said we've passed a program to combat obstetric
    fistula, will you do it administratively? You have the
    authority, just do it. He did it.
        We now have a USAID fistula program that has spent over $70
    million. It has repaired 20,000 women, mostly in Africa, and it
    has a preventive capacity to it as well as repair capacity. And
    30 USAID-supported fistula repair centers operate in 11
    countries. We have built a capacity. UNFPA does some things on
    fistula, does some things on other things that some might think
    are important, but frankly, the massive crime of forced
    abortion should not be overlooked and somehow put under the
    table because somehow they're doing something else somewhere
    else.
        We have a fistula program. I started it. And I believe
    deeply along with the gentlelady from Florida who was the co-
    author of that legislation, that that's the way to go. If UNFPA
    was stealing money, would anybody here on either side of the
    aisle say oh, let's look askance with regards to their huge
    thefts and we would find another NGO, another regional body to
    give our money to. In this case, we're doing it on fistula.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Well, Madam Chair, I simply want to concur
    with what you said. You most capably and aptly and frankly
    beautifully laid out the case that we do not have to be
    complicit with this agency as they are complicit in China's
    one-child barbaric policy, but at the same time we have a
    certain level of responsibility to the international community.
    And as Mr. Smith just stated, we can use our own funds and
    direct them in a way toward the essential and important goal of
    helping the victims of this fistula difficulty as well as other
    programs out there that will again be targeted to the poorest
    and marginalized, particularly women who are hurting and in
    need. But to simply say that the conduit has to be the United
    Nations Population Fund I think is a point of disagreement
    here. There are many people who would be deeply troubled after
    learning about this hearing as to what's been said and I think
    it's appropriate to remove taxpayer dollars from that
    organization, but continue to look for creative ways, as Mr.
    Smith has done through his extraordinary leadership to help the
    world's most vulnerable. With that, I'll yield.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Payne is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. Do any of the members seek
    recognition on the Connolly amendment? And if not, the Chair
    withdraws the point of order and, hearing no further requests
    for recognition, the question occurs on the Connolly amendment
    that is before you.
        All those in favor say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        All opposed, no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Respectfully, I would ask for a recorded vote
    on that.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. A recorded vote has been requested
    and the clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        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.
    Rohrabacher. Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Royce. Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Paul. Mr. Pence.
        Mr. Pence. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. Wilson. 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. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson. 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. Marino.
        Mr. Marino. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Duncan. Ms. Buerkle.
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no. Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Ackerman. Mr.
    Faleomavaega. 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. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr.
    Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Mr. Cardoza. Mr.
    Chandler.
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms.
    Schwartz.
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no. I haven't finished the
    roll yet.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If we will allow the clerk to finish
    the roll and then we will ask if all members have been
    recorded.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Murphy. Ms. Wilson. 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. Manzullo, you are not recorded.
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no. Mr. Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Royce, you are
    recorded as voting no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 12 ayes
    and 21 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it and the question is
    not agreed to. Are there further amendments on this bill? Ms.
    Bass has an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Ms. Bass. In
    section 1 insert ``and accept as provided in section 2'' before
    ``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the following:
    Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in the case of
    contributions to UNFPA to carry out activities to reestablish
    reproductive and maternal health services in areas where
    medical infrastructure and such services have been destroyed by
    natural disasters.
        [The amendment offered by Ms. Bass follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Bass is recognized to explain
    her amendment.
        Ms. Bass. Madam Chair, this amendment will allow the United
    States to continue working with the Population Fund in disaster
    areas to help reestablish maternal health services. The
    amendment would continue funding again for critical health
    services after a natural disaster. For example, after the
    tsumani in '05, the Population Fund moved rapidly to protect
    maternal and reproductive health and to ensure the security,
    hygiene and dignity of women and girls throughout Indonesia,
    Sri Lanka and Thailand. In Indonesia, for example, the Fund
    continues to provide hygiene kits, medicines, and medical
    equipment.
        In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake in 2010, the Fund
    worked closely with clinics on the ground to assist pregnant
    women who were struggling to stay alive and deliver healthy
    babies.
        My amendment aims to protect women's reproductive health
    after a natural disaster strikes. I urge my colleagues to
    support my amendment. I yield the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much for your
    brevity, Ms. Bass. It is so greatly appreciated. Do other
    members seek recognition on this amendment? Mr. Chabot is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the
    gentlelady, first of all, from North Carolina, Ms. Ellmers for
    offering her excellent legislation. I can't think of a better
    way to save $50 million in American taxpayer dollars than by
    prohibiting funding the United Nations Population Fund. As my
    colleagues know, the U.S. for quite some time withheld funding
    the UNFPA, a leading proponent of China's unconscionable one-
    child policy. That changed in 2009 when President Obama
    reinstated funding to the UNFPA. Since then, the taxpayers of
    the United States, a majority of whom oppose taxpayer-funded
    abortion have unwillingly allocated $145 million for this
    abusive policy.
        I would like to again thank my colleague from North
    Carolina, Ms. Ellmers, for offering her thoughtful legislation.
    We talk a lot about human rights around here. This legislation
    is all about human rights. The fundamental right to life, I
    wholeheartedly support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
    And I would ask the gentlelady from North Carolina, would she
    like to speak to this amendment or her amendment specifically?
        Ms. Ellmers. Yes. And thank you, Mr. Chabot. There again,
    wonderful intention to continue funding especially in those
    countries that are faced with those natural disasters as our
    own country has been faced with, but there again, we are faced
    with a situation where all too often, the taxpayer dollars are
    not being spent wisely because we don't know what is being--
    what is taking place. And although again, as the chairman has
    pointed out, there are many situations which I think we all
    support on a humanitarian level.
        The fact that there is such lack of transparency in this
    program that why should the American people continue to pay for
    it, especially when there are other sources of funding that are
    available. And as the chairman has pointed out, $500 million of
    surplus that can be used for these actually needed efforts.
        I agree. There are many--it tugs at our heartstrings
    whenever we hear these issues, but the overall riding issue is
    the abuses that are taking place. And this is what the American
    people are calling out to us as elected officials to take care
    of and to recognize. And to stop the continued funding of their
    taxpayer funds. So thank you.
        Again, to the gentlelady, I am in disagreement with your
    amendment, although I know your intentions are more than
    honorable. I yield back.
        Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time. And having had the
    opportunity to interact with the gentlelady from California,
    the former Speaker of the House, I would agree that her
    intentions are honorable. Nonetheless, I have to oppose the
    amendment and I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chabot. I
    would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Berman who will speak in
    favor of the amendment and then I will recognize him for
    unanimous consent request to make it easier for our members in
    terms of voting.
        Mr. Berman is recognized.
        Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And I
    support this amendment very strongly. But I'd like to engage
    Ms. Ellmers, the sponsor of the legislation. And here, I'm
    quite serious in trying to understand particularly given your
    last comments, what our differences are.
        I think there's a general consensus that China and areas of
    China forced abortion, coercive population control, one-child
    policy are going on and are odious to us and constitute
    violations of fundamental human rights.
        You've acknowledged that UNFPA does many good things that
    have nothing to do with that. But there's been a general
    allegation that the UNFPA supports those practices as opposed
    to the services we think of. I've not heard--I've heard vivid
    descriptions of the outrage of China's practices, but I haven't
    heard UNFPA. But you just referenced that part of this problem
    isn't so much we have specific evidence of what UNFPA has done
    as there is a lack of transparency, so if they're operating in
    a country where these odious things are going on, we should cut
    off the funding.
        I'm wondering if you could share with us what is the
    information that you seek that you're not able to get. What is
    the--give me some detail the problem with the transparency. I
    say this honestly because I think----
        Mr. Engel. Would my friend yield?
        Mr. Berman. I asked Ms. Ellmers, but whoever.
        Ms. Ellmers. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Berman. Yes.
        Ms. Ellmers. Yes, well, you have pointed out some fine
    points. In fact, you've outlined in your opening comments the
    lack of information, the misinformation that is out there and
    this is exactly the point. And I would reiterate to you again
    that this was the winning you cut proposal that the American
    people--please, if I could just maintain my----
        Mr. Berman. No, let me just reclaim my time, it is my time.
    I want to understand what is the information. No one has told
    me about something UNFPA has done that constitutes a coercive
    family planning practice, a forced abortion or one child--no
    one has made such an assertion. What they have said is they're
    operating in a country where that is going on and then you have
    added and we don't know what they're doing there. There's a
    lack of transparency. And I'm trying to find out what is it
    that you're--what have you tried to get that you haven't been
    able to get?
        Ms. Ellmers. Well, let me outline to you, John Negroponte,
    then Deputy Secretary of State, June 26, 2008, State Department
    determination denying U.S. funds to the UNFPA that--and I
    quote--``all UNFPA programming related to contraceptive and
    reproductive health incorporates and defers to Chinese law and
    regulation.'' This is the Chinese law that is in place for the
    one-child policy and the UNFPA adheres to that. The national
    law and the provincial regulations are a framework for Chinese
    coercive birth policy.
        Mr. Berman. What is UNFPA--reclaiming my time--what do they
    do? My guess is American companies, American tourists, comply
    with all kinds of Chinese laws. What does the agency and its
    people do in China that holds them culpable for the odious and
    outrageous practices of the Chinese Government? That's what I'm
    trying to get my hands on.
        Ms. Ellmers. I will once again point out, one, the lack of
    transparency, but I would like to further that with a statement
    from Sven Burmenester in 1999, a UNFPA representative talking
    about the Chinese population control programs. His quote was,
    ``China has had the most successful family planning policy in
    the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that China
    has done mankind a favor.''
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired. I
    just want to say we were going to entertain unanimous consent
    to roll the votes because it seemed to be easier for our
    members, but apparently we want to keep on voting so I will
    continue to recognize members who wish to speak on the
    amendment that is before us. And then we still have Mr. Payne's
    two amendments. We have a Cicilline amendment, and we have a
    Keating amendment, and a Murphy amendment.
        Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. First of all, let me say to the sponsor, I
    deeply respect her and thank her for her good work. The other
    day when we were at the White House, I thought it was excellent
    that she was working on foster care. But let me just say as
    well, that I was in Banda Aceh. I was in Sri Lanka. And also
    visited Phuket after the horrific tsunami in 2005 as you
    pointed out.
        UNFPA is not the only player in town. There are large
    numbers of NGOs, large numbers of private volunteer
    organizations, government health departments and the like, all
    who have capacity, who provide much needed and often compete
    for very scarce dollars for virtually every program that we
    provide.
        We always have more people asking for money than those that
    we are able to fund. UNFPA, we argue, disqualifies itself
    pursuant to the Kemp-Kasten law that says very simply that any
    organization that support or co-manages a coercive population
    control program is precluded funding. It is to say that all
    family planning absolutely bright lined in the sand must be
    voluntary and also we would hope would be not abortive because
    abortion is not family planning. It takes the life of a baby,
    as Planned Parenthood itself admitted in the '60s after that
    child's life has begun.
        So money that doesn't go to the UNFPA is reprogrammed for
    maternal healthcare or some other program somewhere else. It's
    not like the money is lost somehow in the system. And in the
    past, we have had amendments that suggested that it ought to go
    to this program or that program in order to ensure that vital
    programs like fistula repair are funded.
        UNFPA, though, as Sven Burmenester, as Ms. Ellmers has just
    mentioned a moment ago, they have been saying China is the
    model. They're not saying don't coerce, don't exploit women.
    They're saying China is the model.
        I have met about 100 women, both in China and at all of
    those hearings that I've held including the one just a couple
    of weeks ago, three of whom were forcibly aborted and you hear
    them tell how the government so aggressively coerces. It starts
    with economic disincentives, fines and penalties, and if the
    woman persists, she is literally dragged in.
        There has been no record of UNFPA saying publicly or
    privately, they don't tell us what they do privately, that they
    have tried to stop this. Instead, they say to all-comers, they
    whitewash these crimes, frankly. They say to everybody who is a
    critic that this is the program that needs to be emulated.
        God forbid that we have a one-child-per-couple policy, and
    I will yield, all over the world, because--and you look at what
    just recently at a summit in Cancun. Ted Turner said we need a
    world, including the United States, with a one-child-per-couple
    policy. That means brothers and sisters are illegal. In
    dictatorships, it will be very easy, obviously, it would be a
    lot harder to get that implemented in a democracy like the
    United States or many of European friends.
        We've asked--the administration previously--PRM asked does
    UNFPA training include explicit prohibitions against using
    coercive measures? No answer. They were asked exactly what is
    Marie Stopes International, the health implementing partner
    doing? They were told in this Q&A that that is confidential. We
    can't tell you.
        So we see all of this support for the Chinese family
    planning program. We see awards going to the executive director
    of the UNFPA from the China State Family Planning Organization.
    It's not rocket science to say they are complicit. They are
    supporting it. And as I said before, the woman who ran it, Pong
    Peyun. I got a rare meeting with her when I was in Beijing. She
    kept telling me how the UNFPA is here, on the ground, and sees
    no evidence of coercion.
        Please, if you believe that, I'll sell you the Brooklyn
    Bridge. It is horrific. Take the time to know what's going on
    on the ground. It's all about defending women. They can't fight
    against--look at Chen Guangcheng, the blind activist lawyer who
    is under house arrest along with his wife, has been beaten to a
    pulp repeatedly by Chinese secret police, went to prison and
    what was his crime? Defending women in Liaoning province who
    were being forcibly aborted. And they absolutely threw the book
    at this man.
        And then we want to give money to an organization that is
    also on the ground like Chen Guangcheng who are saying this is
    what not only what China should continue doing, but also what
    the rest of the world needs to emulate. And believe me, in
    Africa and elsewhere, the lessons learned, negative lessons at
    that, are being promoted all over Africa. Child limitation is
    the means to an end and of course in dicatorships it absolutely
    includes coercion just like in China.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Do other members seek
    recognition on the amendment?
        If not, the question occurs on the amendment. All those in
    favor, say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those opposed, no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair the noes
    have it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
        Ms. Bass requests a roll call vote and the clerk will call
    the roll. This is on the Bass amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        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. 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.
    McCall. Mr. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. Schmidt. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson. 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. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no. Ms. Buerkle.
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner.
        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.
    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. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. 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.
    Chandler.
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms.
    Schwartz. Mr. Murphy.
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye. Ms. Wilson. Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye. Ms. 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. Poe.
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no. Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman on that vote there are 13 ayes,
    and 21 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it and the question is
    not agreed to. Mr. Payne is recognized to explain his two
    amendments to offer.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair, Amendment 647, it's at
    the desk and while they are distributing it, I'll move on for
    the benefit of the time, Madam Chair. This amendment that I
    introduce with Mr. Keating grants the President authorization
    to support UNFPA in their work to promote the access of woman,
    unaccompanied minors, and other vulnerable people to vital
    services including access to water, sanitation facilities, food
    and healthcare as well as support services to prevent and
    respond to gender-based violence and emergency in conflict
    situations.
        As you know, UNFPA is a critical player in emergencies
    whether it's armed conflict, famine or natural disaster. Some
    60 million people are currently internally displaced and lack
    basic human necessities. Most vulnerable in this population, of
    course, are women and children and they account for over 75
    percent of this displaced people in conflict zones. More women
    die from childbirth complications, preventable diseases and
    malnutrition than from the actual violence that is occurring on
    the field.
        Failing to target and treat these women as consequences
    beyond the individual often threatens the child. More than 15
    of all pregnancies have complications requiring emergency
    obstetric care during delivery. However, in times of crisis,
    obstetric care is often overlooked, increasing child mortality
    and vulnerability to HIV.
        The last two decades, the number of natural disasters has
    quadrupled and the number of people affected by these disasters
    has increased by 76 million. Over the last decade an additional
    100 people per hour have become displaced through the
    conflicts. Now is not the time to reduce the support we provide
    to the most vulnerable among us. In emergency situations UNFPA
    is on the front line saving lives of men, women, and children,
    newborns, and that is why I urge you support this amendment,
    and Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Payne and Mr. Keating
    follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Hearing no
    other members requesting recognition, the question occurs on
    the amendment. All those in favor say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Payne. Madam Chair, may I have a recorded vote?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no. Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Gallegly.
        Mr. Gallegly. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher. 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. Paul. 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. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no. Ms. Buerkle.
        Ms. Buerkle. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner.
        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.
    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. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr.
    Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye. Mr. Deutch. Mr.
    Cardoza. Mr. Chandler.
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms.
    Schwartz. Mr. Murphy.
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye. Ms. Wilson. Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye. Ms. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye. Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no. Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot 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 Chair, on that vote, there are 13 ayes
    and 23 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it. The question is
    not agreed to. Mr. Payne is recognized for his next amendment.
        Mr. Payne. I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment 658.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Payne.
    In section 1, insert ``and except as provided in section 2''
    before ``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the
    following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in
    the case of contributions to UNFPA to carry out activities in
    the Democratic Republic of Congo.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Payne follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will wait 1 second until the
    members have the amendment, and then I will recognize Mr.
    Payne. Mr. Payne is recognized.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My amendment,
    as has been indicated, grants the President authorization to
    support UNFPA's activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
    The infant mortality rate in the DRC is 78.43 deaths per 1,000
    live births, which of course makes the DRC one of the highest
    incidences of infant mortality in the world.
        The UNFPA is on the ground in the DRC, combating this in a
    number of ways, and working to make motherhood safer. Ensuring
    there is a skilled birth attendant and access to emergency
    obstetric care are some of the simple solutions UNFPA employs
    to prevent the complications from becoming debilitating and
    life-threatening.
        In the DRC, half of all women will have a child by the age
    of 19. A child bride faces greater health risks and experiences
    real physical violations and trauma as her young body is forced
    to deal with early sexual activity and the strain of pregnancy
    and childbirth.
        The UNFPA is working across the DRC to educate people about
    how delaying childbirth for even 5 years would have immense
    health benefits to women. In this war-torn country, rape and
    sexual violence plague the population. The U.N. has declared
    DRC to be the rape capital of the world.
        I recently returned, about a month or so ago, from three
    camps where rape victims live, in the hardship that they lived
    with, and their children. It was just heart-wrenching. UNFPA
    has been aiding survivors of sexual violence throughout the
    country for many years, by providing everything from medical
    care to legal assistance.
        UNFPA has also trained thousands of troops in the armed
    forces, and from the U.N., on how to deal with and assist rape
    victims. UNFPA has entered refugee camps, including Camp
    Kibaki, to provide condoms, STD test kits, as well as treatment
    for STDs. It also provides kits for rape victims, and clean
    delivery kits.
        UNFPA is on the front lines fighting for human rights. I
    ask that you please support the UNFPA's work in the DRC by
    voting yes for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Do any members seek
    recognition on this amendment? Seeing no requests for
    recognition, the question occurs--yes. Mr. Ackerman is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ackerman. I would just like to ask Mr. Payne a
    question. Does any of this money go to abortions?
        Mr. Payne. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Ackerman. Could somebody explain, if none of this money
    is going for abortions, and it is going for only those good
    purposes that Mr. Payne outlined, why would somebody object to
    this amendment?
        Ms. Ellmers. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. I would be delighted.
        Ms. Ellmers. And again, a very good question, and one that
    I think has been reiterated over, and over, and over again
    today. You know, good things in one part of the world do not
    offset human rights abuses in another. If the UNFPA truly does
    care----
        Mr. Ackerman. But this is only for that part of the world,
    as I----
        Ms. Ellmers. Again, and this goes to Mr. Payne's actual
    amendment, about human rights and the UNFPA supporting human
    rights efforts. If they truly do believe this, and they truly
    do believe in the rights of women and families, children, then
    they will start by pulling their assistance to the Chinese
    population control agencies----
        Mr. Ackerman. But I can't----
        Ms. Ellmers [continuing]. And stop the strong----
        Mr. Ackerman. I take it your argument goes to fungibility?
        Ms. Ellmers. Absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my good friend yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. I have a hard time reconciling how we apply
    standards here, and I understand all of the sensitivities of
    the issue. But if there were--let me first just state that I am
    a very strong believer in separation of church and state.
    Nonetheless, like a lot of us, I support providing funds for
    certain religious institutions, so that they can use it for
    transportation or general education, within church schools or
    church supported schools, despite the fact that money might be
    fungible, so that we can provide general services for the good
    things they do.
        Nobody makes the case that because a particular church or
    religion may have some people running amok and abusing
    children, that until that policy stops we shouldn't be doing
    the good things that that church, or institution, or religion
    might be doing, because that money is fungible. How do we
    reconcile that?
        I know that it is not an official policy of the church, but
    certainly cover-ups some people consider an official policy.
    And we know that everybody on both sides decries those abuses,
    if indeed they do take place, but why do we not cut off those
    funds until that organization, I think you said ``cleans up its
    act'' internationally.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my good friend yield for a question?
        Mr. Ackerman. I would.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Ackerman, over here. Following your
    logic, Mr. Ackerman, I agree with what you are getting at. If
    we are going to buy into guilt by association--no proof that
    the party that is the subject of the legislation has done
    anything wrong, but just the fact that it operates in another
    country where we think some things have been done wrong--we
    believe they have been--that is good enough.
        And this issue of fungibility. Wouldn't it logically
    follow, Mr. Ackerman, that we ought to be actually marking up
    legislation to require the disinvestment of all U.S. companies
    in China? Because money is fungible, and guilt by association:
    The fact that they are there automatically makes them complicit
    in a policy we abhor.
        Mr. Ackerman. I think I get your point, and I think you get
    my point. I don't think anybody else gets it. I think there is
    a lack of consistency here. And I understand the sensitivities,
    and I don't think any of us want to cut off money for doing
    good things, and you don't want to condemn everybody for
    everything when there are policies that were obviously--or seem
    obviously to be taking place, either in commission or in
    covering those up.
        And I don't know how you punish good acts, that are done by
    good people, because of things that you might believe are bad
    things to do.
        Mr. Payne. Mr. Ackerman, would you yield?
        Mr. Ackerman. I would.
        Mr. Payne. I would just ask--and I can appreciate the
    feelings of people who are very much pro-life, but I would
    implore some of you to visit a place like the DRC, where people
    live on volcanic rock, and women who have been raped, who stand
    up before you and tell you about their situations. I think you
    might have a little bit different----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired, Mr. Ackerman's time. And the gentleman, Mr. Smith, is
    recognized, who knows a bit about this issue.
        Mr. Smith. First of all, as my good friend and colleague
    from New Jersey knows, I have been to the DR Congo, not only
    chaired several hearings on it, the violence against women and
    the like, I went to Goma. And I visited several NGOs that were
    working and doing Herculean, outstanding efforts expended upon
    women who were subjected to violence, and women who experienced
    obstetric fistulas. And Heal Africa, for example, is doing
    magnificent things. They are not UNFPA.
        There are other organizations that, if the United Nations
    Population Fund insists on aiding and abetting coercion and
    violence against women in China, and then seeks to export that
    model elsewhere, including to Africa--as you may recall, 3
    years ago, the health ministers of most of the sub-Saharan
    African countries were invited to Beijing, and under the
    auspices of the UNFPA and the coercive State Family Planning
    Council, were told, ``If you want to have economic prosperity,
    the means to that end is to limit the number of children.''
        Paul Kagame from Rwanda came back, and he is talking now
    about a three child per couple policy, and you only get there
    through coercion. Women and families will always want to have
    children, and the government then steps in and says, ``You
    can't have that child.''
        Mr. Berman said earlier that there is no consensus for what
    China is doing. I would agree, but that doesn't apply to the
    U.N. Population Fund. They like the program in China. They say
    it repeatedly, publicly. They tell me that. So after a while--
    they train family planning cadres. So their consensus is to
    support, enable, aid and abet this horrific crime against
    women.
        And again, for an NGO or some group that we don't support,
    we provide that money to another group, like in the DR Congo
    where other organizations are there. And as I would also say,
    with fistula, I worked very hard to build capacity within USAID
    so we have complete transparency, accountability, so those
    monies are going where we can say, ``How much did we spend?
    What did we do to try and mitigate the misery and pain suffered
    by fistula victims?''
        We have no such accountability whatsoever with UNFPA. They
    take our money, and then slam the door in our face. That is no
    way to run an NGO, a multilateral organization, or a U.N.
    organization.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Hearing
    no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on the
    Payne amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Payne. Recorded vote.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne requests a recorded vote.
    The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Poe. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
        Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
        Mr. Berman.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy.
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
        Mr. Burton. Have I been recorded?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton, you are not recorded.
        Mr. Burton. I vote no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Mr. Higgins.
        Mr. Higgins. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
        Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 14 ayes
    and 23 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to. We have a Cicilline amendment, and a possible
    two amendments from Mr. Keating. Mr. Cicilline, would you like
    to----
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I actually
    have two amendments at the desk. I would like to begin with
    Amendment 649, which is co-sponsored by Congresswoman Allison
    Schwartz.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the Cicilline-
    Schwartz amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr.
    Cicilline of Rhode Island and Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania.
        In section 1 insert ``and except as provided in section
    2,'' before ``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the
    following: Section 2----
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline and Ms. Schwartz
    follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The Chair reserves a
    point of order, and in the interests of time I would like to
    recognize the author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment,
    while the amendment copies are being given out. Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am strongly
    opposed to this underlying bill, but hope that passage of this
    amendment will mitigate the detrimental impact of this
    legislation on women's reproductive health all around the
    globe.
        UNFPA is the organization that provided safe delivery kits
    to women in the days after the 2004 tsunami in Asia, so that
    thousands of women could give birth safely in the aftermath of
    this disaster. UNFPA leads efforts to eliminate obstetric
    fistula, distribute effective contraceptives, prevent HIV and
    AIDS, and deliver healthy newborns. United States funds are
    essential to the continued provision of these types of
    services.
        In addition, some of the benefits of U.S. international
    family planning assistance include 37.4 million women and
    couples receiving contraceptive services, 11.7 million
    unintended pregnancies are prevented. There are 5.1 million
    fewer abortions, and 32,000 maternal deaths averted. If the
    United States stops funding these crucial life-saving
    initiatives, we can expect more unintended pregnancies, more
    abortions, and more maternal deaths.
        For these reasons, I am offering an amendment that would
    allow the U.S. to continue to contribute to UNFPA's work in
    post-conflict and disaster situations by providing and
    distributing equipment, medicine, supplies, and expertise,
    including safe delivery kits and hygiene kits to ensure safe
    childbirth and emergency obstetric care.
        UNFPA provides safe delivery and hygiene kits to ensure
    safe childbirth and emergency care to those most vulnerable to
    complications of pregnancy and childbirth which are a leading
    cause of disease and death among refugee women of childbearing
    age.
        UNFPA responds to emergencies in a broad range of
    situations and settings. The conditions may be hostile or
    hospitable, politically charged or on the path to peace. But
    they are never easy. In the aftermath of the earthquake in
    Haiti in January 2010, the needs of 63,000 pregnant women were
    met through dissemination of safe delivery kits that were
    provided with UNFPA's support.
        After unrest in East Timor damaged or destroyed almost
    every medical facility, UNFPA worked with NGOs to distribute
    equipment for clinics and basic supplies, such as soap, plastic
    sheeting, and even a razor blade for cutting the umbilical cord
    of a newborn.
        Whether the emergency is due to violence, as in Timor, or
    earthquakes, as in Haiti, or a hurricane, as in Guatemala,
    UNFPA stands ready to assist pregnant women in this time of
    compounded vulnerability, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
    support this amendment and to oppose the underlying bill. But
    this amendment will ensure that in those circumstances,
    emergencies, that the UNFPA can continue to carry out
    activities that provide and distribute medicine, supplies,
    expertise, equipment--that will include safe delivery kits and
    hygiene kits--to ensure safe childbirth and emergency obstetric
    care.
        And I hope that everyone can support this amendment. This
    is an opportunity to be certain that, in those instances where
    we have an opportunity to really help in the safe birth of a
    child, that the UNFPA will continue to be able to devote
    resources to those activities. And with that, I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman is recognized.
        Mr. Ackerman. Yes, I have a question for the author of the
    amendment, Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
        Mr. Ackerman. Does your amendment promote abortion?
        Mr. Cicilline. Absolutely not. In fact, it specifically
    refers to ensuring the safe childbirth and emergency obstetric
    care, so it is----
        Mr. Ackerman. Does it pay for abortions?
        Mr. Cicilline. It does not.
        Mr. Ackerman. Does it encourage abortions?
        Mr. Cicilline. It does not.
        Mr. Ackerman. Does it help provide for safe deliveries and
    live births?
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
        Mr. Ackerman. So this is a pro-life amendment?
        Mr. Cicilline. It is absolutely a pro-child amendment.
        Mr. Ackerman. Does anybody think that this is anything--
    this specific amendment is anything but a pro-child, pro-child-
    being-born-live-and-safely amendment? If not, I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Hearing--yes, Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, again I rise in support of the
    amendment. The only thing specific that I have heard regarding
    UNFPA and support for Chinese coercive birth control, forced
    abortion, one-child policies is a statement from a UNFPA
    employee in 1999. That employee was let go.
        The current executive director and the past three executive
    directors have come out publicly and forcefully against the
    practices in China for all kinds of reasons, including the fact
    that this policy--these policies are used to indicate sex
    preference in terms of who is going to be born or not.
        Again, the horrible consequences of a horrible policy. It
    sounds to me like a gross distortion to make the contention
    that somehow, because they are operating in China, they are
    complicit in the practices that we, I think by strong
    consensus, share here. If--the logical extension of what you
    are suggesting with this amendment is, ``Let us repeal MFN
    status for China. Let us go to the leadership of the Republican
    Party to schedule the markup of a vote on a bill to deal with
    Chinese manipulation of currency fluctuations. Let us stop
    export subsidies to China. Let us''--if the notion that,
    because we do things in the normal way with this country, even
    though they have these policies is the logic here, you have got
    a lot more to do than cut off the funding of UNFPA.
        Mr. Deutch. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Berman. I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Deutch. Since the ranking member first asked the
    question earlier in this hearing, or earlier in this markup, we
    have also heard--and I am not sure the ranking member was here
    for all of these statements--we have heard that the UNFPA
    supports the one-child policy, that it co-manages the one-child
    policy, that it says the one-child policy should be emulated.
        We have heard that it repeatedly speaks in favor of the
    one-child policy. And I would join with the ranking member for
    some support that actually is consistent with these statements,
    and is inconsistent with the State Department's own conclusion
    that the UNFPA never supported the policy of coercive abortion
    or involuntary sterilization. And I yield back to the ranking
    member.
        Mr. Berman. I yield back to you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Just to remind members, the finding by the U.S.
    Department of State in 2008, after an extensive review--and I
    would invite members to avail themselves of reading that--said
    that ``all,'' repeat, ``all UNFPA programming incorporates and
    defers to Chinese law and regulation.''
        Mr. Berman. What does that mean?
        Mr. Smith. In this, if you would take the time--with
    respect to my friend--and read it, the regulations are all laid
    out--not all of them, but many of them--the Federal
    regulations, and some of the----
        Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith. In a minute. And some of the county regulations
    make it very clear that one-child is the norm. There are very,
    very few exceptions. And UNFPA, in order to operate, to train
    family planning cadres, for example, is there any evidence that
    they have said coercion has no place? Marie Stopes
    International actually has the health program for the UNFPA.
        Mr. Berman. Where are you----
        Mr. Smith. Our State Department asked repeatedly, ``Exactly
    what are they doing?''
        And they said, UNFPA, ``We won't tell you.''
        When we asked for the family planning programs--we trained
    tens of thousands of cadres on how to implement this policy.
    When that was done, we said, ``Where are the training manuals?
    What did they do?''
        They said, ``Call Beijing and get it from them.'' Not UNFPA
    Beijing, but the State Family Planning. And that never was
    forthcoming. So that is the problem. No transparency. They have
    aided and abetted this. They are----
        Mr. Berman. How have they aided and abetted it?
        Mr. Smith. By supporting it. They are on the ground,
    supporting----
        Mr. Berman. Where? Why do you say that? Give me the facts?
        Mr. Smith. Well, the facts are--I have said it several
    times.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If you could go through the Chair?
    Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. I have said it several times.
        Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I yield.
        Mr. Deutch. And I don't think that this is repetitive. It
    is one thing to suggest that the abhorrent China one-child
    policy is in place in a country where the UNFPA offers services
    to help maternal health. It is----
        Mr. Smith. Reclaiming my time. They can't operate outside
    of the regulations of the government.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Smith's time.
        Mr. Smith. Their laws. They are in tune with them, in sync
    with those regulations. That makes them a part of it. We have
    asked them repeatedly, ``Leave China.''
        Mr. Deutch. Would the----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. Mr. Smith will be glad to yield
    to you, if he so chooses.
        Mr. Deutch. If I could----
        Mr. Smith. I yield.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you. There is a difference between that
    argument and stating that the UNFPA co-manages the one-child
    policy, says repeatedly around the world that the one-child
    policy should be emulated. There is simply no evidence for
    that.
        Mr. Smith. UNFPA executive directors have gotten awards.
    They have said it is a totally voluntary program. I mean, that
    is denial of----
        Mr. Marino. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith. I will be happy to yield.
        Mr. Marino. According to Secretary of State Colin Powell,
    2008 report, UNFPA supplied cars and computers to China to
    carry out their population control policies. Look it up. I'll
    give you the cite.
        Mr. Deutch. Will----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch, no. Mr. Smith has the
    time.
        Mr. Smith. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time. We are getting----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yielded back the
    balance of his time. Do any other members seek recognition to
    speak on the first Cicilline amendment?
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt is--oh, someone over
    here?
        Mr. Connolly. Yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, Mr. Connolly is recognized, and
    then Ms. Schmidt.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you. First, I would yield to Mr.
    Ackerman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. I have a question of our colleague, Mr.
    Smith. Does the U.N. abide by the laws in every member country?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman, you are not allowed to
    ask Mr. Smith. Mr. Connolly may give time to Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Ackerman. It is my----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Connolly's time.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Connolly, may I ask Mr. Smith a question?
        Mr. Connolly. Certainly, Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Smith, isn't it the rules of the U.N. to
    abide by every country's laws?
        Mr. Connolly. I would yield to Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. My hope would be that any U.N. personnel, any
    member agency, voluntary agency--UNFPA, for example--if there
    is a country that is practicing torture, for example, the U.N.
    police, peacekeepers, should in no way be complicit in that.
    That is the issue here. And if a country were to say----
        Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
        Mr. Ackerman. Could I ask Mr. Smith if we should boycott
    Google because they have to obey the laws in China?
        Mr. Connolly. I would yield to Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. I am glad you brought that up, because I am the
    one who asked Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Cisco here to
    testify, and introduced legislation to hold them to account,
    because they had no transparency either in their enabling of
    censorship in the People's Republic of China.
        Mr. Ackerman. So we should not be supporting Google?
        Mr. Smith. Wait a minute. Let me finish.
        Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. We are talking about the massive abuse of
    women----
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, as it is my time----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly has the time.
        Mr. Connolly. It is my time. Thank you very much, Madam
    Chairman. I would ask the ranking member--I hear Mr. Smith and
    Mr. Marino quoting from a 2008 Bush administration report. I
    would ask the ranking member, is it not the case that there was
    a 2009 report that, in fact, found there was no violation of
    Kemp-Kasten?
        Mr. Berman. That is, in fact, correct.
        Mr. Connolly. So it is convenient to cite a 2008 report,
    but not convenient to cite a 2009 report. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Berman. I would.
        Mr. Smith. I would love to see that report, because again--
    --
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me. Mr. Berman?
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. The President of the United States
    said 3 days----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me. So Mr. Berman, you have
    answered the question to Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly, would you
    like to yield to Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, that was the point I was
    going to make. We are being awfully selective in the reporting
    we want to cite. And I think the point has been made by Mr.
    Ackerman and Mr. Berman, and others, that essentially this is
    nothing but insinuation.
        The fact that UNFPA is in China, the fact that China has a
    policy in place we don't like--correctly so--makes UNFPA
    guilty, even though there are other U.N. agencies, I might add,
    in China, and at least I give Mr. Smith credit, he is being
    consistent. Based on his logic, and that of the author of the
    underlying legislation, this committee ought to be considering
    legislation to force U.S. companies to disinvest in China,
    because all money is fungible, and apparently guilt by
    association is the order of the day. And that is what this
    legislation represents.
        With that, I would--do my colleagues seek?
        Mr. Ackerman. I am not sure----
        Mr. Connolly. I will yield to Mr. Ackerman.
        Mr. Ackerman. I just want to say, I am not sure who was
    Edgar Bergen and who was Charlie McCarthy, but I just wanted to
    thank you for all that.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield
    back his time?
        Mr. Connolly. I do, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any----
        Mr. Smith. Madam Chairman?
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Connolly----
        Mr. Smith. Can I just say, Madam Chair, that it is
    absolutely----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Yields back, and Mr.
    Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. It is absolutely consistent to condition funding
    for----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Smith. I do
    apologize. I had said that I was going to recognize Ms. Schmidt
    first, and Ms. Schmidt is recognized at this time for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Schmidt. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I apologize.
        Ms. Schmidt. And I really appreciate all the dialogue that
    is going on with this issue. There, I think, is an overriding
    concern here, and that is, ``How do we best spend the hard-
    working American taxpayer dollars in this country and abroad?''
    There was a report in July 2011 on Fox News regarding unspent
    money in various U.N. agencies. Over $12.2 billion in unspent
    money. One of those agencies was this one, with $500 million in
    unspent money, which is about what their annual budget is.
        Now, no matter where you are on this issue, apparently they
    have got the money to run themselves for another year without
    our help. There are also other member organizations that can
    pick up the slack. My concern is, how do we help our hard-
    working taxpayer Americans understand that we are being prudent
    and wise with their money? This is their money. This is not our
    money.
        And if you see an agency that is flush with cash, maybe you
    just don't give that agency money this year. You know, the
    Super Committee is charged with doing massive cuts, and if they
    don't do their job, we might see massive cuts for men and women
    on the battlefield, and our men and women that are in nursing
    homes. The elderly, the Medicare population.
        Nobody wants to see either, so we have to find dollars. And
    $500 million is a lot of money, at least where I come from,
    where I grew up. And I think that is a lot of money to the
    American public as well. And so, when we are looking at, how do
    we fund the agencies in the U.N.?, maybe we pick agencies that
    actually need the money, that don't have money in the cash
    reserves.
        That is where I am coming from, Madam Chair, on this. I
    want to make sure that our hard-working Americans are having
    the dollars that they send to the Federal Government being
    spent prudently, and wisely, and efficiently, and not going to
    agencies that already have the cash to operate. I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Ms. Schmidt. And
    hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
    occurs on the Cicilline-Schwartz amendment. All those in favor,
    say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those say no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Cicilline. Roll call.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline requests a roll call
    vote, and the clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        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.
        [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.
        Mr. Fortenberry. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
        Mr. McCaul.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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? The
    clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 13 ayes
    and 22 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to. Mr. Cicilline is recognized to offer his
    second amendment.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chair. My second amendment
    is Amendment 650.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr.
    Cicilline of Rhode Island. In section 1, insert ``and except as
    provided in section 2,'' before ``the Secretary of State''.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
    and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment while the copies are given out. Mr. Cicilline?
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline follows:]

        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My amendment
    would allow the United States to continue supporting UNFPA in
    their critical efforts to end the practice of female genital
    cutting, and I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague,
    Congressman Deutch, for his eloquent words earlier on this
    important issue.
        Every year, approximately 3 million women and girls in
    Africa alone face the prospect of female genital mutilation,
    while 100-140 million worldwide have already undergone this
    hideous practice. UNFPA and UNICEF are working together and
    making real progress to end this horrific practice. Three years
    ago, through a joint program, more than 6,000 communities in
    Ethiopia, Egypt, Kenya, Senegal, Burkina Faso, the Gambia,
    Guinea, and Somalia have already abandoned this practice.
        Success has come from UNFPA and UNICEF's work in educating
    communities and changing social norms and cultural practices,
    leading women and men in communities to unite to protect the
    rights and health of girls. My amendment would allow UNFPA and
    UNICEF to continue their important and often life-saving work
    in combating female genital mutilation. I strongly urge my
    colleagues to support my amendment, and to, again, oppose the
    underlying bill.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Do any
    members seek recognition?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no recognition request,
    hearing no further requests for recognition, the Chair
    withdraws her reservation and the question occurs on the
    Cicilline amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Cicilline. Roll call.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline requests a roll call
    vote. The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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. Royce.
        Mr. Royce. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
        Mr. Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 13 ayes
    and 21 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to. Who has amendments at the desk? Mr. Keating
    is recognized. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Keating.
    In section 1, insert ``and except as provided in section 2''
    before----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order,
    and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Keating follows:]

        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment will
    allow the United States to continue working with the United
    Nations Population Fund to end the practice of early and forced
    marriages worldwide. If we agree on one thing, let it be this:
    That child marriages only contribute to the devastating cycle
    of poverty, keeping young girls and women from receiving the
    proper education, and harming them both physically and
    mentally.
        These young women then have young children of their own,
    and they are brought into another dangerous environment
    themselves. It is estimated that at the decade ending in 2014,
    more than 100 million girls in the developing world will be
    married before the age of 18. That means 10 million children
    each year are jeopardizing their future, their health, and
    their well-being.
        The majority of child brides are exposed to frequent sexual
    relations, leading to repeated pregnancies and childbirth
    before they are really ready, physically or mentally, for this.
    And pregnancy-related deaths are also among the leading causes
    of mortality in 15- to 19-year-old girls, and those aged under
    15 are five times--five times--more likely to die than those
    averaged over 20. Infant mortalities are also twice as high in
    babies born to young mothers.
        Respectfully, I urge you to support this amendment. It is
    one area that we have cut out of this that I think should have
    universal agreement.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sir, the Chair withdraws her
    reservation of a point of order. Are there any requests for
    recognition?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no requests for recognition,
    the question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say
    aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those opposed say no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Keating. Madam Chair, I would request a roll call.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating requests a roll call
    vote, and the clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
        Mr. Berman.
        Mr. Berman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
        Mr. Ackerman.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
        Mr. Faleomavaega.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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? The
    clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 14 ayes
    and----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sorry. Mr. Chandler.
        Mr. Chandler. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote now.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 15 ayes
    and 20 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to this bill?
    Mr. Murphy is recognized.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Murphy
    of Connecticut. In section 1, insert ``and except as provided
    in section 2'' before----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order,
    and recognizes the author, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes to explain
    the amendment.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Murphy follows:]

        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This amendment
    would allow for UNFPA to carry out activities dedicated to
    family-centered family planning throughout the world. And I
    think it underscores the surrealness of some of the debate that
    we have been having here today. There is not a single person on
    this panel that doesn't abhor and oppose the forced abortion
    policies that have been outlined over, and over, and over again
    over the course of this debate. What we are talking about is
    the best way for the United States to intervene and stop those
    policies.
        Now, I will certainly sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge if
    they believe that, by withdrawing funds from UNFPA, that China
    is all of a sudden going to stop this policy. The question is,
    what can we do to build a social resistance movement within
    China toward responsible family planning?
        And so this amendment is pretty simple. It would allow
    UNFPA to conduct family-centered family planning as part of
    their activities. The fact is, is that this country has a long
    history of combating irresponsible and reprehensible policies
    around the globe by funding responsible and humane policies, to
    give people in those countries a vision as to what life would
    be like if they threw off the yoke of that inhumanity.
        Now, we have heard rumor and innuendo about what UNFPA
    does, and little to no evidence--certainly within the most
    recent report from the Department of State--that they are
    actually funding and supporting these activities on the ground
    in China. And so I would put forward this amendment, frankly,
    as a way to get at the problem that I think we all agree on.
        I would also note that we have spent a lot of time talking
    about China here today, and there was the ability for the
    majority to offer an amendment here that was specific to China.
    But they didn't. They put forward an amendment that bans UNFPA
    from operating with American funds anywhere in the globe.
        And it strikes me, frankly, that this amendment is part of
    an assault that we have seen in this Congress on family
    planning and contraception, both abroad and in the United
    States. And because there was a much more targeted response
    that could have been offered here, it makes more sense to me
    that the amendments that we are looking at fits within this
    much broader attempt to defund contraception and birth control
    services, whether here in this country or across the globe.
        And I have heard several of the proponents of this
    legislation sort of champion the fact that it came out of this
    YouCut proposal, it came out of this YouCut movement. And it, I
    think, saddens me to know that we have now sort of devolved
    into a government that legislates by Internet voting.
        It is bad enough that the media covers this place like a
    soap opera or a reality TV show. We now are proud of the fact
    that we are having proposals before this committee and this
    Congress that come from Internet votes. And I think what
    happens is that you get extreme proposals like this that could
    have been much more targeted.
        We could have been having a conversation about how we
    specifically take on the issue of forced abortion in China, and
    instead we are denying funding to family planning services
    across the world, family planning services that have, over
    time, linked 56 million women across the world with access,
    that have driven down the rate of unintended pregnancies by the
    millions, that have saved thousands upon thousands of women's
    lives from the consequences of unintended pregnancies that go
    wrong in the delivery room.
        And so I would offer this amendment, I think, as a way to
    properly fund the kind of responsible family planning that
    ultimately convinces people in countries like China that they
    should no longer accept the type of practices that we all
    abhor. And I think it is probably a good idea for all of us to
    step back and wonder whether we should be crowing about the
    fact that an Internet vote leads us to this debate today, or
    whether we should be having a little bit more thoughtful
    discussion with our constituents and with our colleagues about
    how we go about foreign aid.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. And seeing no
    further requests for recognition, the Chair withdraws her
    reservation and the question occurs on the Murphy amendment.
    All those in favor, say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Murphy. I request a roll call vote.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Murphy requests a roll call
    vote, and the clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        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.
        [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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
        Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
        Mr. Meeks.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan.
        Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
        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.
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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. Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 14 ayes
    and 22 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to. And for what I think is the last amendment,
    Mr. Murphy is recognized. I mean Mr. Keating. So sorry, sir.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating has an amendment at the
    desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Keating
    and Mr. Cicilline. A bill to prohibit funding to the United
    Nations Population Fund. Be it enacted by the Senate and House
    of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled, section 1. Prohibition on funding to United Nations
    Population Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
    the Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the
    United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which would support
    coercive----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order,
    and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Keating and Mr. Cicilline
    follows:]

        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair. This really dovetails
    into the comments that my colleague who just preceded me talked
    about. One of the things that I had considered as a final
    amendment was not allowing funds at all to a country that had a
    policy of coercive abortion, and a policy like China's one-
    child policy. I was concerned, however, Madam Chair, that there
    might be a point of order against that.
        And to try and be on point, and to have this survive a
    point of order, and make clear one thing--and that is this:
    That there have been a lot of arguments that have been made
    through the discussion of this, that the reason people opposed
    it was because of China's one-child policy, its coercive
    abortion policy.
        Albeit, there have been other arguments that have been made
    in terms of financing and the use of funds, generally speaking
    whether or not we can afford that, from my standpoint I think
    that these are really cost-saving measures that are going to
    save our country in other respects so many times over that it
    is a good investment.
        However, I want to use--I put this amendment in to just
    clarify the fact that--and make, as part of this legislation,
    something that is there with the reauthorization of Kemp-Kasten
    that we do, and just make sure that we are clear, those of us
    that want to be, like myself, that we do not want any of the
    UNFPA funds used for coercive abortion and China's one-child
    policy.
        So that is the intent of it. The intent of it is one of
    clarification, for those of us that want to be clear on
    something that, perhaps, through the course of the discussion
    today, wasn't clear. So with that, I hope that this amendment
    is adopted. I do think that it serves as a very strong message
    from this committee. I think, for those of us that believe that
    the UNFPA funding serves some purpose, it also clarifies the
    fact that many of us want to make sure that those funds are not
    used that way.
        And I think this complements Kemp-Kasten in that respect,
    and for that matter I hope and urge all the members of the
    committee who have spoken so strongly on this issue to work
    together and find an amendment we can all agree on. Thank you,
    Madam Chair. I yield my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. The gentleman
    yields back. Mr. Smith is recognized.
        Mr. Smith. I would just say that the first part of Ms.
    Ellmers' proposed bill is, ``Notwithstanding any other
    provision of law.'' We know that Kemp-Kasten has not--or we
    believe it has not been faithfully adhered to. The President of
    the United States, on January 23rd, 2009, a couple of days
    after he took office: ``I look forward to restoring U.S.
    financial support to the U.N. Population Fund.''
        There had been no analysis done by the State Department.
    There had been no due diligence done. This would shift it back
    to the administration to suggest that they are going to take
    another look at it. They can do that right now. It is because
    we are frustrated by the lack of application of Kemp-Kasten in
    a faithful way that Ms. Ellmers is offering this very, very
    important human rights bill.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the gentleman yields back.
    Hearing--oh, Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am not sure I
    understood the argument that was just advanced. If, in fact,
    the concern is that resources would be devoted to supporting
    coercive abortion or supporting China's one-child policy, Mr.
    Keating's amendment makes it very clear that that cannot happen
    in this provision of the bill.
        And whether Kemp-Kasten clearly already does that, this
    reinforces that. And I think it would go a long way toward
    settling, once and for all, so that we won't have to spend lots
    of time on this question, because it would be clearly stated in
    the bill. But I would also like to ask if a member of the
    committee knows the answer to this: I have been advised that
    not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer money is spent in China by
    UNFPA. Not one penny.
        If that is true----
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would like Mr.
    Smith to respond to that?
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes, I would certainly yield to Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. First, on the latter point, money is absolutely
    fungible. And the money that we contribute--it all really comes
    down to, I say to my good friend, how barbaric do you regard
    forced abortion to be.
        Mr. Cicilline. I am reclaiming----
        Mr. Smith. This organization is on the ground and we are--
    --
        Mr. Cicilline. I am reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Smith. No, I----
        Mr. Cicilline. I am reclaiming. I think there is no
    question it is barbaric. There is no disagreement about that.
    But if, in fact----
        Mr. Smith. And we are doing this with other programs.
        Mr. Cicilline. I've reclaimed my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline has the time.
        Mr. Cicilline. If, in fact--no, and I appreciate the
    gentleman's passion on this, because I think we all have the
    same view: Of course it is barbaric. But if, in fact, it is
    true, and as it seems to be confirmed by your response to my
    question, that not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer money is
    spent in China by UNFPA, that is an important fact.
        And so I think it confirms that Kemp-Kasten is being
    applied. It will make the Keating amendment just a
    reinforcement of that. But in fact, taxpayer money is not
    currently being spent by this agency, U.S. taxpayer money, in
    China. Not a single penny. That is an important fact for the
    committee to know.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith wants to know if you would
    yield.
        Mr. Smith. Let me say to my colleague that, again, this is
    grant money. There is no treaty obligation here. This is grant
    money. Who we donate to does matter. If the organization has a
    program that supports coercive population control, refuses any
    kind of transparency, I think we have a reason to say, ``We
    will put the money somewhere else.''
        Let me also point out to my friend and colleague that, in
    the bill we just passed, the underlying law, the Trafficking
    Victims Protection Act, makes it very clear that the Department
    will terminate any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement if
    the grantee or subgrantee engages in any severe form of human
    trafficking. ``Severe form'' is one instance. Here we are
    talking about massive imposition of human rights abuse upon
    women.
        Mr. Cicilline. No, I agree. And reclaiming my time, it
    would seem to me that that would argue in favor of the
    amendment. And the key word you just said is, ``If there is an
    agency that does that.'' I think we have seen emphatically that
    they do not support this policy, that they do not support--in
    fact, they support voluntary decision-making in health care.
        So I agree with you. If that were the case, that would
    warrant looking at their funding. But that is not the fact,
    that we have heard repeatedly throughout this hearing and from
    the supporting materials we got prior to this hearing. So I
    don't know if he wants to----
        Mr. Smith. Will you yield again, very briefly?
        Mr. Cicilline. I yield.
        Mr. Smith. Two weeks ago I held a hearing on the massive
    crime against women and children on the 32nd anniversary--I
    hate the word anniversary, but remembering that that is, almost
    to the day, when that program was initiated, with UNFPA having
    a hand-and-glove relationship since 1979 with the hardliners in
    Beijing.
        With all due respect, not one Democratic Member showed up.
    And I hoped desperately for Members to be there, to hear the
    testimony from Chai Ling, two other women who were forcibly
    aborted. Because it is not until you really realize the
    desperation that these women have suffered, going through that
    forced abortion, the fact that in one case, the woman talked
    about how they held her husband. There is no doubt that they
    hold other family members, they being the State Family Planning
    Cadres, until the woman submits to a voluntary abortion.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline's time has
    expired. Hearing no further requests for recognition--oh, yes.
    Sorry. You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Carnahan
        Mr. Carnahan. I will not take 5 minutes, but I have been
    sitting here throughout this debate. And maybe this amendment
    should have been the first amendment that was brought up today.
    Because I don't think there is a single member on this
    committee--with respect to Mr. Smith and others--that supports
    any kind of coercive abortion policy. Not one member on this
    committee, I would venture to say.
        And if that is the case, then we should all support this
    amendment. This is clear, no matter what you think is going on,
    whether you think this is already in current law or not, or
    needs clarification, this seems very clear, that funds would
    not go to this. I think we all should be able to agree on that.
    Let us do that, instead of sending a mixed message about what
    we are doing with these funds.
        This amendment, I think, helps clear that up. And I would
    hope we can support this amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Before you yield back, I think Mr.
    Burton wanted to see if you would yield, instead of taking his
    own time. Mr. Burton?
        Mr. Carnahan. I would yield to my friend from Indiana, yes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Dealing with the definition of
    support by the administration. Mr. Burton, he is yielding.
        Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairman. By allowing the
    administration to define support, this would be a reversion to
    the status quo. And the other side is making our point: The
    administration currently claims that UNFPA funding does not
    support China's coercive policy. There is obviously, obviously
    disagreement.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton yields back. And do you
    yield back your time?
        Mr. Carnahan. I happily yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, sir. And Mr.
    Marino is recognized.
        Mr. Marino. One minute. My colleague, on the other side at
    the end, we passionately argue. It is in our heritage. But I do
    want to clarify one statement. There is a report, according to
    Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he was Secretary of
    State. It stated that the UNFPA contributed vehicles and
    computers to the Chinese to carry out their population control
    policies.
        Now, I was not being selective in reports, as it was
    stated. I was only answering a question that has been
    repeatedly asked: ``Give us some information, or a fact.'' And
    I have to believe Colin Powell that funds have been used by the
    Chinese to carry that out.
        Granted, it was when the Secretary of State was in office,
    and there has been a subsequent report. So I just wanted to
    make that clear. According to Colin Powell, expenditures were
    made.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no
    further requests for recognition, the Chair withdraws her
    reservation and the question occurs on the amendment. All those
    in favor, say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Keating. Madam Chair, I definitely ask for a recorded
    vote on this.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating asks for a recorded
    vote. The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        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.
        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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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. Manzullo.
        Mr. Manzullo. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schwartz.
        Ms. Schwartz. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes----
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll [continuing]. Aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk is good. She edits your
    votes. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 16 ayes
    and 22 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to. And like a typical politician, I fibbed. I
    said it was the last amendment, but Mr. Meeks has the last
    amendment, I am sure. Mr. Meeks is recognized, and the clerk
    will report the amendment.
        Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Meeks
    and Ms. Wilson. In section 1, insert ``and except as provided
    in section 2'' before ``the Secretary of State.'' Add at the
    end of the following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not
    apply in the case of contributions to UNFPA to carry out
    activities in Haiti.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Wilson of
    Florida follows:]

        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And Mr. Meeks is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you to the
    ranking member, Mr. Berman. Now, this basically is a simple
    amendment that we have before us today, and it states that 2059
    would not apply to activities in Haiti. Now, I, overall--this
    bill, I have problems with it, period. But when you look at
    what is taking place in Haiti, and to say that UNFPA should not
    provide the vital services that it is currently providing in
    Haiti--it provides critical health services to both mothers and
    children, especially in nations that are impoverished.
        To me, it becomes a matter of--we really need to examine
    our own consciences if we talk about cutting these tremendous
    services, these much-needed services, to a country like Haiti.
    Why are we going to hinder the kinds of aid that they need? Why
    would we have a problem with trying to help mothers, or to
    ensure that mothers are able to celebrate life with her child?
        What this bill is doing, what this bill talks about, it
    talks about because, as we sit here--this amendment--as we sit
    here, comfortably, there is an entire nation that is in ruins.
    There is an entire nation attempting to rebuild, and there is
    an entire nation that we have committed to assisting.
        So why are we undercutting the commitment to Haiti now? One
    in every 47 pregnancies in Haiti turns fatal during delivery.
    One in every 47 pregnancies in Haiti turns fatal during
    delivery. Why would we ever dream of cutting funding to a
    program that recruits senior midwives to dedicate a year in
    Haiti, to address the shortage of experienced maternity
    clinics? Why would we ever consider cutting funding to a
    program that provides blood transfusions to a nation such as
    this?
        This seems to me the very essence of what we want to do.
    And if we were honest with ourselves with this piece of
    legislation, we would target cutting funds to those areas of
    the UNFPA considered to be offensive, not just get rid of the
    whole program. A wholesale cutting of funding to an entire
    program is not a path forward, especially if I have not heard
    any alternatives proposed.
        So what it will do is, if we eliminate this funding, it is
    like amputating an arm to deal with an elbow scrape. And no one
    here would recommend that. And therefore, that is why I have
    got a problem with recommending passing this bill. Now, I
    understand the spirit in which things are done, but I would ask
    all my colleagues to seriously consider their votes in its
    entirety on this bill, and especially also their vote on this
    amendment, which I think is an amendment that is good, that is
    still tacked onto a bill that I have a problem with.
        But in the end, I ask people to please, remember Haiti.
    Please think about how all of us felt when that devastating
    earthquake took place. We should not--and we made a commitment
    that it shouldn't have been just a 2-week effort to help those
    individuals in Haiti. It should have been a continuing
    struggle, a continuing fight and commitment on our part.
    Eliminating all funding to Haiti will show that we are going
    back on our word then, and turning our back on the neediest of
    the needy.
        And we talk about life, but this helps those women who are
    pregnant bring that life forward without that child dying in
    birth. And so, Madam Chair, I ask that we vote aye on this
    amendment. And I yield back.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, sir. Seeing and
    hearing no further requests for time, the question occurs on
    the Meeks amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        [Noes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Meeks. Recorded vote.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks would like a recorded
    vote, and the clerk will call the roll, please.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
        Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Mr. Burton.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        [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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
        Mr. Murphy.
        Mr. Murphy. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
        Ms. Wilson.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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. Burton. Am I recorded?
        Ms. Carroll. You are not recorded, Mr. Burton.
        Mr. Burton. I vote no.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 16 ayes
    and 22 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
    is not agreed to.
        Hearing no further amendments, the question occurs on
    agreeing to the bill H.R. 2059. The clerk will call the roll.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Aye.
        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. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Manzullo.
        Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
        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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
        Ms. Schmidt.
        Ms. 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        Ms. Ellmers. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
        Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner 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.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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.
        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. Wilson.
        [No response.]
        Ms. Carroll. 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. Burton. Madam Chair?
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton, you are not recorded.
        Mr. Burton. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
        Mr. Burton. Oh, excuse me. Let me correct that, aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton off no, on aye.
        Mr. Royce.
        Mr. Royce. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Griffin.
        Mr. Griffin. Aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne.
        Mr. Payne. No.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. McCaul.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. I vote aye.
        Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? The
    clerk will report the vote.
        Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 23 ayes
    and 17 noes.
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
    is agreed to. The Chair moves that the bill be reported
    favorably to the House. All those in favor say aye.
        [Ayes.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
        [No response.]
        Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. I want to thank all
    the members and the staff for their work and cooperation that
    went into today's markup. Having concluded our business, the
    committee stands adjourned. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, the committee was adjourned at 1:48 p.m.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

             Material Submitted for the RecordNotice deg.

                   \\ts\