[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 64 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2090-H2135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2002 AND 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1646.
{time} 1100
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1646, the Department
of State's authorization for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
The distinguished gentleman from California, (Mr. Lantos), the
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and I
introduced the bill, which was favorably reported to the House by voice
vote.
I want to emphasize this is not a foreign aid bill. That subject will
be discussed at a later time.
Standing at the edge of a new century, it is appropriate to pause and
wonder what lies ahead for us, our descendents, and our country. For
the United States, the century just past was one of unprecedented
American
[[Page H2091]]
triumph. So great was our prominence, so expansive our fortune, that it
has been called the ``American century.''
For many others around the world, however, the experience of that
same period of time was quite different. Universally hailed at its
beginning as an era of peace and progress, the 20th century proved to
be the bloodiest and most savage in human history.
Tens of millions perished; scores of cities were obliterated,
continents were more thoroughly ravaged by modern warfare than any
other long-ago barbarian could have dreamed. In our present-day
complacency, it is easy to forget how razor thin were the margins by
which our civilization survived, how close the enemies of the West came
to winning.
So although it is right for us to be hopeful about the next century,
we would do well to be mindful of these different experiences and to
remember we are guaranteed nothing.
But neither are we at the mercy of chance. In large part, our fate
will be determined by our own actions, both wise and foolish. Although
we might wish by some simple stratagem to guarantee our success and
safety, easy answers promise only to lull us into a deadly sleep.
The only certain advantage we can possess in meeting the future is to
steel ourselves as best we can to meet its inevitable surprises. As the
saying goes, fortune favors the well prepared.
If the United States were to advance confidently into the future, we
require a sober foreign policy that rests upon a solid foundation, one
whose prescriptions are rooted in reality. On that score, there is much
to be done.
One area in particular that I intend to emphasize is the need to
shift our policies away from an excessive focus on short-term problems
and recast them towards the achievement of long-term goals. But that is
a different task than that which engages us here today. First, we must
start with laying a strong foundation. That process begins with this
bill.
The President's budget request for the main State Department
operating accounts identifies new priorities which support the U.S.
State Department and its foreign policy platform. Notably, the budget
increases focus on the Administration of Foreign Affairs accounts,
which reflect a 19 percent increase over the current fiscal year.
I note the accounts covered in this bill are funded at or above the
President's request. Among the bill's principal features: The bill
authorizes funds requested by the Bush administration to enhance
embassy security, undertake reform of workplace rules and make long-
overdue improvements to the Department's less than state-of-the-art
computer systems.
It clears the way for the transfer and sale of four Kidd-class
destroyers to Taiwan, announced late last month by President Bush, a
decision hailed by Members of both parties.
The bill also designates Taiwan as the equivalent of a non-NATO ally,
a designation which, among other things, permits it to purchase surplus
U.S. military equipment.
It creates a special envoy post for Sudan to work for a peaceful
settlement of a conflict that has been marked by enormous human rights
abuses, persecution of Christian and other minorities, and the deaths
of an estimated 4 million people.
It increases funding for activities of the broadcast services of
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of America, Radio Marti, and
Radio Free Asia to nations including Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea
and Vietnam, whose government-run and controlled media routinely
suppress the democratic aspirations of their people.
It significantly reduces the U.S. share of dues paid annually to the
United Nations. Our assessed rate for the U.N. regular budget is cut
from 25 percent to 22 percent, while the U.S. share of peacekeeping
operations will drop from about 32 percent to 28 percent, effective
January 1, 2001.
Further reductions in peacekeeping will take place on a sliding
scale, reaching about 27.5 percent in July of this year and falling
further to near 25 percent by 2006. As part of the agreement to reduce
the percentage of the U.N. budget paid by the United States, the U.S.
is obliged to pay an arrearage of $582 million primarily for
peacekeeping operations. I should note these latter funds were
appropriated last year.
It includes a provision from the Contract With America which amends
the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 to ensure that no agreement
deploying U.S. troops is effective without the approval of Congress.
In sum, the bill provides ample safeguard that the U.N. and its
specialized agencies will stay on their present course of management,
budget, and personnel reforms.
Now, these are some of the key aspects of this bill. Let me conclude
by emphasizing one in particular; namely, that of security. The most
important concerns the security of our people and diplomatic facilities
around the world.
The State Department states that last year alone, there were over 50
significant incidents involving violence or intrusion at our diplomatic
facilities. As the technologies of destruction available to the world's
terrorists continue to grow, we cannot stand idly by, waiting for our
self-declared enemies to finalize preparations for their next attack
which is certain to happen somewhere.
The men and women of the Department of State and other agencies,
serving their country far away from home in difficult and often
dangerous conditions, deserve the fullest protection we can provide
them and their families. We owe them at least that and much more.
For that reason, as well as many others I have laid before you, I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1646 so that we may get on with the
great task of preparing our foreign policy for the new century.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1646, the foreign
relations authorization bill for fiscal year 2002 and 2003, as it was
reported by our committee.
This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, and I am proud to be a cosponsor
with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), my good friend.
I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the bill fully funds the
administration's requests for the Department of State, including
funding for upgrading embassy security and improving conditions for the
men and women who serve our Nation in far-flung corners of the world.
The diplomatic profession has always been a difficult and dangerous
one, but in recent decades the level and nature of threats facing our
men and women overseas in the Diplomatic Corps has grown exponentially.
The bombing of our embassy in Beirut in the 1980s and, more recently,
the tragic bombings in Africa are only the latest and most dramatic
examples of the threat and challenges facing our diplomats abroad.
The sad and disturbing fact is that Americans serving in our
Diplomatic Corps face the same day-in and day-out threats to their
safety as those men and women who serve our Nation in the military. In
fact, since the end of World War II, more American Ambassadors have
been killed in the line of duty than generals and admirals.
We have done an excellent job in equipping our military with the best
and latest technology and equipment. As a result, Mr. Chairman, our
military is the best-trained, best-equipped, best-led force in the
world. But, unfortunately, we have not done the same for the men and
women who serve on the front lines of diplomacy.
As Secretary Powell noted at his confirmation hearing, diplomacy is
our first line of defense. We must ensure that this line of defense is
as strong and as well equipped as our military defense.
We need to upgrade the technology and the security of our embassies.
Our bill contains authorities and resources Secretary Powell has
requested to help him do just that.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that Secretary Powell would have
been more ambitious in his request. Given his high standing in the
Congress and in the country, I believe Congress would have supported a
bolder request, but as he said in his hearing before our committee,
there is always next year; which is why I am pleased that the bill
provides flexibility for fiscal year 2003.
Mr. Chairman, there are a few important provisions contained in this
bill
[[Page H2092]]
that I would like to highlight. First, this legislation goes a long way
towards paying our past dues to the United Nations. Despite last week's
deplorable vote on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, I still strongly
support payment of these arrears.
The United Nations is an indispensable partner in our dealings around
the globe, and we must not lose sight of that fact. However, I, along
with the rest of my colleagues and with the bulk of the American
people, am outraged by the vote last week that put the Sudan on the
U.N. Human Rights Commission and took the United States off.
The United States has been the champion of human rights long before
there was a U.N. Human Rights Commission or even a United Nations. We
shall continue to champion human rights and chastise the abusers of
those rights, regardless of our membership on any commission.
However, it is incomprehensible that any commission on human rights
could include in its membership the worst abusers of human rights in
the world. Last week's vote makes a mockery of the commission.
{time} 1115
The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and I will introduce an
amendment that will add a new condition on paying U.N. arrears. The
United States will not pay off all of its arrears to the U.N. until the
United States once again becomes a member of the U.N. Commission on
Human Rights.
Turning to some other important provisions, this bill contains a
significant provision introduced by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) that overturns the President's Mexico City policy. We will
hear much about this provision from my colleagues as they argue that it
funds abortions. While I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose,
this provision has nothing to do with abortion. No U.S. Government
money has gone towards funding abortion since 1973. It has been illegal
since that year, and this bill does not change that.
Simply put, the provision of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee) ensures that no foreign nongovernmental organization is denied our
funding solely on the basis of health and medical services that it
provides through non-U.S. government funds and that no foreign NGOs are
restricted in using non-U.S. government funds for advocacy.
Our provision merely tries to safeguard that nongovernmental
organizations in developing countries have the same rights to free
speech that our Constitution guarantees to every American citizen and
every American organization. I hope that in the spirited debate that is
soon to follow, Members will keep this fact in mind.
Some other important elements of this bill include two provisions
strengthening our relationship and commitment to Taiwan and the sense
of the Congress provision urging U.S. reengagement with the Kyoto
process regarding global climate change.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to work with the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) in our successful effort to include the provision
in the bill to have the United States rejoin UNESCO, the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
When UNESCO was founded half a century ago, its slogan was, ``Since
wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the
defenses of peace must first be constructed.'' This is as true today as
it was the day UNESCO came into being. I earnestly hope that my
colleagues will support our rejoining UNESCO which is so much in the
American interest.
I also find it ironic that, while we are complaining of having been
removed from the U.N. Human Rights Commission, we voluntarily remove
ourselves from UNESCO where all we need to do is express our desire to
rejoin.
This is a very good bill, Mr. Chairman. It is a bipartisan bill.
Virtually every element of this bill has the support of some
Republicans and some Democrats. This is in large part due to the
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and I want
publicly to salute him for having conducted our hearings and the
activities of the committee in a singularly fair and bipartisan
fashion. I want to thank him for the open and collegial way in which he
has brought this bill through the committee to this floor.
I hope my colleagues in the House will support the bill in the same
bipartisan manner in which it was passed by our committee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his overly
generous comments. I can only respond by saying praise from Caesar is
praise indeed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the pending Foreign Relations Authorization Act crafted so ably by the
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member.
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his
extraordinary leadership as chairman of the committee. I think we are
off to a good start, and I commend him and thank him for his great
leadership.
H.R. 1646, Mr. Chairman, authorizes a myriad of critical State
Department functions, funding for international organizations, freedom
broadcasting, democracy initiatives, public diplomacy, cultural and
educational exchanges, refugee protection, and funding and conditions
on such funding for the United Nations.
This legislation builds on our achievements in the last Congress
regarding these issues and is especially important in strengthening
security for our missions abroad. In light of the significant increase
in threats to our personnel and embassies overseas, Congress has a
sacred duty to ensure that every imaginable step be taken to make
posting abroad as risk-free as humanly possible. This bill is a
faithful attempt to achieve that goal.
Finally, the bill contains several disparate provisions from
authorizing the transfer of naval vessels to Taiwan, Poland, Brazil,
and Turkey; to the establishment of special envoys within the State
Department to Tibet and Sudan; to promoting police reform & peace in
Northern Ireland.
After general debate, Mr. Chairman, the House will consider several
amendments; and today it is my understanding we will only be getting to
the U.N. amendments, so I would like to address some of those briefly.
First, let me urge my colleagues to strongly support a modest
compromise amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to condition the
release of the third and final arrearage payment of $244 million, which
would be released next year, on the U.S. reclaiming its seat on the
U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Tragically, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, created to be a
watchdog for human rights, has become seriously flawed and compromised.
The membership includes some of the most egregious violators of human
rights, including countries like China, Cuba, Syria, Libya, Vietnam,
and Sudan.
This rogue's gallery of torturers, persecutors, and bullies exploit
the commission process to avoid scrutiny and to deflect criticism of
their barbarism. In Geneva, the home of the Commission, and in foreign
capitals, they aggressively lobby and intimidate nations to effectively
silence and paralyze any actions against them; and it works.
The U.S. resolution, for example, condemning China for its pervasive
violations of human rights, lost from a no action vote just a few weeks
ago. It is no coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that Jiang Zemin made a
blitzkrieg tour of Latin American nations who just happened to be on
the commission immediately prior to the vote to shore up his vote
count. In the end, money, contracts, and fear prevailed; and China
again got off scot-free from scrutiny and exposure for its abusing its
own citizens.
Mr. Chairman, permitting dictatorships on the commission, the U.N.
Human Rights Commission, which Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner,
has called the conscience of humanity, is an outrage. Dictators like
China and Cuba, they are not the conscience of humanity. That is an
oxymoron, and they do not belong there.
[[Page H2093]]
It is time we demanded sweeping reform of the commission itself. At
the absolute minimum, and this is reflected in section 603 of the bill,
human rights monitors should have unfettered access to any country,
including its prisons, who serve on the commission.
Next, I would like to urge Members to support the amendment of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) because of the profoundly serious
detrimental consequences the international criminal court would have on
U.S. service men and women, especially our peacekeepers, and on elected
and public officials.
Known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 120
delegations voted to establish the tribunal in July of 1998. The Rome
Statute, is comprised of 128 articles. Those who oppose it included the
Clinton administration and six other nations, and there was some 21
countries that abstained.
Core crimes with expansive definitions include genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The problem is, Mr.
Chairman, there are serious questions as to how the definitions of
these crimes will play out.
For example, the definition of war crimes includes extensive
destruction and appropriation of property. What is that? The term
aggression, Mr. Chairman, is still in the process of being defined.
Then there is the issue of the independence of the prosecutor. Our
delegation in Rome had sought a check and a balance that would have
vested final authority in the U.N. Security Council. They lost. A more
nuanced and problematic two-tier approach was adopted that confers
considerable powers to the prosecutor to self-initiate prosecution.
There are problems of constitutionality. As Members know, both
Federal laws and treaties entered into and ratified are subordinate to
the U.S. Constitution. While the accused enjoy some U.S.-style rights,
there are no protections from unreasonable searches, and there are no
requirements for a trial by jury.
As we have seen at the United Nations Commission for Human Rights,
there is considerable chance that rogue nations will have influence,
and I would submit undue influence, in both prosecutions and
convictions and in the meting out of sentences, thus subjecting U.S.
military personnel and public officials to criminal prosecution that a
reasonable person might not think to be a war crime or aggression.
Last July, I asked Ambassador Scheffer, who was our lead negotiator
at Rome, and Undersecretary Slocombe if past U.S. military actions from
the bombing in Tokyo to Dresden to Hiroshima to Nagasaki or any action
in Korea or Vietnam might be construed as an actionable offense. He
pointed out that the United States, looking back, would have a good
defense if such cases, in my hypothetical case had been tried. Then he
underscored that our concern is with politically motivated
prosecutions.
I do not want to put our military men and women, our peacekeepers in
harm's way. While this may be a well-intentioned court, it certainly
has some very serious flaws. I think the amendment by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) helps to rectify that, at least in terms of our
participation.
Let me say that I take a back seat to no one for pushing for ad hoc
tribunals. When the Rwandan as well as the Yugoslavia tribunal were in
their infant stages, I offered the amendments in the committee to boost
the funding; but it needs to be done on an ad hoc basis. And I do
believe it needs to be done in a way that is more likely to lead to
prosecution of serious war criminals and not these kinds of
prosecutions that would be frivolous and unjust.
Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that H.R. 1646 includes the Smith/
King amendment regarding human rights and the peace process in Northern
Ireland.
As adopted by the Committee, our amendment, now Section 203, updates
and modifies a provision Mr. King and I authored two years ago to ban
Federal funds from being used to support training or exchange programs
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the Royal Ulster
Constabulary (RUC, Northern Ireland's police force). Specifically, we
are intent on ensuring that RUC members who are believed to have
committed or condoned human rights violations, including any role in
the murder of human rights attorneys Patrick Finucane or Rosemary
Nelson, are ``vetted out'' or prohibited from any program sponsored or
subsidized by the U.S. government. We hope that by example, those
working on police reform in Northern Ireland will similarly isolate and
``vet out'' RUC members who condone human rights abuses. Section 203 of
this new bill reinforces the ban on the funding--until the President
certifies that human rights standards and vetting procedures are
integrated into the program--and requires a report, within 60 days of
enactment, on the scope of previous training programs.
Section 203 also requires a second report that outlines the extent to
which the British government has implemented the 175 recommendations
listed in the Patten Commission report on policing reforms in Northern
Ireland including those recommendations that emphasize the integration
of respect for human rights and emphasize efforts to recruit Catholics
for the new police force. As you know, the RUC has proportionally far
fewer Catholics than the population of Northern Ireland and the
imbalance has underscored the RUC's inability to achieve confidence in
all communities who are signatories to the peace process. The required
report will also provide information on the integration of members of
the Garda Siochana (the national police force of the Republic of
Ireland) or other experienced police force applicants into the senior
ranks of the RUC by both the British and Irish governments, as
envisioned by the Patten report. As part of the Good Friday Agreement,
the implementation of the full Patten report is critical to a just and
lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Section 203 requires that the report also
include information on the status of the murder investigations of
defense attorneys Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane and the murder
of Robert Hamill. In April 1999, the House of Representatives passed by
resolution (H. Res. 128) condemning the murder of Rosemary Nelson, who
had testified before the International Relations Subcommittee on Human
Rights on the status of police reform in Northern Ireland. The House is
also on record calling for independent, RUC-free judicial inquiries
into the Finucane and Nelson murders. To date, the British government
has rebuffed the call, that has also been supported by numerous human
rights organizations around the globe. The mandated report is designed
to provide Congress with up-to-date information on these matters so
that we can continue to effectively promote accountability and justice
for these victims and their families.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important
legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman
Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking
member, in particular, and my colleagues on the committee for making it
possible to include in the bill various provisions that I have
sponsored.
The bill includes a resolution I introduced in committee on the Kyoto
Protocol that expresses the sense of the Congress that, first, global
warming is a serious problem, and the United States must take
responsible action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases from all sectors; and, second, that the United States
continue to participate in ongoing international negotiations with the
objective of completing the rules and guidelines for the Kyoto Protocol
consistent with U.S. interest and respecting the integrity of the
Protocol.
On another matter, last Thursday, the GAO reported that, despite
years of effort from the Congress, the State Department has failed to
make any significant progress in the recruitment and promotion of
qualified minorities to senior management positions. I am glad to have
developed language in this bill to ensure that the Department moves
forward in its recruitment and promotion to senior most ranks of
minorities. I have been working on this, this is my 9th year now, and I
am glad to see the bill provides $2 million to increase minority
recruitment into the Department and requires that a data-bank track its
results. I urge the President and Secretary Powell to make sure that we
obtain results at the State Department in minority recruiting and
promotion.
This bill also provides the National Endowment for Democracy with a
modest increase for the first time in years.
[[Page H2094]]
This vital and cost-effective organization promotes internationally our
fundamental American values, democracy and human rights. Promoting
these values overseas is in our national interest since democracies
make peaceful allies and good trading partners and neither support
terrorism nor proliferate dangerous weapons. By leading many efforts on
the struggle for freedom worldwide, the NED enjoys strong bipartisan
support as it advances our national security.
Finally, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment on the IAEA.
Iran does not need a nuclear power plant or U.S. money to conduct a
nuclear power plant and create a nuclear threat for that part of the
world and for our country.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1646, and I
commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership in bringing this
legislation to the floor.
This legislation would authorize $8.2 billion for the State
Department and among other important items provides for the enhancement
of embassy security, significantly reduces the U.S. share of dues paid
annually to the United Nations, and states that Congress maintain its
commitment to relocate the United States Embassy in Israel to
Jerusalem.
{time} 1130
In addition, the measure increases funding for U.S. broadcast
services and requires the United States to oppose nations seeking
membership on the United Nations Human Rights Commission that fail to
permit monitoring of human rights in their own territory.
In particular, I would like to highlight a provision of this bill
that authorizes $15 million for the Middle East Radio Network. I thank
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his leadership and guidance
in securing this funding and commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Wexler) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for their
efforts on behalf of this bipartisan provision.
Currently, Voice of America Arabic only reaches about 2 percent of
the population in this region, far behind the British Broadcasting
Company and other major international networks. The Middle East Radio
Network initiative will serve to broaden the opportunity for open
discussion and individual freedom to a region where antidemocratic
rhetoric is strong.
This measure will authorize the resources for Middle East Radio
Network programming that will be a combination of news, music, talk,
and interaction with listeners. Featuring reliable news and discussion
of issues relevant to the audience, the Middle East Radio Network will
appeal to young adults and to news seekers of all ages. Constant
program themes will be individual choice and respect for others.
The MRN is a worthwhile program to promote Jeffersonian ideals and
democratic principles. I would again like to thank the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his support on this issue and Kristen Gilley of
the committee staff for her assistance in drafting this provision.
Unfortunately, I remain concerned about several provisions in the
bill that were approved during the committee markup for this
legislation. Specifically, I opposed the Lee amendment overturning the
Mexico City policy that prohibits the use of American tax dollars to
fund foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortion
overseas. Under no circumstances should American taxpayers underwrite
abortion activities in foreign countries.
In addition, I remain opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and UNESCO
provisions, and I urge my colleagues to support elimination of these
provisions from the bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to mention to my good friend from Virginia that not one dime of
American taxpayer funds are devoted to abortion purposes abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), my good friend and colleague.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to join my colleagues in
strong support of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I
certainly commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of
our Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership and cooperation which
resulted in this exceptionally bipartisan legislation.
The bill contains an uncontested provision urging the administration
to continue negotiation of the Kyoto Treaty on the global warming,
despite President Bush's recent announcement to the contrary. Our
colleagues understand that the American people view global climate
change as a serious environmental challenge that must be addressed.
With only 4 percent of the world's population, our Nation accounts
for almost 25 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the
atmosphere, one of the main causes of global warming. Mr. Speaker, as
the world's per capita leader in fossil fuel emissions, our Nation has
a moral responsibility and duty to lead global efforts to address
climate warming.
What is needed are binding commitments from all nations of the world
to remedy the problem of global warming, and the Kyoto Protocol is the
means by which a fair and equitable solution to this serious and
environmental problem can be achieved.
I also want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for
including a provision expressing the sense of the Congress concerning
the human rights problems of West Papua New Guinea, and especially also
for the continuous funding of the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, foreign policy issues now matter even more on
Chicagoland's Main Street. The Seattle paper said it when the
stocktickers will now read ``The Chicago-based Boeing Company.'' On
behalf of the people of the northern suburbs, I want to welcome the
Boeing headquarters to our community. This move will make Chicago home
to the Nation's number two exporter, Motorola, and now America's number
one exporter, Boeing. Chicago, Illinois, America's export capital.
This move is a coups for the mayor of Chicago, our Governor and
Speaker Hastert. It is a testament to our infrastructure investments in
road, rail, and aviation. To win these battles in the future, we must
continue such investments. Exporting jobs are the highest paid in
America, and exports soften the blow of a recession and lead our way to
economic growth. And Chicago is a toddling town tonight.
I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this important
foreign policy bill to the Congress. I would like to thank specifically
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his support for
international broadcasting and specifically for Radio Free Asia.
RFA, like its predecessor, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty,
provides a critical service to the people living under oppression.
Currently, RFA broadcasts to seven Asian countries in nine languages.
This bill includes an extension of an increased authorization, which
the broadcasting board of governors received last year as part of the
China Permanent Normal Trade relations bill. This increased funding for
Radio Free Asia and Voice of America is desperately needed to combat
the jamming practices of the Chinese Government.
During this time, when the U.S. is at a critical juncture with China,
it is essential that various avenues are available to bring democracy
to China and freedom to the Tibetan people and stability to the region.
Radio Free Asia provides that very important link, a voice of
democracy, freedom, and truth.
Radio Free Asia was the first to broadcast the Tiananmen Papers
inside China, and it recently linked a Tibetan inside Tibet with the
Dalai Lama's private secretary in Darmsala to discuss Commentary
Tibetan Buddhism and provided critical news and information
[[Page H2095]]
to the Chinese during the recent plane incident.
I look forward to RFA's continued service to create an even greater
audience to bring democracy and freedom to Asia. I strongly support
this bill. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and especially congratulate
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on funding for Radio Free
Asia.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee), a valued member of the committee, and my
friend and colleague.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1646,
as it passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. I want to
thank our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and
especially our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), for their leadership. But I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Hyde-Smith amendment, which will be offered next week, to strike our
bipartisan pro-family planning language incorporated in the bill during
our committee hearing.
This amendment added the text of H.R. 755, the bipartisan Lowey-
Greenwood-Pelosi-Shays Global Democracy Promotion Act. Now, the Hyde-
Smith amendment will eliminate vital family-planning funds. This is for
family-planning services. This amendment will eliminate this totally as
it relates to our nongovernmental organizations that use their own
privately raised funds for their own health care and counseling
services.
And I want to remind my colleagues once again that per the 1973 Helms
amendment, no United States funds, that is zero, no United States
taxpayer funds go to fund abortions overseas. So we must defeat the
Hyde-Smith amendment next week to ensure that women overseas have
access to vital health care services that they need, and also which
amounts to really the same health care services women in our own
country are entitled to. Family-planning services are essential for the
prevention of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including
HIV and AIDS, which kills 7,000 people a day.
I also support this bill because it includes a bipartisan measure
urging the United States to complete the Kyoto process and address the
problems of global warming. I am proud to stand with my colleagues, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega), in recognizing these dangers and in crafting the
bipartisan global climate change amendment.
This amendment is so important. It incorporates many of the
provisions of the language of my resolution, H.R. 117, the Carbon
Dioxide Emissions and Global Climate Change Act. It is very important
in terms of our leadership in the world with regard to the reduction of
greenhouse gases. As passed by the committee, this bill helps create a
more forward-thinking foreign policy that truly advances our values,
protects human rights, preserves the environment, and promotes peace.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a valued member of the committee.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the State
Department authorization bill. Under the terms of this bill, we will
rejoin the Kyoto Treaty negotiation on global warming, as we should; we
will pay our dues to the United Nations, as we should; we will rejoin
UNESCO, as we should; and we will lift the gag rule on international
family planning, as we should.
I would like to point out two additional things that I sponsored in
the committee. With the bipartisan support of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the leadership of our ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), these measures were included in
the bill.
First, requiring the State Department to conduct a 5-year strategic
study of our arms control and nonproliferation program; and, secondly,
for the Bush administration to undertake a policy review of our
relations with China. Both of these are needed with the talk of
unilateral deployment of a national missile defense and the unilateral
reductions in the number of warheads. It is time for us to have a 5-
year strategic plan developed and publicized, and I ask for approval of
this bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and colleague.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bill. I
wish to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), for their leadership. It has some important measures that will
improve the United States' standing in the international community.
The bill incorporates the Lee language, which successfully repeals
the antiwoman, antidemocratic global gag rule. And the bill contains a
provision which would urge the administration to continue negotiations
on the Kyoto Treaty. Finally, the bill authorizes the release of the
second and third installments of a 3-year $926 million schedule of back
payment of U.S. dues to the United Nations.
I am very concerned about the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment, which
will deny the U.N. its rightful U.S. dues. We made a deal with the
U.N., and now we want to go back on our word because the U.N. voted us
off the Human Rights Commission. This really is not logical. The U.N.
did not remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission, the action
was made by the 54 member states of the U.N. Economic and Social
Council. And to quote the Los Angeles Times, ``It is hard to conceive
of anything more foolish than making a payment of a legitimate debt
conditional on action by a subsidiary of the U.N. body.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment, a
``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.
Mr. HYDE. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 10 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. Let me just respond very briefly. I thought we
would be having this debate next week, but the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-
Oberstar amendment has been mentioned several times and a response is
warranted.
Unfortunately, the underlying language that was adopted in committee
would reverse the Bush-Mexico City policy. As a matter of historical
record, I have been offering the pro-life language since 1984. We have
never won, not once, in the Committee on International Relations; but
this House in every instance has overturned what the committee had done
in every instance as well. So I think that is important to point out,
that at the end of the process, the House votes to uphold the Mexico
City Policy.
It is simply inaccurate, to say we do not pay for abortions, when we
fund abortion organizations overseas. It is a bookkeeping ploy to fund
organizations that fund abortions. We are not fooled. The issue comes
down to this: how important are the unborn children? Are they important
or are they not?
{time} 1145
If we are talking about discrimination or some other issue, we would
say that we want to have conditions that would not give money to the
organization if it discriminates, even if the nongovernmental
organization did something that was laudable, like feeding the hungry.
If they practiced discrimination as well, we would simply say thanks,
but no thanks; we will find another nongovernmental organization.
The Mexico City policy works this way, and has worked well. During
the Reagan and Bush years, when we had this policy in effect for about
9 years, 350 nongovernmental organizations that provide family
planning, including 57 international Planned Parenthood affiliates,
accepted the pro-life safeguards and provided family planning. We
established a wall of separation between family planning and abortion.
Abortion, the killing of an unborn child, is not family planning. We
have
[[Page H2096]]
$425 million currently being used for family planning. That would not
be reduced by even one penny, as a result of the Mexico City policy.
Every dime will go to NGOs and programs that provide family planning,
but not abortion. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members next week would vote for the
Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a valued member of the committee.
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I salute the work that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
have done in moving forward this critical framework for how the
Department of State is going to operate. I do appreciate the words that
we heard from the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. I think there is
going to be a lot of potential progress, and it is embodied in this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there are two things that I would refer to in the
context here. Number one, I am very pleased with the language that has
been added to encourage the United States to participate in the
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I think it is absolutely critical
that the United States not abrogate its leadership in issues of the
global environment and climate change. I am one of those people who
does not sit back, and I am saying that global warming is a problem for
the planet. I think the Federal Government should take steps to
mitigate the impact of global climate change. Our planet has already
warmed by over a degree in the last 100 years. Sea level has risen
between 4 and 8 inches. The problems are predicted to be much, much
worse.
Mr. Chairman, today more than 50 percent of our Nation's population
lives within 30 miles of the coast. If we have increased raising of sea
level, increased dramatic climate incidents, heavy rainfall, these are
things that are going to be more and more serious for all of our
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, Congress can help in many ways, keeping this language
in the resolution, and then by stepping forward to do simple,
commonsense things to reduce the consumption of energy. A simple one-
half mile per gallon improvement in vehicle mileage would be the energy
equivalent of what we would drill in ANWR, and would not only protect
energy but protect the climate.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we keep this language in, and I strongly
urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, the programs and budget contained within the State
Department impact the lives of thousands of federal employees, millions
of American citizens both at home and abroad, and the diplomatic
relations between the United States and the rest of the world. Few
other federal agencies that Congress works with have such an impact on
our nation's economy, security, and livability.
I have a great interest in bringing about common-sense practices in
the planning and management of our overseas buildings infrastructure. I
am impressed with the business-like approach being taken by General
Chuck Williams (US Army Corps of Engineers, Ret.), Chief Operating
Officer for the State Department's Office of Foreign Building
Operations and I look forward to working with him on some needed
reforms. He has instigated a long-range planning process which will
allow us to gain greater value for our investment of resources.
There are some statutory changes that need to be made in order to
best assure that our 260 diplomatic missions located in some 130
countries have appropriate facilities to achieve our foreign policy
objectives. We must provide all 20,000 employees at our missions with
safe, secure, and functional facilities. I want to begin a dialogue on
this topic to prepare to make needed changes.
General Williams has done yeoman's work in the short time since he
was appointed March 12 and we are just getting started in bringing
about these practical reforms. I am working with my colleagues to
incorporate needed language into the conference report on this bill.
The language that is needed in the conference report on this bill
should accomplish the following:
(1) Allow the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations to be a stand-
alone organization within the State Department as Secretary Powell has
proposed, (2) Transfer the office into a results-based organization,
and (3) Create a rent or capital surcharge program to require agencies
to share in the cost of secure overseas facilities for their personnel.
Congress can play a constructive role in solving some of these
problems. We can begin to make planning drive the funding and thereby
help the State Department best do its job.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify a couple of points
that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) raised.
Mr. Chairman, let me first mention the purpose of family planning.
Family planning's purpose is to allow information to be distributed to
women with regard to pregnancy prevention. Family planning information,
family planning education, family planning counseling, prevents
abortions. Women in developing countries oftentimes are living off of
very minimal resources and do not have a lot of money, and they only
have maybe one or two health clinics within a radius of 500 or 600
miles. They need to learn how to space their children.
That is what this amendment incorporated in the committee is about.
It is about preventing abortions through the use of family planning
methods which provide information to women with regard to the spacing
of their children and information with regard to how to prevent
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to very briefly make some short
comments with respect to the Hyde-Lantos amendment that will be coming
up later on.
First of all, I think it is very important that the United States
speak loudly and clearly that nations such as Sudan and Libya and China
that are on the human rights committee, that this is an outrageous and
hypocritic designation and vote, when some of the biggest violators of
human rights are on this commission. The United States needs to use its
diplomacy, and it needs to use as leverage its position in the world to
make a very strong statement in opposition to this.
However, we cannot oversimplify why we did not get on the commission.
I think there are a variety of reasons for that. One, I think it is
some reflection around the world of this so-called new foreign policy
that the Bush administration has called aggressive unilateralism.
Whether that be disagreement with our reluctance to be involved with
AIDS or the Kyoto Protocol or the missile shield policy coming from the
United States, other countries are having some reaction to this.
Secondly, we were maybe surprised and flat-footed in negotiating and
trying to get the votes on this commission. France, Austria, and Sweden
all outworked us. We finished fourth. This is not the United Nations
saying the United States can or cannot get off. We had to lobby 54
other countries for this vote. We finished fourth. We did not lobby
well.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a balanced approach that the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
have arrived at. It does not overdo and potentially exacerbate the
problem. It is a somewhat measured step, but I think we have to work
harder to build coalitions in the future.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the Committee
on International Relations.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Shortly we will be considering an amendment labeled the American
Servicemembers Protection Act. It purports to protect American soldiers
from the dangers they allegedly face from the International Criminal
Court. In fact, it would do the opposite. The authors of the amendment
make two claims about the International Criminal Court, and both are
false.
Mr. Chairman, the first is that the court does not guarantee due
process.
[[Page H2097]]
Clearly they have never read the treaty. It contains perhaps the most
extensive list of due process rights ever codified: the presumption of
innocence, the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right
to confront one's accusers, the privilege against self-incrimination;
and that is just to start.
The critics also complain that the treaty does not provide for trial
by jury. Well, under our Constitution, the right to a jury trial does
not apply to military actions on foreign soil. And the last time I
looked at the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the law that does apply
to crimes by military personnel, it does not provide for trial by jury
either.
The second false claim is that the treaty places American soldiers at
risk of prosecution abroad. Not only does it not do this, it helps
prevent it from happening.
Under the treaty, Americans charged with war crimes would be tried by
our military courts, not the International Criminal Court. The court
has no jurisdiction unless our government, the American Government, is
unable or unwilling to prosecute. And that is the treaty's entire
purpose. Not to replace national courts, but to ensure that crimes
against humanity do not go unpunished when no legitimate justice system
exists.
These provisions were added to the treaty at American insistence, and
rightly so. The truth is that our soldiers are at greater risk today
without the treaty. Today they can be prosecuted by any nation for
actions within its borders. The treaty corrects this by giving primary
jurisdiction over American soldiers to American courts.
Mr. Chairman, we have nothing to fear from this treaty and everything
to gain, because we benefit from a world order that promotes stability,
holds war criminals accountable, and it stems the rule of law. I hope
that this amendment is rejected.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in protest of the gag
rule and in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) that would incorporate into the Global Democracy Promotion
Act her amendment that came out of committee on a bipartisan vote of 26
to 22, that added to the Department of State authorization bill
allowing discussions with regard to family planning.
This is a strong signal that our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle realize that the gag rule is wrong-headed. If the gag rule was
introduced in our country, it would unconstitutionally restrict free
speech and limit the ability of men and women to plan their family. The
Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment would impose on other countries
what would be illegal here. I urge my colleagues to vote no next week
on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, the global gag rule places unjust restrictions on the
way organizations outside the United States use their own money,
effectively hampering their ability to provide information on family
planning.
Mr. Chairman, I request the rest of my remarks be added into the
Record.
We know that this policy of the Reagan, Bush, and now the second Bush
administration has cost many lives and is a travesty that actually
increases unintended pregnancies, illegal abortion, death, and
disability.
The Bush administration has claimed that the gag rule prevents
taxpayer money from supporting abortions abroad. Don't be fooled. These
activities have not been eligible for U.S. funds for decades. What has
suffered are programs that provide women, men and young people with the
information and services they need to reduce unplanned pregnancies and
control their own lives. Programs such as HIV prevention, informational
materials and medical referrals, condoms, emergency contraception,
telephone hotlines, as well as career advice, skills training, Internet
sites on reproductive health, and self esteem training to encourage
abstinence.
It is a principal position of policies of family planning groups such
as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, that abortion is
not a method of family planning. These groups are committed to reducing
the numbers of abortions worldwide by ensuring that contraception is
widely and safely available. The Bush administration reinstated the gag
rule this year to pay back its pro-life campaign supporters. As
reflected in its other policies, this is hypocrisy masquerading as
compassion.
Real compassion means that we should not impose restrictions on women
and men in other countries that disempower and undermine their efforts
to extricate themselves from poverty. We know that the economic
stability, and thus, the political stability of countries around the
world increases when women and men are able to effectively plan their
families. Let's show real compassion and real concern. Let's keep the
Global Democracy Promotion Act and reject the Hyde amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of Chairman Hyde and
the International Relations Committee to bring this legislation to the
floor today. While the bill contains some language that remains to be
debated and which is cause for concern, I rise in strong support of the
provision calling for the creation of a special envoy post for Sudan.
This position is critical in the work for a just peace to a civil war
that has claimed over two million lives, has displaced an estimated
four million from their homes, and threatens another two million with
death due to famine.
And while I applaud the International Relations Committee for
including language calling for a special envoy to Sudan, I also today
appeal to President Bush and Secretary Powell to be leaders of action,
not just placaters of words. It is time for the administration to take
action to appoint a high-profile special envoy who has the President's
full backing and commitment to end the continuing atrocities in Sudan.
More people have died in Sudan in the past 15 years--then have died
in Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Bosnia combined. The most recent
statistics available put the number of dead at 2.2 million. That's an
additional 400,000 deaths since I spoke on this floor in June 1999 in
support of a House resolution condemning the National Islamic Front
(NIF) government and calling for a special envoy to end the suffering
of innocent southern Sudanese people.
Well, we got a special envoy then, but unfortunately President
Clinton never proved he was serious about ending the suffering. In
fairness, that special envoy was not empowered by nor did he have
access to the President. So the suffering has gone on and on.
It is time for a high-profile special envoy who has the backing of
the President, Secretary of State, Congress and the will of the people
to bring an end to the atrocities. It is time for the United States and
the nations of the world to join together to end the genocide that is
taking place in Sudan in the 21st century. One man concerned for the
people of southern Sudan recently said, ``No one should be able to sit
out a holocaust.''
As many in Congress noted nearly two years ago, millions of people
are still starving in southern Sudan, kept alive only by the brave
efforts of international humanitarian organizations, like World Vision,
Save the Children, UNICEF and others. The World Food Program estimated
last month that nearly 600,000 people in southern Sudan are in
immediate danger of starving to death this summer alone and that 2.9
million are at risk of starvation and in need of assistance. The
Khartoum government--which took power in a coup in 1989 and has
intensified the war ever since--is waging genocide against the people
of southern Sudan who are fighting for religious freedom and self-
determination. The government continues to use relief food as a weapon
against the people in the south who are mostly Christians or animists.
The word ``genocide'' is now the word used most commonly to describe
what is taking place in Sudan. Since I spoke on this floor nearly two
years ago in calling for a special envoy, the Committee on Conscience
of the United States Holocaust Museum has issued a genocide warning for
Sudan, Africa's largest country. In addition, the people of southern
Sudan continue their familiarity with terms such as high-altitude
bombings, abduction, slavery, famine, forced religious conversion and a
new term that has appeared during the past 18 months, ``scorched
earth.''
Government planes use high-altitude bombing to demolish civilian
targets such as hospitals and terrorize the population. Russian-made
Antonov bombers randomly bomb civilians day and night. Sometimes, just
the sound and sight of an Antonov approaching a village will send the
innocent scurrying into hiding. I personally witnessed this form of
terrorism this past January during my trip to southern Sudan.
Videos of the aftermath of a government bombing of a marketplace were
distributed to Congress this week. The video documents a savage attack
that claimed innocent life. One Catholic Bishop asked me, why did the
world stop the killing in Kosovo and not in Sudan: ``Is it because of
our skin color?''
We know that women and children from southern Sudan are being sold
into slavery.
[[Page H2098]]
They are kidnaped by slave raiders who sweep into destabilized
regions following government attacks and capture women and children. It
is clear that the government of Sudan tolerates, and even condones,
these slave raids. Women and girls are used as concubines and domestic
servants. Boys are used as farm hands, domestic servants and sometimes,
sent to the front lines.
Former District of Columbia delegate, the Reverend Walter Fauntroy,
and Joe Madison, a syndicated radio personality here in Washington,
recently returned from Sudan where they witnesses 21st century slavery
first hand. They recently spoke of their trip before a Congressional
Human Rights Caucus hearing. Joe Madison noted that when he arrived in
a slave camp, where 2,931 slaves were redeemed during his visit, he
thought the scene before his eyes could have been staged for the movie
``Roots,'' except it was real. He and Delegate Fauntroy witnessed
individual accounts of abuses many of the slaves suffered at the hands
of their former slave masters.
They spoke to a 13-year old boy, who had been a slave since he was 8
and who had all his fingers cut off because he refused to clean a goat
pen.
They met a 20-year old woman who had been enslaved for five years and
was forced to have sex with her own brother while 12 men watched and
later raped her.
They listened as another young woman explained how she had her throat
cut and her breast burned because she refused to give up her baby to a
slave master.
And finally, Joe Madison was numbed by the story of a young mother
whose baby's throat was slit by a slave raider. The raider then cut the
tottler's head off. The mother, after being raped, was forced to carry
the head of her child on the march north where she was ordered by her
slave master to throw the child's head into a fire. She remained a
slave for several years.
Modern-day slavery in Sudan is just an airplane ride from the shores
of America. There are real people with real stories and they are asking
for our help. It would be easy for them to think that Americans don't
care about what is happening to them. But, Americans do care.
My office, as do many others in Congress, continues to hear from
citizens from across our nation expressing their outrage at these
atrocities and they demand that our government do something about them.
I recently received 68 letters from students at Olivet Nazarene
University in Bourbonnais, Illinois, about their concern for the plight
of the Sudanese people. These students, like many other citizens around
the world, are saying, enough is enough. Do something to stop the
suffering of these innocent people.
Slavery is only part of the problem in Sudan. Starvation is only part
of the problem. Unfortunately, bombing of innocent men, women and
children is only part of the problem.
Now, a new term is becoming the norm in southern Sudan. ``Scorched
earth.'' Oil has been discovered in vast amounts during the past two
years. The Khartoum government has begun aerial and ground attacks in
and around the oil fields in an effort to eliminate any living thing
that happens to inhabit the area. Oil companies from around the world
are lining up to pump this ``blood oil'' to benefit the stock
portfolios of their investors. For those who follow the situation in
Sudan, names and terms such as the Nuba mountains, Heglig and Unity oil
fields, upper Nile region, helicopter gun-ships, oil road,
displacement, scorched earth and death are routinely reported in news
accounts of the ongoing atrocities against humanity. It is estimated
that the Khartoum government is bringing in an additional $500 million
a year from its new-found resource. Most of these additional funds are
going to double the military spending in Sudan so that the suffering
can increase on those living in the south.
Nearly two years ago, I stated on this floor that, ``what is needed
is a comprehensive, just and permanent solution to end the fighting--a
solution which provides the people of Southern Sudan the ability to
practice their faith as they choose and determine their future. All the
people of Sudan are suffering at the hands of the NIF regime, but the
people of southern Sudan have been the real losers.''
Now, sadly to say, since those words were spoken in June 1999,
another 400,000 innocent lives have been lost. A special envoy was
created, in name only, but without the full support of President
Clinton or his administration. My colleagues, I encourage you to speak
out and encourage President Bush and his new administration to do
whatever it takes to end the suffering in Sudan that has gone on far
too long.
Our nation has received many blessing over the past 225 years. Though
things are not perfect, our citizens don't worry about their homes,
schools or churches being bombed by their government. Our men, women
and children are not sold into slavery or starved because of their
religious beliefs. Our nation was founded on religious principles. Luke
12:48 reminds us that to whom much is given, much is expected.
The United States can and must do more to facilitate the negotiation
of a just peace in Sudan. The innocent in southern Sudan and those in
the world who support the principles of freedom; life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, are counting on this administration to make a
serious effort to bring peace to Sudan in 2001.
Again, I thank Chairman Hyde and the committee for the work on this
bill.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee
language included in this bill. President Bush's gag rule is a
destructive policy that threatens women's health around the world.
This is not about abortion or protecting the tax money of the
American people. This is about the fact that each year, more than 600
thousand women die of pregnancy-related deaths that are preventable.
This is about the fact that more than 150 million married women in
developing nations want contraceptives, but have no access to them.
This is about giving women an option, and some control over their
lives. The Global Gag Rule does not prevent abortions. Instead, it
forces women around the world to resort to life-threatening acts of
desperation in the attempt to get rid of unwanted pregnancies.
Mr. Speaker I have met with family planning providers from across the
world and they consider this aid to be the most important assistance
they receive from the United States--especially the providers from the
former Soviet Union and African nations. This is not about promoting
abortion--it's about helping women and their families. Remember,
foreign countries have been prohibited from using US funds for
abortions since 1973.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lee language in
this billl.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record an exchange of
letters between Chairman Stump and myself.
Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 4, 2001.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Bob: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R.
1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003. The bill, in the form reported by the
committee, contains language which falls within the Rule X
jurisdiction of your Committee. Specifically, section 831,
relating to international counterproliferation education and
training activities and section 841, relating to the detail
of uniformed military officers as munitions license review
officers are provisions within your subject matter
jurisdiction.
Due to the exigencies of time, I hereby request that your
Committee waive the opportunity to request a referral of the
bill. I will support appointment of conferees from your
Committee on these or other related matters within your
jurisdiction.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC May 3, 2001.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Henry: In recognition of the desire to expedite floor
consideration of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, the Committee
on Armed Services agrees to waive its right to consider this
legislation. H.R. 1646, as ordered reported by the Committee
on International Relations on May 2, 2001, contains subject
matter that falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the
Committee on Armed Services pursuant to rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives. Both section 831, relating
to international counterproliferation education and training
activities, and section 841, relating to the detail of
uniformed military officers as munitions license review
officers, are of jurisdictional and substantive concern to
this Committee.
While the Committee on Armed Services will not seek
referral of the legislation, this Committee will continue to
work with you as the House considers H.R. 1646, and in any
subsequent conference with the Senate, to address these
concerns in a mutually satisfactory manner.
The Committee on Armed Services takes this action with the
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the
provisions in question is in no way diminished or altered,
and that the Committee's right to the appointment of
conferees during any conference on the bill remains intact.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump,
Chairman.
[[Page H2099]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1646
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
Subtitle A--Department of State
Sec. 101. Administration of foreign affairs.
Sec. 102. International commissions.
Sec. 103. United States educational and cultural programs.
Sec. 104. Contributions to international organizations.
Sec. 105. Contributions for international peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 106. Grants to the Asia Foundation.
Sec. 107. Voluntary contributions to international organizations.
Sec. 108. Migration and refugee assistance.
Subtitle B--United States International Broadcasting Activities
Sec. 121. Authorizations of appropriations.
Subtitle C--Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001
Sec. 131. Short title.
Sec. 132. Findings.
Sec. 133. Assistance for foreign nongovernmental organizations under
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
TITLE II--AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Subtitle A--Basic Authorities and Activities
Sec. 201. Continuation of reporting requirements.
Sec. 202. Continuation of other reports.
Sec. 203. Royal Ulster Constabulary training.
Sec. 204. Report concerning elimination of Colombian opium.
Sec. 205. Repeal of provision regarding housing for foreign
agricultural attache.
Sec. 206. Human rights monitoring.
Sec. 207. Correction of Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967.
Sec. 208. International litigation fund.
Sec. 209. Emergency evacuation services.
Sec. 210. Implementation of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000.
Sec. 211. Report concerning the effect of Plan Colombia on Ecuador.
Sec. 212. Report concerning efforts to promote Israel's diplomatic
relations with other countries.
Sec. 213. Reports on activities in the Republic of Colombia.
Subtitle B--Consular Authorities
Sec. 231. Machine readable visas.
Sec. 232. Establishment of a consular branch office in Lhasa, Tibet.
Sec. 233. Establishment of a diplomatic or consular post in Equatorial
Guinea.
Sec. 234. Processing of visa applications.
Sec. 235. United States policy with respect to Jerusalem as the capital
of Israel.
Sec. 236. Denial of visas to supporters of Colombian illegal armed
groups.
Subtitle C--Migration and Refugees
Sec. 251. United States policy regarding the involuntary return of
refugees.
Sec. 252. Report on overseas refugee processing.
TITLE III--ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Subtitle A--Organizational Matters
Sec. 301. Comprehensive workforce plan.
Sec. 302. ``Rightsizing'' overseas posts.
Sec. 303. Qualifications of certain officers of the Department of
State.
Sec. 304. United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.
Sec. 305. United States Special Envoy for Sudan Issues.
Subtitle B--Personnel Matters
Sec. 331. Report concerning retired members of the Foreign Service and
Civil Service who are registered agents of a government
of a foreign country.
Sec. 332. Tibetan language training.
Sec. 333. Dependents on family visitation travel.
Sec. 334. Thomas Jefferson Star.
Sec. 335. Health education and disease prevention programs.
Sec. 336. Training authorities.
Sec. 337. Foreign national retirement plans.
Sec. 338. Presidential rank awards.
Sec. 339. Emergency medical advance payments.
Sec. 340. Unaccompanied air baggage.
Sec. 341. Special agent authorities.
Sec. 342. Report concerning minority employment.
Sec. 343. Use of funds authorized for minority recruitment.
TITLE IV--UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Sec. 401. Extension of requirement for scholarships for Tibetans and
Burmese.
Sec. 402. Nonprofit entities for cultural programs.
Sec. 403. Fulbright-Hays authorities.
Sec. 404. Ethical issues in international health research.
TITLE V--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING ACTIVITIES
Sec. 501. Eliminating staff positions for the Advisory Board for Cuba
Broadcasting.
Sec. 502. Reports on broadcasting personnel.
Sec. 503. Personal services contracting pilot program.
Sec. 504. Pay parity for senior executives of Radio Free Europe and
Radio Liberty.
Sec. 505. Repeal of ban on United States transmitter in Kuwait.
TITLE VI--INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMISSIONS
Sec. 601. United Nations arrears payments and reform.
Sec. 602. Travel by advisory committee members to Great Lakes Fishery
Commission annual meeting.
Sec. 603. United States policy on composition of the United Nations
Human Rights Commission.
Sec. 604. United States membership in the International Organization
for Migration.
Sec. 605. Report relating to Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
Sec. 606. Reports to Congress on United Nations activities.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
Sec. 701. Amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000.
Sec. 702. Amendments to the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999.
Sec. 703. Amendments to the International Religious Freedom Act of
1998.
Sec. 704. Continuation of United States Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy.
Sec. 705. Participation of South Asia countries in international law
enforcment.
Subtitle B--Sense of Congress Provisions
Sec. 731. Sense of Congress relating to HIV/AIDs and United Nations
peacekeeping operations.
Sec. 732. Sense of Congress relating to HIV/AIDS task force.
Sec. 733. Sense of Congress condemning the destruction of pre-Islamic
statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime.
Sec. 734. Sense of Congress relating to resolution of the Taiwan Strait
issue.
Sec. 735. Sense of Congress relating to arsenic contamination in
drinking water in Bangladesh.
Sec. 736. Sense of Congress relating to display of the American flag at
the American Institute in Taiwan.
Sec. 737. Sense of Congress regarding human rights violations in West
Papua and Aceh, including the murder of Jafar Siddiq
Hamzah, and escalating violence in Maluku and Central
Kalimantan.
Sec. 738. Sense of Congress supporting properly conducted elections in
Kosova during 2001.
Sec. 739. Sense of Congress relating to policy review of relations with
the People's Republic of China.
Sec. 740. Sense of Congress relating to broadcasting in the Macedonian
language by Radio Free Europe.
Sec. 741. Sense of Congress relating to Magen David Adom Society.
Sec. 742. Sense of Congress urging the return of portraits painted by
Dina Babbitt during her internment at Auschwitz that are
now in the possession of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State
Museum.
Sec. 743. Sense of Congress regarding Vietnamese refugee families.
Sec. 744. Sense of Congress relating to membership of the United States
in UNESCO.
Sec. 745. Sense of Congress relating to global warming.
Sec. 746. Sense of Congress regarding the ban on Sinn Fein ministers
from the North-South Ministerial Council in Northern
Ireland.
TITLE VIII--SECURITY ASSISTANCE
Sec. 801. Short title.
Subtitle A--Military and Related Assistance
Chapter 1--Foreign Military Sales and Related Authorities
Sec. 811. Quarterly report on price and availability estimates.
Sec. 812. Official reception and representation expenses.
Sec. 813. Treatment of Taiwan relating to transfers of defense articles
and services.
Sec. 814. United States policy with regard to Taiwan.
Chapter 2--Excess Defense Article and Drawdown Authorities
Sec. 821. Excess defense articles for certain European and other
countries.
Sec. 822. Leases of defense articles for foreign countries and
international organizations.
Sec. 823. Priority with respect to transfer of excess defense articles.
[[Page H2100]]
Chapter 3--Nonproliferation And Export Control Assistance
Sec. 831. International counterproliferation education and training.
Sec. 832. Annual report on the proliferation of missiles and essential
components of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
Sec. 833. Five-year international arms control and nonproliferation
strategy.
Subtitle B--Strengthening the Munitions Licensing Process
Sec. 841. License officer staffing.
Sec. 842. Funding for database automation.
Sec. 843. Information management priorities.
Sec. 844. Improvements to the automated export system.
Sec. 845. Congressional notification of removal of items from the
munitions list.
Sec. 846. Congressional notification thresholds for allied countries.
Subtitle C--Authority to Transfer Naval Vessels
Sec. 851. Authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign
countries.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 861. Annual foreign military training reports.
Sec. 862. Report relating to international arms sales code of conduct.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of State.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of State.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
Subtitle A--Department of State
SEC. 101. ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of State under ``Administration of Foreign
Affairs'' to carry out the authorities, functions, duties,
and responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of
the United States and for other purposes authorized by law,
including public diplomacy activities and the diplomatic
security program:
(1) Diplomatic and consular programs.--
(A) Authorization of appropriations.--For ``Diplomatic and
Consular Programs'' of the Department of State,
$3,705,140,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may
be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(B) Limitations.--
(i) Worldwide security upgrades.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated by subparagraph (A), $487,735,000 for the
fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for
worldwide security upgrades.
(ii) Bureau of democracy, human rights, and labor.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A),
$16,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $20,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for
salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor.
(iii) Recruitment of minority groups.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A), $2,000,000
for the fiscal year 2002 and $2,000,000 for the fiscal year
2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for the
recruitment of members of minority groups for careers in the
Foreign Service and international affairs.
(iv) Mobile library for united states interests section in
cuba.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by
subparagraph (A), $70,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
$70,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be
appropriated only for the establishment and operation of a
mobile library at the United States Interests Section in Cuba
primarily for use by dissidents and democracy activists in
Cuba.
(2) Capital investment fund.--For ``Capital Investment
Fund'' of the Department of State, $210,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2003.
(3) Embassy security, construction and maintenance.--In
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated
for ``Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance'' by
section 604 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and
2001 (section 604 of division A of H.R. 3427, as enacted into
law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; appendix G;
113 Stat. 1501A-470), there are authorized to be appropriated
for ``Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance'',
$475,046,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be
necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(4) Representation allowances.--For ``Representation
Allowances'', $9,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
$9,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
(5) Emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service.--
For ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service'',
$15,500,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $15,500,000 for the
fiscal year 2003.
(6) Office of the inspector general.--For ``Office of the
Inspector General'', $29,264,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(7) Payment to the american institute in taiwan.--For
``Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan'', $17,044,000
for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary
for the fiscal year 2003.
(8) Protection of foreign missions and officials.--
(A) Amounts authorized to be appropriated.--For
``Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials'', $10,000,000
for the fiscal year 2002 and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year
2003.
(B) Availability of funds.--Each amount appropriated
pursuant to this paragraph is authorized to remain available
through September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal
year for which the amount was appropriated.
(9) Repatriation loans.--For ``Repatriation Loans'',
$1,219,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $1,219,000 for the
fiscal year 2003, for administrative expenses.
SEC. 102. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS.
The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated
under ``International Commissions'' for the Department of
State to carry out the authorities, functions, duties, and
responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of the
United States and for other purposes authorized by law:
(1) International boundary and water commission, united
states and mexico.--For ``International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico''--
(A) for ``Salaries and Expenses'', $7,452,000 for the
fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2003; and
(B) for ``Construction'', $25,654,000 for the fiscal year
2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year
2003.
(2) International boundary commission, united states and
canada.--For ``International Boundary Commission, United
States and Canada'', $989,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(3) International joint commission.--For ``International
Joint Commission'', $7,282,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(4) International fisheries commissions.--For
``International Fisheries Commissions'', $19,780,000 for the
fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2003.
SEC. 103. UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS.
The following amounts are authorized to be appropriated for
the Department of State to carry out international activities
and educational and cultural exchange programs under the
United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of
1948, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of
1961, Reorganization Plan Number 2 of 1977, the Center for
Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West Act
of 1960, the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center Act of 1991,
and the National Endowment for Democracy Act, and to carry
out other authorities in law consistent with such purposes:
(1) Educational and cultural exchange programs.--
(A) Fulbright academic exchange programs.--
(i) In general.--For the ``Fulbright Academic Exchange
Programs'' (other than programs described in subparagraph
(B)), $125,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as
may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(ii) New century scholars initiative--hiv/aids.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), up to
$1,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and up to $1,000,000 for
the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be available only for
HIV/AIDS research and mitigation strategies under the Health
Issues in a Border-Less World academic program of the New
Century Scholars Initiative.
(iii) Tibetan exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal year
2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to
be available for ``Ngawang Choephel Exchange Programs''
(formerly known as educational and cultural exchanges with
Tibet) under section 103(a) of the Human Rights, Refugee, and
Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-319).
(B) Other educational and cultural exchange programs.--
(i) In general.--For other educational and cultural
exchange programs authorized by law, $117,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for the
fiscal year 2003.
(ii) South pacific exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to
be appropriated under clause (i), $750,000 for the fiscal
year 2002 and $750,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are
authorized to be available for ``South Pacific Exchanges''.
(iii) East timorese scholarships.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for
the fiscal year 2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003
are authorized to be available for ``East Timorese
Scholarships''.
(iv) African exchanges.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal year
2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to
be available only for ``Educational and Cultural Exchanges
with Sub-Saharan Africa''.
(v) Israel-arab peace partners program.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), $750,000 for
the fiscal year 2002 and $750,000 for the fiscal year 2003
are authorized to be available only for people-to-people
activities (with a focus on young people) to support the
Middle East peace process involving participants from Israel,
the Palestinian Authority, Arab countries, and the United
States, to be known as the ``Israel-Arab Peace Partners
Program''.
(vi) Sudanese scholarships.--Of the amounts authorized to
be appropriated under clause (i), $500,000 for the fiscal
year 2002 and $500,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are
authorized to be available only for scholarships for students
from southern Sudan for secondary or postsecondary
[[Page H2101]]
education in the United States, to be known as ``Sudanese
Scholarships''.
(2) National endowment for democracy.--For the ``National
Endowment for Democracy'', $36,000,000 for the fiscal year
2002 and $40,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
(3) Reagan-fascell democracy fellows.--For a fellowship
program, to be known as the ``Reagan-Fascell Democracy
Fellows'', for democracy activists and scholars from around
the world at the International Forum for Democratic Studies
in Washington, D.C., to study, write, and exchange views with
other activists and scholars and with Americans, $1,000,000
for the fiscal year 2002 and $1,000,000 for the fiscal year
2003.
(4) Dante b. fascell north-south center.--For ``Dante B.
Fascell North-South Center'' $4,000,000 for the fiscal year
2002 and $4,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
(5) Center for cultural and technical interchange between
east and west.--For the ``Center for Cultural and Technical
Interchange between East and West'', $13,500,000 for the
fiscal year 2002 and $13,500,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
SEC. 104. CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
under the heading ``Contributions to International
Organizations'' $944,067,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003 for
the Department of State to carry out the authorities,
functions, duties, and responsibilities in the conduct of the
foreign affairs of the United States with respect to
international organizations and to carry out other
authorities in law consistent with such purposes.
(2) UNESCO.--
(A) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
paragraph (1), $59,800,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
$59,800,000 for the fiscal year 2003 is authorized to be
appropriated only for payment of assessed contributions of
the United States to the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
(B) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
paragraph (1) for the fiscal year 2002, $5,500,000 is
authorized to be appropriated only for payments to the UNESCO
Working Capital Fund.
(b) Availability of Funds for Civil Budget of NATO.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated under the heading
``Contributions to International Organizations'' for fiscal
year 2002 and for each fiscal year thereafter such sums as
may be necessary are authorized for the United States
assessment for the civil budget of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
(c) Prohibition on Funding Other Framework Treaty-Based
Organizations.--None of the funds made available for the
2002-2003 biennium budget under subsection (a) for United
States contributions to the regular budget of the United
Nations shall be available for the United States
proportionate share of any other framework treaty-based
organization, including the Framework Convention on Global
Climate Change, the International Seabed Authority, and the
International Criminal Court.
(d) Foreign Currency Exchange Rates.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a),
there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to offset
adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated under this
subsection shall be available for obligation and expenditure
only to the extent that the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget determines and certifies to Congress
that such amounts are necessary due to such fluctuations.
(e) Refund of Excess Contributions.--The United States
shall continue to insist that the United Nations and its
specialized and affiliated agencies shall credit or refund to
each member of the agency concerned its proportionate share
of the amount by which the total contributions to the agency
exceed the expenditures of the regular assessed budgets of
these agencies.
SEC. 105. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING
ACTIVITIES.
There are authorized to be appropriated under the heading
``Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities''
$844,139,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be
necessary for the fiscal year 2003 for the Department of
State to carry out the authorities, functions, duties, and
responsibilities in the conduct of the foreign affairs of the
United States with respect to international peacekeeping
activities and to carry out other authorities in law
consistent with such purposes.
SEC. 106. GRANTS TO THE ASIA FOUNDATION.
Section 404 of the Asia Foundation Act (title IV of Public
Law 98-164; 22 U.S.C. 4403) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 404. There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of State $15,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
$15,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 for grants to The Asia
Foundation pursuant to this title.''.
SEC. 107. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of State for
``Voluntary Contributions to International Organizations'',
$186,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be
necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(b) Limitations on Authorizations of Appropriations.--
(1) World food program.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a), $5,000,000 for the fiscal
year 2002 and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are
authorized to be appropriated only for a United States
contribution to the World Food Program.
(2) United nations voluntary fund for victims of torture.--
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsection
(a), $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $5,000,000 for
the fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be appropriated only
for a United States contribution to the United Nations
Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
(3) Organization of american states.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a), $240,000
for the fiscal year 2002 and $240,000 for the fiscal year
2003 are authorized to be appropriated only for a United
States contribution to the Organization of American States
for the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
Expression in the Western Hemisphere, solely for the purpose
of conducting investigations, including field visits, to
establish a network of nongovernmental organizations, and to
hold hemispheric conferences, of which $6,000 for each
fiscal year is authorized to be appropriated only for the
investigation and dissemination of information on
violations of freedom of expression by the Government of
Cuba, $6,000 for each fiscal year is authorized to be
appropriated only for the investigation and dissemination
of information on violations of freedom of expression by
the Government of Peru, $6,000 for each fiscal year is
authorized to be appropriated only for the investigation
and dissemination of information on violations of freedom
of expression by the Government of Colombia, and $6,000
for each fiscal year is authorized to be appropriated only
for the investigation and dissemination of information on
violations of freedom of expression by the Government of
Haiti.
(c) Restrictions on United States Voluntary Contributions
to United Nations Development Program.--
(1) Limitation.--Of the amounts made available under
subsection (a) for each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for
United States voluntary contributions to the United Nations
Development Program an amount equal to the amount the United
Nations Development Program will spend in Burma during each
fiscal year shall be withheld unless during such fiscal year
the Secretary of State submits to the appropriate
congressional committees the certification described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Certification.--The certification referred to in
paragraph (1) is a certification by the Secretary of State
that all programs and activities of the United Nations
Development Program (including United Nations Development
Program--Administered Funds) in Burma--
(A) are focused on eliminating human suffering and
addressing the needs of the poor;
(B) are undertaken only through international or private
voluntary organizations that have been deemed independent of
the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) (formerly
known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council
(SLORC)), after consultation with the leadership of the
National League for Democracy and the leadership of the
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma;
(C) provide no financial, political, or military benefit to
the SPDC; and
(D) are carried out only after consultation with the
leadership of the National League for Democracy and the
leadership of the National Coalition Government of the Union
of Burma.
(d) UNICEF.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$120,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 for a United States
voluntary contribution to UNICEF.
(e) Organizations and Programs That Support Coercive
Abortion or Involuntary Sterilization.--None of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be made
available to any organization or program which, as determined
by the President of the United States, supports, or
participates in the management of, a program of coercive
abortion or involuntary sterilization.
(f) Availability of Funds.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) are authorized to remain
available until expended.
SEC. 108. MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE.
(a) Migration and Refugee Assistance.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of State for
``Migration and Refugee Assistance'' for authorized
activities, $817,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and
$817,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003.
(2) Limitations.--
(A) Tibetan refugees in india and nepal.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), $2,000,000
for the fiscal year 2002 and $2,000,000 for the fiscal year
2003 are authorized to be available for humanitarian
assistance, including food, medicine, clothing, and medical
and vocational training, to Tibetan refugees in India and
Nepal who have fled Chinese-occupied Tibet.
(B) Refugees resettling in israel.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), $60,000,000
for the fiscal year 2002 and $60,000,000 for the fiscal year
2003 are authorized to be available only for assistance for
refugees resettling in Israel from other countries.
(C) Humanitarian assistance for displaced burmese.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1),
$2,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $2,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2003 are authorized to be available for
humanitarian assistance (including food, medicine, clothing,
and medical and vocational training) to persons displaced as
a result of civil conflict in Burma, including persons still
within Burma.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated pursuant to
this section are authorized to remain available until
expended.
[[Page H2102]]
Subtitle B--United States International Broadcasting Activities
SEC. 121. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--The following amounts are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the United States International
Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act,
and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and to carry out
other authorities in law consistent with such purposes:
(1) International broadcasting operations.--
(A) In general.--For ``International Broadcasting
Operations'', $428,234,000 for the fiscal year 2002, and such
sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(B) Limitations.--
(i) Transmission facilities in belize.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph (A),
$750,000 for the fiscal year 2002 is authorized to be
appropriated only for enhancements to and costs of
transmission from the facilities in Belize.
(ii) Radio free asia.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subparagraph (A), $30,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2002 and $30,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003 are
authorized to be appropriated only for ``Radio Free Asia''.
(2) Broadcasting capital improvements.--For ``Broadcasting
Capital Improvements'', $16,900,000 for the fiscal year 2002
and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2003.
(3) Broadcasting to cuba.--For ``Broadcasting to Cuba'',
$25,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 and $25,000,000 for the
fiscal year 2003.
(b) Continuation of Additional Authorization for
Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China and
Neighboring Countries.--Section 701 of Public Law 106-286 (22
U.S.C. 7001) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``2001'' and inserting
``2002''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``2001 and 2002'' and
inserting ``2001, 2002, and 2003''.
(c) Additional Authorization of Appropriations for Middle
East Radio Network of Voice of America.--In addition to such
amounts as are made available for the Middle East Radio
Network of Voice of America pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations under subsection (a), there is authorized to
be appropriated $15,000,000 for the fiscal year 2002 for the
Middle East Radio Network of Voice of America.
Subtitle C--Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001
SEC. 131. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Global Democracy Promotion
Act of 2001''.
SEC. 132. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) It is a fundamental principle of American medical
ethics and practice that health care providers should, at all
times, deal honestly and openly with patients. Any attempt to
subvert the private and sensitive physician-patient
relationship would be intolerable in the United States and is
an unjustifiable intrusion into the practices of health care
providers when attempted in other countries.
(2) Freedom of speech is a fundamental American value. The
ability to exercise the right to free speech, which includes
the ``right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances'' is
essential to a thriving democracy and is protected under the
United States Constitution.
(3) The promotion of democracy is a principal goal of
United States foreign policy and critical to achieving
sustainable development. It is enhanced through the
encouragement of democratic institutions and the promotion of
an independent and politically active civil society in
developing countries.
(4) Limiting eligibility for United States development and
humanitarian assistance upon the willingness of a foreign
nongovernmental organization to forgo its right to use its
own funds to address, within the democratic process, a
particular issue affecting the citizens of its own country
directly undermines a key goal of United States foreign
policy and would violate the United States Constitution if
applied to United States-based organizations.
(5) Similarly, limiting the eligibility for United States
assistance on a foreign nongovernmental organization's
willingness to forgo its right to provide, with its own
funds, medical services that are legal in its own country and
would be legal if provided in the United States constitutes
unjustifiable interference with the ability of independent
organizations to serve the critical health needs of their
fellow citizens and demonstrates a disregard and disrespect
for the laws of sovereign nations as well as for the laws of
the United States.
SEC. 133. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS UNDER PART I OF THE FOREIGN
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or
policy, in determining eligibility for assistance authorized
under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental organizations--
(1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on
the basis of health or medical services including counseling
and referral services, provided by such organizations with
non-United States Government funds if such services do not
violate the laws of the country in which they are being
provided and would not violate United States Federal law if
provided in the United States; and
(2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the
use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and
lobbying activities other than those that apply to United
States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance
under part I of such Act.
TITLE II--AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Subtitle A--Basic Authorities and Activities
SEC. 201. CONTINUATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Reports on Claims by United States Firms Against the
Government of Saudi Arabia.--Section 2801(b)(1) of the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as
enacted by division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law
105-277) is amended by striking ``seventh'' and inserting
``eleventh''.
(b) Reports on Determinations Under Title IV of the
Libertad Act.--Section 2802(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform
and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of
the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2001,'' and inserting ``September
30, 2003,''.
(c) Relations With Vietnam.--Section 2805 of the Foreign
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by
division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2001,'' and inserting
``September 30, 2003,''.
(d) Reports on Ballistic Missile Cooperation With Russia.--
Section 2705(d) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted by division G of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999; Public Law 105-277) is amended by
striking ``and January 1, 2001,'' and inserting ``January 1,
2001, January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2003''.
SEC. 202. CONTINUATION OF OTHER REPORTS.
(a) Semiannual Reports on United States Support for
Membership or Participation of Taiwan in International
Organizations.--Section 704(a) of the Admiral James W. Nance
and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001 (section 704(a) of division A of H.R.
3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law
106-113, appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-460) is amended by
striking ``and 2001,'' and inserting ``, 2001, 2002, and
2003,''.
(b) Report on Terrorist Activity in Which United States
Citizens Were Killed and Related Matters.--Section 805(a) of
the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (section 805(a)
of division A of H.R. 3427, as enacted into law by section
1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; appendix G; 113 Stat.
1501A-470) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001,'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2003,''.
SEC. 203. ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY TRAINING.
(a) Report on Past Training Programs.--Section 405(b) of
the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted
into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 113
Stat. 1501A-447) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph
(1)--
(1) by striking ``The President'' and inserting ``Not later
than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, the
President''; and
(2) by striking ``during fiscal years 1994 through 1999''
and inserting ``during each of the fiscal years 1994 through
2000''.
(b) Report on Related Matters.--Section 405 of the Admiral
James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Report on Related Matters.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, the President
shall report on the following:
``(1) The extent to which the Government of the United
Kingdom has implemented the recommendations relating to the
175 policing reforms contained in the Patten Commission
report issued on September 9, 1999, including a description
of the progress of the integration of human rights, as well
as recruitment procedures aimed at increasing Catholic
representation, in the new Northern Ireland police force.
``(2) The status of the investigations into the murders of
Patrick Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, and Robert Hamill,
including the extent to which progress has been made on
recommendations for independent judicial inquiries into these
murders.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 405 of the Admiral
James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, as amended by
subsections (a) and (b), is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``the report required by subsection (b)''
and inserting ``the reports required by subsections (b) and
(c)''; and
(B) by striking ``subsection (c)(1)'' and inserting
``subsection (d)(1)''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(2) (as redesignated)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``2001'' and inserting
``2003''; and
(B) by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 204. REPORT CONCERNING ELIMINATION OF COLOMBIAN OPIUM.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is a growing heroin crisis in the United States
resulting from increasingly cheap, pure, and deadly heroin
flooding into this country, much of it from Colombia.
(2) Interdicting heroin entering the United States is
difficult, in part because it can be trafficked in such small
quantities.
[[Page H2103]]
(3) Destruction of opium, from which heroin is derived, at
its source in Colombia is traditionally one of the best
strategies to combat the heroin crisis according to Federal
law enforcement officials.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State,
through the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement, shall submit to the Congress a report which
outlines a comprehensive strategy to address the crisis of
heroin in the United States due to opium originating from
Colombia including destruction of opium at its source.
SEC. 205. REPEAL OF PROVISION REGARDING HOUSING FOR FOREIGN
AGRICULTURAL ATTACHE.
Section 738 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat.
1549A-34) is repealed.
SEC. 206. HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING.
Funds authorized to be appropriated for the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor pursuant to section
101(1)(B)(ii) are authorized to be available to fund
positions at United States posts abroad that are primarily
responsible for following human rights developments in
foreign countries and that are assigned at the recommendation
of such bureau in conjunction with the relevant regional
bureau.
SEC. 207. CORRECTION OF FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967.
Section 7(a)(3) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967
(22 U.S.C. 1977(A)(3)) is amended by striking ``Secretary of
Commerce'' and inserting ``Secretary of State''.
SEC. 208. INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION FUND.
Section 38 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 (22 U.S.C. 2710) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Retention of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--To reimburse the expenses of the United
States Government in preparing or prosecuting a claim against
a foreign government or other foreign entity, the Secretary
of State shall retain 1.5 percent of any amount between
$100,000 and $5,000,000, and one percent of any amount over
$5,000,000, received per claim under chapter 34 of the Act of
February 27, 1896 (22 U.S.C. 2668a; 29 Stat. 32).
``(2) Treatment.--Amounts retained under the authority of
paragraph (1) shall be deposited into the fund under
subsection (d).''.
SEC. 209. EMERGENCY EVACUATION SERVICES.
Section 4(b)(2)(A) of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(A)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(A) the evacuation when their lives are endangered by
war, civil unrest, or natural disaster of (i) United States
Government employees and their dependents, and (ii) private
United States citizens or third-country nationals, on a
reimbursable basis to the extent feasible, with such
reimbursements to be credited to the applicable Department of
State appropriation and to remain available until expended.
No reimbursement shall be required which is greater than the
amount the person evacuated would have been charged for a
commercial air fare at the lowest rate available immediately
prior to the onset of the war, civil unrest, or natural
disaster giving rise to the evacuation;''.
SEC. 210. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF
2000.
The Secretary of State, acting through the Assistant
Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, shall consult with
the appropriate congressional committees on a regular basis
on the implementation of the Intercountry Adoption Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-279; 42 U.S.C. 14901 et seq.).
SEC. 211. REPORT CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF PLAN COLOMBIA ON
ECUADOR.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There is a growing alarm concerning the spillover
effect of Plan Colombia on Ecuador, a frontline state. The
northern region of Ecuador, including the Sucumbios province,
is an area of particular concern. It faces the Colombian
Putumayo zone, where there is no presence of military or law
enforcement personnel.
(2) Activities relating to the implementation of Plan
Colombia have resulted in incursions on Ecuadorian territory
by drug traffickers and guerrilla and paramilitary groups
from Colombia and a concomitant increase in the levels of
violence and delinquency. Recent kidnappings of American and
other foreign nationals, as well as discoveries of
clandestine cocaine laboratories, are especially troublesome.
(3) Ecuador is receiving an influx of Colombian refugees
and its own indigenous communities have been displaced from
their ancestral villages.
(4) Ecuador has demonstrated its moral and political
commitment in the fight against drugs. The agreement signed
in November 1999 with the United States to establish a
forward operating location in Manta is a clear sign of this
active stance.
(5) Ecuador is implementing a comprehensive program aimed
at reinforcing its security mechanisms in the northern
border, as well as converting the area into a buffer zone of
peace and development.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State,
through the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement, shall submit to Congress a report which outlines
a comprehensive strategy to address the spillover effect of
Plan Colombia on Ecuador.
SEC. 212. REPORT CONCERNING EFFORTS TO PROMOTE ISRAEL'S
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Israel is a friend and ally of the United States whose
security is vital to regional stability and United States
interests.
(2) Israel currently maintains diplomatic relations with
162 countries. Approximately 25 countries do not have any
diplomatic relations with Israel and another 4 countries have
only limited relations.
(3) The government of Israel has been actively seeking to
establish formal relations with a number of countries.
(4) The United States should assist its ally, Israel, in
its efforts to establish diplomatic relations.
(5) After 52 years of existence, Israel deserves to be
treated as an equal nation by its neighbors and the world
community.
(b) Report Concerning United States Efforts to Promote
Israel's Diplomatic Relations With Other Countries.--Not
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall
submit a report which includes the following information (in
classified or unclassified form, as appropriate) to the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives:
(1) Actions taken by representatives of the United States
to encourage other countries to establish full diplomatic
relations with Israel.
(2) Specific responses solicited and received by the
Secretary of State from countries that do not maintain full
diplomatic relations with Israel with respect to the status
of negotiations to enter into diplomatic relations with
Israel.
(3) Other measures being undertaken, and measures that will
be undertaken, by the United States to ensure and promote
Israel's full participation in the world diplomatic
community.
SEC. 213. REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA.
(a) Report on Reform Activities.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the
Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the status of activities
funded or authorized, in whole or in part, by the Department
of State in the Republic of Colombia to promote alternative
development, recovery and resettlement of internally
displaced persons, judicial reform, the peace process, and
human rights.
(2) Contents.--Each such report shall contain the
following:
(A) A summary of activities described in paragraph (1)
during the previous 180-day period.
(B) An estimated timetable for the conduct of such
activities in the subsequent 180-day period.
(C) An explanation of any delays in meeting timetables
contained in previous reports submitted in accordance with
this subsection.
(D) An assessment of steps to be taken to correct any
delays in meeting such timetables.
(b) Report on Certain Counternarcotics Activities.--
(1) Declaration of policy.--It is the policy of the United
States to encourage the transfer of counternarcotics
activities carried out in the Republic of Colombia by United
States businesses that have entered into agreements with the
Department of State to conduct such activities, to Colombian
nationals, in particular personnel of the Colombian
antinarcotics police, when properly qualified personnel are
available.
(2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and not later than March 1 of each
year thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the
activities of United States businesses that have entered into
agreements with the Department of State to carry out
counternarcotics activities in the Republic of Colombia.
(3) Contents.--Each such report shall contain the
following:
(A) The name of each United States business described in
paragraph (2) and description of the counternarcotics
activities carried out by the business in Colombia.
(B) The total value of all payments by the Department of
State to each such business for such activities.
(C) A written statement justifying the decision by the
Department of State to enter into an agreement with each such
business for such activities.
(D) An assessment of the risks to personal safety and
potential involvement in hostilities incurred by employees of
each such business as a result of their activities in
Colombia.
(E) A plan to provide for the transfer of the
counternarcotics activities carried out by such United States
businesses to Colombian nationals, in particular personnel of
the Colombian antinarcotics police.
(4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``United
States business'' means any corporation, partnership, or
other organization that employs 3 or more individuals and is
organized under the laws of the United States.
Subtitle B--Consular Authorities
SEC. 231. MACHINE READABLE VISAS.
Section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (8 U.S.C. 1351 note) is amended in
the first sentence of paragraph (3)--
(1) by striking ``2001, and 2002,'' and inserting ``2001,
2002, and 2003,''; and
(2) by striking ``and $316,715,000 for fiscal year 2002''
and inserting ``$414,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and
$422,000,000 for fiscal year 2003,''.
SEC. 232. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSULAR BRANCH OFFICE IN LHASA,
TIBET.
The Secretary of State shall make best efforts to establish
a branch office in Lhasa, Tibet, of the United States
Consulate General in Chengdu, People's Republic of China, to
monitor political, economic, and cultural developments in
Tibet.
[[Page H2104]]
SEC. 233. ESTABLISHMENT OF A DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR POST IN
EQUATORIAL GUINEA.
The Secretary of State shall establish a diplomatic or
consular post in Equatorial Guinea.
SEC. 234. PROCESSING OF VISA APPLICATIONS.
It shall be the policy of the Department of State to
process immigrant visa applications of immediate relatives of
United States citizens and nonimmigrant K-1 visa applications
of fiances of United States citizens within 30 days of the
receipt of all necessary documents from the applicant and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the case of an
immigrant visa application where the sponsor of such
applicant is a relative other than an immediate relative, it
should be the policy of the Department of State to process
such an application within 60 days of the receipt of all
necessary documents from the applicant and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.
SEC. 235. UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO JERUSALEM AS
THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.
(a) Congressional Statement of Policy.--The Congress
maintains its commitment to relocating the United States
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and urges the President,
pursuant to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-45; 109 Stat. 398), to immediately begin the process of
relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
(b) Limitation on Use of Funds for Consulate in
Jerusalem.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated
by this Act may be expended for the operation of a United
States consulate or diplomatic facility in Jerusalem unless
such consulate or diplomatic facility is under the
supervision of the United States Ambassador to Israel.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds for Publications.--None of
the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be
available for the publication of any official government
document which lists countries and their capital cities
unless the publication identifies Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel.
(d) Record of Place of Birth as Israel for Passport
Purposes.--For purposes of the registration of birth,
certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a
United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the
Secretary of State shall, upon the request of the citizen or
the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as
Israel.
SEC. 236. DENIAL OF VISAS TO SUPPORTERS OF COLOMBIAN ILLEGAL
ARMED GROUPS.
(a) Denial of Visas to Persons Supporting Colombian
Insurgent and Paramilitary Groups.--Subject to subsection
(b), the Secretary of State shall not issue a visa to any
alien who the Secretary determines, based on credible
evidence--
(1) has willfully provided direct or indirect support to
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the
National Liberation Army (ELN), or the United Self-Defense
Forces of Colombia (AUC); or
(2) has willfully conspired to allow, facilitate, or
promote the illegal activities of any group listed in
paragraph (1).
(b) Waiver.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
Secretary of State determines and certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees, on a case-by-case
basis, that issuance of a visa to the alien is necessary to
support the peace process in Colombia, for urgent
humanitarian reasons, for significant public benefit, or to
further the national security interests of the United States.
Subtitle C--Migration and Refugees
SEC. 251. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING THE INVOLUNTARY
RETURN OF REFUGEES.
(a) In General.--None of the funds made available by this
Act or by section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee
Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)) shall be available
to effect the involuntary return by the United States of any
person to a country in which the person has a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion, except on grounds recognized as precluding
protection as a refugee under the United Nations Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951, and the
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of January 31,
1967, subject to the reservations contained in the United
States Senate Resolution of Ratification.
(b) Migration and Refugee Assistance.--None of the funds
made available by this Act or by section 2(c) of the
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C.
2601(c)) shall be available to effect the involuntary return
of any person to any country unless the Secretary of State
first notifies the appropriate congressional committees,
except that in the case of an emergency involving a threat to
human life the Secretary of State shall notify the
appropriate congressional committees as soon as practicable.
(c) Involuntary Return Defined.--As used in this section,
the term ``to effect the involuntary return'' means to
require, by means of physical force or circumstances
amounting to a threat thereof, a person to return to a
country against the person's will, regardless of whether the
person is physically present in the United States and
regardless of whether the United States acts directly or
through an agent.
SEC. 252. REPORT ON OVERSEAS REFUGEE PROCESSING.
(a) Report on Overseas Refuge Processing.--Not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall provide to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on overseas processing of refugees for
admission to the United States.
(b) Contents.--The report shall include the following
detailed information:
(1) United States procedures for the identification of
refugees who are particularly vulnerable or whose individual
circumstances otherwise suggest an urgent need for
resettlement, including the extent to which the Department
now insists on referral by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees as a prerequisite to consideration
of such refugees for resettlement in the United States,
together with a plan for the expanded use of alternatives to
such referral, including the use of field-based
nongovernmental organizations to identify refugees in urgent
need of resettlement.
(2) The extent to which the Department makes use in
overseas refugee processing of the designation of groups of
refugees who are of special concern to the United States,
together with the reasons for any decline in such use over
the last 10 years and a plan for making more generous use of
such categories in the future.
(3) The extent to which the United States currently
provides opportunities for resettlement in the United States
of individuals who are close family members of citizens or
lawful residents of the United States, together with the
reasons for any decline in the extent of such provision over
the last 10 years and a plan for expansion of such
opportunities in the future.
(4) The extent to which opportunities for resettlement in
the United States are currently provided to ``urban
refugees'' and others who do not currently reside in refugee
camps, together with a plan for increasing such
opportunities, particularly for refugees who are in urgent
need of resettlement, who are members of refugee groups of
special interest to the United States, or who are close
family members of United States citizens or lawful residents.
(5) The Department's assessment of the feasibility and
desirability of modifying the Department's current list of
refugee priorities to create an additional category for
refugees whose need for resettlement is based on a long
period of residence in a refugee camp with no immediate
prospect of safe and voluntary repatriation to their country
of origin or last permanent residence.
(6) The extent to which the Department uses private
voluntary agencies to assist in the identification of
refugees for admission to the United States, including the
Department's assessment of the advantages and disadvantages
of private voluntary agencies, the reasons for any decline in
the Department's use of voluntary agencies over the last 10
years, and a plan for the expanded use of such agencies.
(7) The extent to which the per capita reception and
placement grant to voluntary agencies assisting in
resettlement of refugees has kept up over the last 10 years
with the cost to such agencies of providing such services.
(8) An estimate of the cost of each change in current
practice or procedure discussed in the report, together with
an estimate of any increase in the annual refugee admissions
ceiling that would be necessary to implement each change.
TITLE III--ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Subtitle A--Organizational Matters
SEC. 301. COMPREHENSIVE WORKFORCE PLAN.
(a) Workforce Plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
comprehensive workforce plan for the Department of State for
the fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The plan shall
consider personnel needs in both the civil service and the
Foreign Service and expected domestic and overseas
personnel allocations. The workforce plan should set forth
the detailed mission of the Department, the definition of
work to be done and cyclical personnel needs based on
expected retirements and the time required to hire, train,
and deploy new personnel.
(b) Domestic Staffing Model.--Not later than one year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State
shall compile and submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a domestic staffing model for the Department of
State.
SEC. 302. ``RIGHTSIZING'' OVERSEAS POSTS.
(a) ``Rightsizing'' at the Department of State.--
(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a task force
within the Department of State on the issue of
``rightsizing'' overseas posts.
(2) Preliminary report.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report which outlines the status, plans, and activities of
the task force. In addition to such other information as the
Secretary considers appropriate, the report shall include the
following:
(A) The objectives of the task force.
(B) Measures for achieving the objectives under
subparagraph (A).
(C) The official of the Department with primary
responsibility for the issue of ``rightsizing''.
(D) The plans of the Department for the reallocation of
staff and resources based on changing needs at overseas posts
and in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.
(3) Periodic reports.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months
thereafter during the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the
Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report reviewing the activities
and progress of the task force established under paragraph
(1).
(b) Interagency Working Group.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall establish
an interagency working group on the issue of ``rightsizing''
the overseas presence of the United States Government.
(2) Preliminary report.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report which
[[Page H2105]]
outlines the status, plans, and activities of the interagency
working group. In addition to such other information as the
Secretary considers appropriate, the report shall include the
following:
(A) The objectives of the working group.
(B) Measures for achieving the objectives under
subparagraph (A).
(C) The official of each agency with primary responsibility
for the issue of ``rightsizing''.
(3) Periodic reports.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months
thereafter during the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the
Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report reviewing the activities
and progress of the working group established under paragraph
(1).
SEC. 303. QUALIFICATIONS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (f) and (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection (f):
``(f) Qualifications of Certain Officers of the Department
of State.--
``(1) Officer having primary responsibility for personnel
management.--The officer of the Department of State with
primary responsibility for assisting the Secretary of State
with respect to matters relating to personnel in the
Department of State, or that officer's principal deputy,
shall have substantial professional qualifications in the
field of human resource policy and management.
``(2) Officer having primary responsibility for diplomatic
security.--The officer of the Department of State with
primary responsibility for assisting the Secretary of State
with respect to diplomatic security, or that officer's
principal deputy, shall have substantial professional
qualifications in the fields of (A) management, and (B)
Federal law enforcement, intelligence, or security.
``(3) Officer having primary responsibility for
international narcotics and law enforcement.--The officer of
the Department of State with primary responsibility for
assisting the Secretary of State with respect to
international narcotics and law enforcement, or that
officer's principal deputy, shall have substantial
professional qualifications in the fields of management and
Federal law enforcement.''.
SEC. 304. UNITED STATES SPECIAL COORDINATOR FOR TIBETAN
ISSUES.
(a) United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.--
There shall be within the Department of State a United States
Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary of State shall consult
with the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives prior to the designation of the special
coordinator.
(c) Central Objective.--The central objective of the
special coordinator is to promote substantive dialogue
between the Government of the People's Republic of China and
the Dalai Lama or his representatives.
(d) Duties and Responsibilities.--The special coordinator
shall--
(1) coordinate United States Government policies, programs,
and projects concerning Tibet;
(2) vigorously promote the policy of seeking to protect the
distinct religious, cultural, linguistic, and national
identity of Tibet, and pressing for improved respect for
human rights;
(3) maintain close contact with religious, cultural, and
political leaders of the Tibetan people, including regular
travel to Tibetan areas of the People's Republic of China,
and to Tibetan refugee settlements in India and Nepal;
(4) consult with Congress on policies relevant to Tibet and
the future and welfare of the Tibetan people;
(5) make efforts to establish contacts in the foreign
ministries of other countries to pursue a negotiated solution
for Tibet; and
(6) take all appropriate steps to ensure adequate
resources, staff, and bureaucratic support to fulfill the
duties and responsibilities of the special coordinator.
SEC. 305. UNITED STATES SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SUDAN ISSUES.
Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is amended by inserting after
subsection (f) (as added by section 303 of this Act) the
following new subsection (g):
``(g) United States Special Envoy for Sudan Issues.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be within the Department of
State a United States Special Envoy for Sudan Issues who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
``(2) Duties.--In addition to such duties as the President
and Secretary of State shall prescribe, the envoy shall work
for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sudan and an end
to abuses of human rights, including religious freedom, in
Sudan.''.
Subtitle B--Personnel Matters
SEC. 331. REPORT CONCERNING RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN
SERVICE AND CIVIL SERVICE WHO ARE REGISTERED
AGENTS OF A GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
The Secretary of State shall submit, annually, a report to
the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
Senate which lists members of the Foreign Service and the
civil service who have retired, have been issued an
identification which authorizes access to facilities of the
Department of State, and are registered under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 as an agent of a government
of a foreign country. The report shall specify each
individual and the governments represented by that
individual.
SEC. 332. TIBETAN LANGUAGE TRAINING.
The Secretary of State shall ensure that Tibetan language
training is available to Foreign Service officers, and that
every effort is made to ensure that a Tibetan-speaking
Foreign Service officer is assigned to the consulate in China
responsible for tracking developments in Tibet.
SEC. 333. DEPENDENTS ON FAMILY VISITATION TRAVEL.
(a) In General.--Section 901(8) of the Foreign Service Act
of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(8)) is amended by striking
``Service'' and inserting ``Service, and members of his or
her family,''.
(b) Promulgation of Guidance.--The Secretary shall
promulgate guidance for the implementation of the amendment
made by subsection (a) to ensure its implementation in a
manner which does not substantially increase the total amount
of travel expenses paid or reimbursed by the Department for
travel under section 901 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date on which guidance for
implementation of such amendment is issued by the Secretary.
SEC. 334. THOMAS JEFFERSON STAR.
Section 36A of the State Department Basic Authorities Act
of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708a) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``FOREIGN SERVICE''
and inserting ``THOMAS JEFFERSON''; and
(2) by striking ``Foreign Service star'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Thomas Jefferson Star''.
SEC. 335. HEALTH EDUCATION AND DISEASE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
Section 904(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 4084(b)) is amended by striking ``families, and (3)''
and inserting ``families, (3) health education and disease
prevention programs for all employees, and (4)''.
SEC. 336. TRAINING AUTHORITIES.
Section 2205(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (as enacted in division G of Public
Law 105-277) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
SEC. 337. FOREIGN NATIONAL RETIREMENT PLANS.
Section 408(a)(1) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 3968(a)(1)) is amended in the third sentence by
striking ``(C)'' and all that follows through ``covered
employees.'' and inserting ``(C) payments by the Government
and employees to (i) a trust or other fund in a financial
institution in order to finance future benefits for
employees, including provision for retention in the fund of
accumulated interest and dividends for the benefit of covered
employees; or (ii) a Foreign Service National Savings Fund
established in the Treasury of the United States, which (I)
shall be administered by the Secretary of State, at whose
direction the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest amounts
not required for the current needs of the fund; and (II)
shall be public monies, which are authorized to be
appropriated and remain available without fiscal year
limitation to pay benefits, to be invested in public debt
obligations bearing interest at rates determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury taking into consideration current
average market yields on outstanding marketable obligations
of the United States of comparable maturity, and to pay
administrative expenses.''.
SEC. 338. PRESIDENTIAL RANK AWARDS.
(a) Comparable to Payments to Meritorious Executives and
Distinguished Executives.--Section 405(b)(3) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3965(b)(3)) is amended by
striking the second sentence and inserting ``Payments under
this paragraph to a member of the Senior Foreign Service may
not exceed, in any fiscal year, the percentage of base pay
established under section 4507(e)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, for a Meritorious Executive, except that
payments of the percentage of the base pay established under
section 4507(e)(2) of title 5, United States, Code, for
Distinguished Executives may be made in any fiscal year to
up to 1 percent of the members of the Senior Foreign
Service.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 2001.
SEC. 339. EMERGENCY MEDICAL ADVANCE PAYMENTS.
Section 5927(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) to an employee compensated pursuant to section 408 of
the Foreign Service Act of 1980, who--
``(A) pursuant to government authorization is located
outside the country of employment; and
``(B) requires medical treatment outside the country of
employment in circumstances specified by the President in
regulations.''.
SEC. 340. UNACCOMPANIED AIR BAGGAGE.
Section 5924(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``At the option of the employee, in lieu of the
transportation of the baggage of a dependent child from the
dependent's school, the costs incurred to store the baggage
at or in the vicinity of the school during the dependent's
annual trip between the school and the employee's duty
station may be paid or reimbursed to the employee. The amount
of the payment or reimbursement may not exceed the cost that
the government would incur to transport the baggage.''.
SEC. 341. SPECIAL AGENT AUTHORITIES.
Section 37(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act
of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2709(a)) is amended in paragraph (3)(F) by
inserting ``or President-elect'' after ``President''.
SEC. 342. REPORT CONCERNING MINORITY EMPLOYMENT.
During each of the years 2002 and 2003, the Secretary of
State shall submit a comprehensive
[[Page H2106]]
report to the Congress concerning the status of employment of
members of minority groups at the Department of State,
including the Civil Service, the Foreign Service, and State
Department employees serving abroad. The report shall include
the following data (reported in terms of real numbers and
percentages and not as ratios):
(1) For the last preceding Foreign Service examination and
promotion cycles for which such information is available--
(A) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority
groups taking the written Foreign Service examination;
(B) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority
groups successfully completing and passing the written
Foreign Service examination;
(C) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority
groups successfully completing and passing the oral Foreign
Service examination;
(D) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority
groups entering the junior officers class of the Foreign
Service;
(E) the numbers and percentages of members of all minority
groups who are Foreign Service officers at each grade; and
(F) the numbers of and percentages of members of all
minority groups promoted at each grade of the Foreign Service
Officer Corps.
(2) For the last preceding year for Civil Service
employment at the Department of State for which such
information is available--
(A) numbers and percentages of members of all minority
groups entering the Civil Service;
(B) the number and percentages of members of all minority
groups who are civil service employees at each grade of the
Civil Service; and
(C) the number of and percentages of members of all
minority groups promoted at each grade of the Civil Service.
SEC. 343. USE OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED FOR MINORITY RECRUITMENT.
(a) Conduct of Recruitment Activities.--
(1) In general.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for
minority recruitment under section 101(1)(B)(iii) shall be
used only for activities directly related to minority
recruitment, such as recruitment materials designed to target
members of minority groups and the travel expenses of
recruitment trips to colleges, universities, and other
institutions or locations.
(2) Limitation.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for
minority recruitment under section 101(1)(B)(iii) may not be
used to pay salaries of employees of the Department of State.
(b) Recruitment Activities at Academic Institutions.--The
Secretary of State shall expand the recruitment efforts of
the Department of State to include not less than 25 percent
of the part B institutions (as defined under section 322 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965) in the United States and
not less than 25 percent of the Hispanic-serving institutions
(as defined in section 502(a)(5) of such Act) in the United
States.
(c) Evaluation of Recruitment Efforts.--The Secretary of
State shall establish a database relating to efforts to
recruit members of minority groups into the Foreign Service
and the Civil Service and shall report to the appropriate
congressional committees annually on the evaluation of
efforts to recruit such individuals, including an analysis of
the information collected in the database created under this
subsection. For each of the years 2002 and 2003, such a
report may be part of the report required under section 342.
TITLE IV--UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT FOR SCHOLARSHIPS FOR
TIBETANS AND BURMESE.
Section 103(b)(1) of the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other
Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-319;
22 U.S.C. 2151 note) is amended by striking ``for the fiscal
year 2000'' and inserting ``for each of the fiscal years 2002
and 2003''.
SEC. 402. NONPROFIT ENTITIES FOR CULTURAL PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is in the national interest of the United States to
promote mutual understanding between the people of the United
States and other nations.
(2) Among the means to be used in achieving this objective
are a wide range of international educational and cultural
exchange programs, including the J. William Fulbright
Educational Exchange Program and the International Visitors
Program.
(3) Cultural diplomacy, especially the presentation abroad
of the finest of America's creative, visual and performing
arts, is an especially effective means of advancing the
United States national interest.
(4) The financial support available for international
cultural and scholarly exchanges has declined by
approximately 10 per cent in recent years.
(5) Funds appropriated for the purpose of ensuring that the
excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United
States are presented to foreign audiences by, and in
cooperation with, our diplomatic and consular representatives
have declined dramatically.
(6) One of the ways to deepen and expand cultural and
educational exchange programs is through the establishment of
nonprofit entities to encourage the participation and
financial support of corporations and other private sector
contributors.
(7) The United States private sector should be encouraged
to cooperate closely with the Secretary of State and
representatives of the Department to expand and spread
appreciation of United States cultural and artistic
accomplishments.
(b) Authority To Establish Nonprofit Entities.--Section 105
of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2255) is amended by striking subsection (g) and
inserting the following:
``(g) Nonprofit Entities for Cultural Programming.--
``(1) The Secretary of State is authorized to provide for
the establishment of private nonprofit entities to assist in
carrying out the purposes of this subsection. Any such entity
shall not be considered an agency or instrumentality of the
United States Government and employees of such an entity
shall not be considered employees of the United States
Government for any purpose.
``(2) An entity established pursuant to the authority of
paragraph (1) may carry out the following:
``(A) Encourage participation and support by United States
corporations and other elements of the private sector for
cultural, arts, and educational exchange programs which will
enhance international appreciation of America's cultural and
artistic accomplishments.
``(B) Solicit and receive contributions from the private
sector to support cultural, arts, and educational exchange
programs.
``(C) Provide grants and other assistance for such
programs.
``(3) The Secretary of State is authorized to make such
arrangements as are necessary to carry out the purposes of
any entity established pursuant to paragraph (1) including
the following:
``(A) The solicitation and receipt of funds for an entity.
``(B) Designation of a program in recognition of such
contributions.
``(C) Appointment of members of the board of directors or
other body established to administer an entity, including the
appointment of employees of the United States Government as
ex officio nonvoting members of such a board or other
administrative body.
``(D) Making recommendations with respect to specific
artistic and cultural programs to be carried out by the
entity.
``(4) For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, not to exceed
$500,000 of funds available to the Department of State are
authorized to be made available for each fiscal year for
administrative and other costs for the establishment of
entities pursuant to paragraph (1). An entity established
pursuant to paragraph (1) is authorized to invest amounts
made available to the entity by the Department of State, and
such amounts, as well as interest or earnings on such
amounts, may be used by the entity to carry out its purposes.
``(5) Each entity established pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall submit an annual report on the sources and amount of
funds and other resources received and the programs funded by
the entity to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives.
``(6) The financial transactions of each entity established
under paragraph (1) for each fiscal year shall be the subject
of an independent audit. A report of each such audit shall be
made available to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives.''.
SEC. 403. FULBRIGHT-HAYS AUTHORITIES.
Section 112(d) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2460(d) is amended by
striking ``operating under the authority of this Act and
consistent with'' and inserting ``which operate under the
authority of this Act or promote''.
SEC. 404. ETHICAL ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make available funds
for public diplomacy and international exchanges, including,
as appropriate, funds for international visitor programs and
scholarships available under the United States Information
and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 and other similar statutes,
to provide opportunities to researchers in developing
countries to obtain scholarships and otherwise participate in
activities related to ethical issues in human subject
research, as described in subsection (b).
(b) Ethical Issues in Human Subject Research.--For purposes
of subsection (a), ``activities related to ethical issues in
human subject research'' include courses of study,
conferences, and fora on development of and compliance
with international ethical standards for clinical trials
involving human subjects, particularly with respect to
responsibilities of researchers to individuals and local
communities participating in such trials, and on
management and monitoring of such trials based on such
international ethical standards.
TITLE V--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING ACTIVITIES
SEC. 501. ELIMINATING STAFF POSITIONS FOR THE ADVISORY BOARD
FOR CUBA BROADCASTING.
(a) Eliminating Position of Staff Director.--
(1) Section 245 of the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act
(22 U.S.C. 1465c note) is amended by striking subsection (d).
(2) Any funds made available through the elimination of the
position under the amendment made by paragraph (1) shall be
made available for broadcasting to Cuba.
(b) Prohibiting Paid Staff Positions.--The Advisory Board
for Cuba Broadcasting is not authorized to employ
administrative or support staff who are compensated by the
Advisory Board.
[[Page H2107]]
SEC. 502. REPORTS ON BROADCASTING PERSONNEL.
Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act and every 6 months thereafter during the fiscal
years 2002 and 2003, the Broadcasting Board of Governors
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report regarding high-level personnel of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors and efforts to diversify the workforce.
Each report shall include the following information, reported
separately, for the International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia:
(1) A list of all personnel positions at and above the GS-
13 pay level.
(2) The number and percentage of women and members of
minority groups in positions under paragraph (1).
(3) The increase or decrease in the representation of women
and members of minority groups in positions under paragraph
(1) from previous years.
(4) The recruitment budget for each broadcasting entity and
the aggregate budget.
(5) Information concerning the recruitment efforts of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors relating to women and members
of minority groups, including the percentage of the
recruitment budget utilized for such efforts.
SEC. 503. PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTING PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Director of the International
Broadcasting Bureau is authorized to establish a pilot
program for the purpose of hiring United States citizens or
aliens as personal services contractors, without regard to
civil service and classification laws, for service in the
United States as broadcasters, producers, and writers in the
International Broadcasting Bureau to respond to new or
emerging broadcasting needs or to augment broadcast services.
(b) Limitation on Authority.--The Director is authorized to
use such pilot program authority subject to the following
limitations:
(1) The Director shall determine that existing personnel
resources are insufficient and the need is of limited or
unknown duration.
(2) The Director shall approve each contract for a personal
services contractor.
(3) The length of any personal services contract may not
exceed 2 years, unless the Director finds that exceptional
circumstances justify an extension of not more than 1
additional year.
(4) Not more than 50 United States citizens or aliens shall
be employed at any time as personal services contractors
under the pilot program.
(c) Termination of Authority.--The authority to award
personal services contracts under the pilot program
authorized by this section shall terminate on December 31,
2005. A contract entered into prior to the termination date
under this subsection may remain in effect for a period not
to exceed 6 months after such termination date.
SEC. 504. PAY PARITY FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVES OF RADIO FREE
EUROPE AND RADIO LIBERTY.
Section 308(h)(1) of the United States International
Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6207(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Notwithstanding the limitations under subparagraph
(A), grant funds provided under this section may be used by
RFE/RL, Incorporated to pay up to 2 employees employed in
Washington, D.C. salary or other compensation not to exceed
the rate of pay payable for level III of the Executive
Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States
Code.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``(B),'' and inserting
``(B) or (C),''.
SEC. 505. REPEAL OF BAN ON UNITED STATES TRANSMITTER IN
KUWAIT.
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) is amended--
(1) by striking section 226; and
(2) by striking the item relating to section 226 in the
table of sections.
TITLE VI--INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMISSIONS
SEC 601. UNITED NATIONS ARREARS PAYMENTS AND REFORM.
(a) Additional Restrictions on Release of Arrearage
Payments Relating to United States Sovereignty.--In addition
to the satisfaction of all other preconditions applicable to
the obligation and expenditure of funds authorized to be
appropriated by section 911(a)(2) of the United Nations
Reform Act of 1999, such funds may not be obligated or
expended until the Secretary of State certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees that the following
conditions are satisfied:
(1) Supremacy of the united states constitution.--No action
has been taken by the United Nations or any of its
specialized or affiliated agencies that requires the United
States to violate the United States Constitution or any law
of the United States.
(2) No united nations sovereignty.--Neither the United
Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies--
(A) has exercised sovereignty over the United States; or
(B) has taken any steps that require the United States to
cede sovereignty.
(3) No united nations taxation.--
(A) No legal authority.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(D), neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized or
affiliated agencies has the authority under United States law
to impose taxes or fees on United States nationals.
(B) No taxes or fees.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(D), a tax or fee has not been imposed on any United States
national by the United Nations or any of its specialized or
affiliated agencies.
(C) No taxation proposals.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (D), neither the United Nations nor any of its
specialized or affiliated agencies has, on or after October
1, 1996, officially approved any formal effort to develop,
advocate, or promote any proposal concerning the imposition
of a tax or fee on any United States national in order to
raise revenue for the United Nations or any such agency.
(D) Exception.--This paragraph does not apply to--
(i) fees for publications or other kinds of fees that are
not tantamount to a tax on United States citizens;
(ii) the World Intellectual Property Organization; or
(iii) the staff assessment costs of the United Nations and
its specialized or affiliated agencies.
(4) No standing army.--The United Nations has not, on or
after October 1, 1996, budgeted any funds for, nor taken any
official steps to develop, create, or establish any special
agreement under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter to
make available to the United Nations, on its call, the armed
forces of any member of the United Nations.
(5) No interest fees.--The United Nations has not, on or
after October 1, 1996, levied interest penalties against the
United States or any interest on arrearages on the annual
assessment of the United States, and neither the United
Nations nor its specialized agencies have, on or after
October 1, 1996, amended their financial regulations or taken
any other action that would permit interest penalties to be
levied against the United States or otherwise charge the
United States any interest on arrearages on its annual
assessment.
(6) United states real property rights.--Neither the United
Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies has
exercised authority or control over any United States
national park, wildlife preserve, monument, or real property,
nor has the United Nations nor any of its specialized or
affiliated agencies implemented plans, regulations, programs,
or agreements that exercise control or authority over the
private real property of United States citizens located in
the United States without the approval of the property owner.
(7) Termination of borrowing authority.--
(A) Prohibition on authorization of external borrowing.--On
or after the date of enactment of this Act, neither the
United Nations nor any specialized agency of the United
Nations has amended its financial regulations to permit
external borrowing.
(B) Prohibition of united states payment of interest
costs.--The United States has not, on or after October 1,
1984, paid its share of any interest costs made known to or
identified by the United States Government for loans
incurred, on or after October 1, 1984, by the United Nations
or any specialized agency of the United Nations through
external borrowing.
(b) Amendments to the United Nations Reform Act of 1999.--
The United Nations Reform Act of 1999 (title IX of division A
of H.R. 3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of
Public Law 106-113; appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-475) is
amended as follows:
(1) Section 912(c) is amended by striking ``section 911''
and inserting ``section 911(a)(3)''.
(2) Section 931(b) is amended by--
(A) striking paragraph (2); and
(B) redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(3) Section 941(a)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking ``also'';
(B) by striking ``in subsection (b)(4)'' both places it
appears; and
(C) by striking ``satisfied, if the other conditions in
subsection (b) are satisfied'' and inserting ``satisfied''.
(4) Section 941(b)(3) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``New budget
procedures'' and inserting ``Budget practices'';
(B) by striking ``has established and'';
(C) by striking ``procedures'' and inserting ``practices'';
and
(D) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) by striking ``require''
both places it appears and inserting in both places ``result
in''.
(5) Section 941(b)(9) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``New budget
procedures'' and inserting ``Budget practices'';
(B) by striking ``Each designated specialized agency has
established procedures to--'' and inserting ``The practices
of each designated specialized agency--''; and
(C) in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) by striking
``require'' each of the 3 places it appears such
subparagraphs and inserting in the 3 places ``result in''.
(c) Amendment to United Nations Participation Act.--Section
6 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C.
287d) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 6. AGREEMENTS WITH SECURITY COUNCIL.
``(a) Any agreement described in subsection (b) that is
concluded by the President with the Security Council shall
not be effective unless approved by the Congress by
appropriate Act or joint resolution.
``(b) An agreement referred to in subsection (a) is an
agreement providing for the numbers and types of United
States Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general
locations, or the nature of facilities and assistance,
including rights of passage, to be made available to the
Security Council for the purpose of maintaining international
peace and security in accordance with Article 43 of the
Charter of the United Nations.
``(c) Except as provided in section 7, nothing in this
section may be construed as an authorization to the President
by the Congress to make available United States Armed Forces,
facilities, or assistance to the Security Council.''.
[[Page H2108]]
(d) Amendment to Public Law 103-236.--Section 404(b)(2) of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 U.S.C. 287e note) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``for any fiscal year after fiscal year
1995'' and inserting ``for--
``(A) fiscal years 1996 through 2001, and any fiscal year
after fiscal year 2003''; and
(2) by striking ``operation.'' and inserting ``operation;
and
``(B) fiscal years 2002 and 2003 shall not be available for
the payment of the United States assessed contribution for a
United Nations peacekeeping operation in an amount which is
greater than 28.15 percent of the total of all assessed
contributions for that operation.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment to Public Law 92-544.--The last
sentence of the paragraph headed ``Contributions to
International Organizations'' in Public Law 92-544 (22 U.S.C.
287e note), is amended--
(1) by striking ``Appropriations are authorized'' and
inserting ``Subject to section 404(b)(2) of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995
(Public Law 103-236, 22 U.S.C. 287e note), as amended,
appropriations are authorized''; and
(2) by striking ``(other than United Nations peacekeeping
operations) conducted'' and inserting ``conducted by or under
the auspices of the United Nations or''.
(f) Conforming Amendment to Public Law 105-277.--The
undesignated paragraph under the heading ``arrearage
payments'' in title IV of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as enacted into law by section
101(b) of division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; 112 Stat.
2681-96) is amended by striking ``member, and the share of
the budget for each assessed United Nations peacekeeping
operation does not exceed 25 percent for any single United
Nations member.'' and inserting ``member.''.
(g) Conforming Amendment to Public Law 106-113.--The
undesignated paragraph under the heading ``arrearage
payments'' in title IV of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section
1000(a)(1) of division B of Public Law 106-113; appendix A;
113 Stat. 1501A-42) is amended--
(1) in the first proviso, by striking ``the share of the
total of all assessed contributions for any designated
specialized agency of the United Nations does not exceed 22
percent for any single member of the agency, and''; and
(2) by inserting immediately after the first proviso
``Provided further, That, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available under this heading for payment of
arrearages may be obligated or expended with respect to a
designated specialized agency of the United Nations until
such time as the share of the total of all assessed
contributions for that designated specialized agency does not
exceed 22 percent for any member of the agency:''.
(h) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 602. TRAVEL BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO GREAT LAKES
FISHERY COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING.
Section 4(c) of the Great Lakes Fishery Act of 1956 (70
Stat. 242; 16 U.S.C. 933(c)) is amended in the second
sentence--
(1) by striking ``five'' and inserting ``ten''; and
(2) by striking ``each'' and inserting ``the annual''.
SEC. 603. UNITED STATES POLICY ON COMPOSITION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United Nations Human Rights Commission is an
important organ of the United Nations that plays a
significant role in monitoring international human rights
developments and can make an important contribution to
advancing human rights around the world.
(2) The membership of the Commission, however, continues to
include countries that are themselves human rights violators.
(3) Countries that are on the Commission have a special
duty to ensure that they are prepared to allow human rights
monitors into their own country to investigate allegations of
human rights violations.
(b) United States Policy on Membership of the Commission.--
The President, acting through the Secretary of State, the
United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations,
and other appropriate United States Government officials,
shall use the voice and vote of the United States at the
United Nations to oppose membership on the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights for any country that does not
provide a standing invitation to allow the following persons
to monitor human rights in the territory of such country:
(1) Designated United Nations human rights investigators
and rapporteurs.
(2) Representatives from nongovernmental organizations that
focus on human rights.
SEC. 604. UNITED STATES MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION.
(a) Continuation of Membership.--The President is
authorized to continue membership for the United States in
the International Organization for Migration in accordance
with the constitution of such organization approved in
Venice, Italy, on October 19, 1953, as amended in Geneva,
Switzerland, on November 24, 1998, upon entry into force of
such amendments.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
assisting in the movement of refugees and migrants, there are
authorized to be appropriated such amounts as may be
necessary from time to time for payment by the United States
of its contributions to the International Organization for
Migration and all necessary salaries and expenses incidental
to United States participation in such organization.
SEC. 605. REPORT RELATING TO COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE.
Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe'' (Public
Law 94-304; 22 U.S.C. 3005) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 5. In order to assist the Commission in carrying out
its duties, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
Commission an annual report discussing the overall United
States policy objectives that are advanced through meetings
of decision-making bodies of the Organization on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the OSCE implementation review
process, and other activities of the OSCE. The report shall
also include a summary of specific United States policy
objectives with respect to participating states where there
is a particular concern relating to the implementation of
Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe
commitments or where an OSCE presence exists. Such summary
shall address the role played by Organization on Security and
Cooperation in Europe institutions, mechanisms, or field
activities in achieving United States policy objectives. Each
annual report shall cover the period January 1 through
December 31, shall be submitted not more than 90 days after
the end of the reporting period, and shall be posted on the
website of the Department of State.''.
SEC. 606. REPORTS TO CONGRESS ON UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES.
(a) Amendments to United Nations Participation Act.--
Section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C.
287b) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) Annual Report on Financial Contributions.--Not later
than July 1 of each year, the Secretary of State shall submit
a report to the designated congressional committees on the
extent and disposition of all financial contributions made by
the United States during the preceding year to international
organizations in which the United States participates as a
member.'';
(3) in subsection (e)(5) by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) Annual report.--The President shall submit an annual
report to the designated congressional committees on all
assistance provided by the United States during the preceding
calendar year to the United Nations to support peacekeeping
operations. Each such report shall describe the assistance
provided for each such operation, listed by category of
assistance.''; and
(4) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) as
subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 2 of Public Law 81-806 (22 U.S.C. 262a) is
amended by striking the last sentence.
(2) Section 409 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 287e note) is amended
by striking subsection (d).
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 701. AMENDMENTS TO THE IRAN NONPROLIFERATION ACT OF
2000.
(a) Reports on Proliferation to Iran.--Section 2 of the
Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-178; 114
Stat. 39; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by inserting after
subsection (d) the following new subsection:
``(e) Content of Reports.--Each report under subsection (a)
shall contain, with respect to each foreign person identified
in such report, a brief description of the type and quantity
of the goods, services, or technology transferred by that
person to Iran, the circumstances surrounding the transfer,
the usefulness of the transfer to Iranian weapons programs,
and the probable awareness or lack thereof of the transfer on
the part of the government with primary jurisdiction over the
person.''.
(b) Determination Exempting Foreign Persons From Certain
Measures Under the Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of such Act is
amended by striking ``systems'' and inserting ``systems, or
conventional weapons''.
SEC. 702. AMENDMENTS TO THE NORTH KOREA THREAT REDUCTION ACT
OF 1999.
Section 822(a) of the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of
1999 (subtitle B of title VIII of division A of H.R. 3427, as
enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113;
appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-472) is amended by striking
``such agreement,'' both places it appears and inserting in
both places ``such agreement (or that are controlled under
the Export Trigger List of the Nuclear Suppliers Group),''.
SEC. 703. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
ACT OF 1998.
(a) Repeal of Termination of Commission.--The International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.) is
amended by striking section 209.
(b) Authorizations of Appropriations.--Section 207(a) of
such Act (22 U.S.C. 6435(a)) is amended by inserting ``for
each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003'' after
``$3,000,000''.
(c) Election of Chair of Commission.--Section 201(d) of
such Act (22 U.S.C. 6431(d)) is amended by striking ``in each
calendar'' and inserting ``after May 30 of each''.
(d) Procurement of Nongovernmental Services.--Section
208(c)(1) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 6435a(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``authority other than that allowed under this
title'' and inserting ``authority, in excess of $75,000
annually, except as otherwise provided in this title''.
(e) Donation of Services.--Section 208(d)(1) of such Act
(22 U.S.C. 6435a(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``services
or'' both places it appears.
[[Page H2109]]
(f) Establishment of Staggered Terms of Members of
Commission.--Section 201(c) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 6431(c))
is amended by adding after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Establishment of staggered terms.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), members of the Commission appointed to serve
on the Commission during the period May 15, 2003, through May
14, 2005, shall be appointed to terms in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph. Of the 3 members of the
Commission appointed by the President under subsection
(b)(1)(B)(i), 2 shall be appointed to a one-year term and 1
shall be appointed to a two-year term. Of the 3 members of
the Commission appointed by the President pro tempore of the
Senate under subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii), 1 of the appointments
made upon the recommendation of the leader in the Senate of
the political party that is not the political party of the
President shall be appointed to a one-year term, and the
other 2 appointments under such clause shall be two-year
terms. Of the 3 members of the Commission appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives under subsection
(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1 of the appointments made upon the
recommendation of the leader in the House of the political
party that is not the political party of the President shall
be to a one-year term, and the other 2 appointments under
such clause shall be two-year terms. The term of each member
of the Commission appointed to a one-year term shall be
considered to have begun on May 15, 2003, and shall end on
May 14, 2004, regardless of the date of the appointment to
the Commission. Each vacancy which occurs upon the expiration
of the term of a member appointed to a one-year term shall be
filled by the appointment of a successor to a two-year
term.''.
(g) Vacancies.--Section 201(g) of such Act (22 U.S.C.
6431(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A
member may serve after the expiration of that member's term
until a successor has taken office. Any member appointed to
fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term
for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be
appointed only for the remainder of that term.''.
SEC. 704. CONTINUATION OF UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION
ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY.
(a) Authority To Continue Commission.--Section 1334 of the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (as
enacted in division G of the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999: Public Law
105-277) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2005''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 404(c) of the Admiral James W. Nance
and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001 (section 404(c) of division A of H.R.
3427, as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law
106-113; appendix G; 113 Stat. 1501A-446) is amended by
striking paragraph (2).
SEC. 705. PARTICIPATION OF SOUTH ASIA COUNTRIES IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCMENT.
The Secretary of State shall ensure, where practicable,
that appropriate government officials from countries in the
South Asia region shall be eligible to attend courses at the
International Law Enforcement Academy located in Bangkok,
Thailand, and Budapest, Hungary, consistent with other
provisions of law, with the goal of enhancing regional
cooperation in the fight against transnational crime.
Subtitle B--Sense of Congress Provisions
SEC. 731. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO HIV/AIDS AND UNITED
NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the President should
direct the Secretary of State and the United States
Representative to the United Nations to urge the United
Nations to adopt an HIV/AIDS mitigation strategy as a
component of United Nations peacekeeping operations.
SEC. 732. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO HIV/AIDS TASK FORCE.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State
should establish an international HIV/AIDS intervention,
mitigation, and coordination task force to coordinate
activities on international HIV/AIDS programs administered by
agencies of the Federal Government and to work with
international public and private entities working to combat
the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
SEC. 733. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING THE DESTRUCTION OF
PRE-ISLAMIC STATUES IN AFGHANISTAN BY THE
TALIBAN REGIME.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Many of the oldest and most significant Buddhist
statues in the world are in Afghanistan, which, at the time
that many of the statues were carved, was one of the most
cosmopolitan regions in the world and hosted merchants,
travelers, and artists from China, India, central Asia, and
the Roman Empire.
(2) Such statues are part of the common heritage of
mankind, which must be preserved for future generations.
(3) On February 26, 2001, the leader of the Taliban regime,
Mullah Mohammad Omar, ordered the destruction of all pre-
Islamic statues in Afghanistan, among them a pair of 1,600-
year-old, 100-foot-tall statues of Buddha that are carved out
of a mountainside.
(4) The religion of Islam and Buddhist statues have
coexisted in Afghanistan as part of the unique historical and
cultural heritage of that nation for more than 1,100 years.
(5) The destruction of the pre-Islamic statues contradicts
the basic tenet of the Islamic religion that other religions
should be tolerated.
(6) People of all faiths and nationalities have condemned
the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan, including
Muslim communities around the world.
(7) The destruction of the statues violates the United
Nations Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was ratified by
Afghanistan on March 20, 1979.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
(1) joins with people and governments around the world in
condemning the destruction of pre-Islamic statues in
Afghanistan by the Taliban regime;
(2) urges the Taliban regime to stop destroying such
statues; and
(3) calls upon the Taliban regime to grant international
organizations immediate access to Afghanistan to survey the
damage and facilitate international efforts to preserve and
safeguard the remaining statues.
SEC. 734. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO RESOLUTION OF THE
TAIWAN STRAIT ISSUE.
It is the sense of the Congress that Taiwan is a mature
democracy that fully respects human rights and it is the
policy of the United States that any resolution of the Taiwan
Strait issue must be peaceful and include the assent of the
people of Taiwan.
SEC. 735. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO ARSENIC CONTAMINATION
IN DRINKING WATER IN BANGLADESH.
(a) Findings.--In the early 1970s, the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the Bangladeshi Department of
Public Health Engineering, in an attempt to bring clean
drinking water to the people of Bangladesh, installed tube
wells to access shallow aquifers. This was done to provide an
alternative to contaminated surface water sources. However,
at the time the wells were installed, arsenic was not
recognized as a problem in water supplies and standard water
testing procedures did not include arsenic tests. Naturally
occurring inorganic arsenic contamination of water in those
tube-wells was confirmed in 1993 in the Nawabganj district in
Bangladesh. The health effects of ingesting arsenic-
contaminated drinking water appear slowly. This makes
preventative measures, including drawing arsenic out of the
existing tube well and finding alternate sources of water,
critical to preventing future contamination in large numbers
of the Bangladeshi population. Health effects of exposure to
arsenic in both adults and children include skin lesions,
skin cancer, and mortality from internal cancers.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Secretary of State should work
with appropriate United States Government agencies, national
laboratories, universities in the United States, the
Government of Bangladesh, international financial
institutions and organizations, and international donors to
identify a long term solution to the arsenic-contaminated
drinking water problem.
(c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of State should
report to the Congress on proposals to bring about arsenic-
free drinking water to Bangladeshis and to facilitate
treatment for those who have already been affected by
arsenic-contaminated drinking water in Bangladesh.
SEC. 736. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO DISPLAY OF THE
AMERICAN FLAG AT THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN
TAIWAN.
It is the sense of the Congress that the chancery of the
American Institute in Taiwan and the residence of the
director of the American Institute in Taiwan should publicly
display the flag of the United States in the same manner as
United States embassies, consulates, and official residences
throughout the world.
SEC. 737. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
IN WEST PAPUA AND ACEH, INCLUDING THE MURDER OF
JAFAR SIDDIQ HAMZAH, AND ESCALATING VIOLENCE IN
MALUKU AND CENTRAL KALIMANTAN.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Human rights violations by elements of the Indonesian
Government continue to worsen in West Papua (Irian Jaya) and
Aceh, while other areas including the Moluccas (Maluku) and
Central Kalimantan have experienced outbreaks of violence by
militia forces and other organized groups.
(2) Seven West Papuans were shot dead by Indonesian
security forces following a flag-raising ceremony in the town
of Merauke on December 2, 2000, and in a separate incident
four others were reportedly killed by Indonesian security
forces after a West Papuan flag was raised in Tiom on
December 18, 2000.
(3) Indonesian police have attacked peaceful West Papuan
civilians, including students in their dormitories at
Cenderawasih University on December 6, 2000. This attack
resulted in the beating and arrests of some 100 students as
well as the deaths of three students, including one in police
custody in the capital city of Jayapura.
(4) To escape Indonesian security forces, hundreds of
peaceful West Papuans have sought safety in refugee camps
across the border in the neighboring state of Papua New
Guinea (PNG).
(5) The Indonesian armed forces have announced that they
are initiating ``limited military operations'' in Aceh, where
the Exxon-Mobil gas company has suspended operations due to
security concerns.
(6) On September 7, 2000, the body of Acehnese human rights
lawyer Jafar Siddiq Hamzah, who had been missing for a month,
was identified along with four other badly decomposed bodies,
whose faces were bashed in and whose hands and feet were
bound with barbed wire, in a forested area outside of Medan,
in North Sumatra.
(7) Hamzah, a permanent resident of the United States who
resided in Queens, New York, was last seen alive on August 5,
2000, in Medan, after which he failed to keep an appointment
and his family lost all contact with him.
(8) As the founder and director of the International Forum
on Aceh, which works for peace
[[Page H2110]]
and human rights in Aceh, Hamzah was an important voice of
moderation and an internationally known representative of his
people who made irreplaceable contributions to peace and
respect for human rights in his homeland.
(9) The Indonesian government has failed to release the
results of Jafar Siddiq Hamzah's autopsy report, and the
inaccessibility of the report has delayed the investigation
which could lead to bringing the murderers to justice.
(10) There is supporting documentation from the United
States Department of State and other reliable sources that
Indonesian military and police forces have committed
widespread acts of torture, rape, disappearance and extra-
judicial executions against West Papuan and Acehnese
civilians.
(11) In Maluku, where Muslim and Christian peoples lived in
peace and respected with each other for decades, thousands
have been killed and tens of thousands displaced during
outbreaks of violence over the past three years.
(12) Militia forces known as the Laskar Jihad have arrived
from Java and other islands outside Maluku to inflame hatred
and perpetrate violence against Christians, and to create
religious intolerance among the people of Maluku, and the
Laskar Jihad has been openly encouraged by some Indonesian
leaders including Amien Rais, Chair of the People's
Consultative Assembly.
(13) Muslim and Christian leaders alike have called for the
arrest of militia leaders in Maluku and asking for
international assistance in ending this devastating conflict.
(14) The most recent instance of widespread violence in
Indonesia has broken out on the island of Kalimantan
(Borneo), in the province of Central Kalimantan, where
indigenous Dayaks brutally attacked migrant Madurese, killing
hundreds and causing thousands of others to flee.
(15) The people of the island of Madura who were resettled
in Kalimantan under the auspices of the Soeharto government's
transmigration program, which served to strengthen the
political control of the regime, have become scapegoats for
official government policy, while the Dayaks have suffered
from this policy and from official exploitation of the
natural resources of their homeland.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
(1) expresses its deep concern over ongoing human rights
violations committed by Indonesian military and police forces
against civilians in West Papua and Aceh, as well as over
violence by militias and others in Maluku, Central
Kalimantan, and elsewhere in Indonesia;
(2) calls upon the United States Department of State to
publicly protest the reemergence of political imprisonment in
Indonesia and to take necessary steps to release, immediately
and unconditionally, all political prisoners, including Rev.
Obed Komba, Rev. Yudas Meage, Yafet Yelemaken, Murjono Murib
and Amelia Yigibalom of West Papua, and Muhammad Nazar of
Aceh, all adopted by Amnesty International as Prisoners of
Conscience, and student demonstrators Matius Rumbrapuk, Laon
Wenda, Jenderal Achmad Yani, Joseph Wenda and Hans Gobay of
West Papua;
(3) calls upon the Department of State to support and
encourage the Government of Indonesia to engage in peaceful
dialogue with respected West Papuan community leaders and
other members of West Papuan civil society, as prescribed by
the 1999 Terms of Reference for the National Dialogue on
Irian Jaya, and to urge the Governor of West Papua to create
an environment conducive to the peaceful repatriation of West
Papuan refugees and ``illegal border crossers'' who now
reside in Papua New Guinea;
(4) calls upon the United States Government to press the
Government of Indonesia to permit access to West Papua and
Aceh, including the project areas of the United States-owned
Freeport mine and Exxon-Mobil facilities, by independent
human rights and environmental monitors, including the United
Nations special rapporteurs on torture and extra-judicial
execution, as well as by humanitarian nongovernmental
organizations;
(5) calls upon the United States Government to press for
the withdrawal of nonorganic troops from West Papua and Aceh,
and an overall reduction of force numbers in those areas,
particularly along the PNG border;
(6) calls upon the Government of Indonesia to release the
autopsy report of Jafar Siddiq Hamzah immediately, to conduct
a thorough, open, and transparent investigation of the murder
of Hamzah and the four others with whom he was found, to
offer full access and support to independent investigators
and forensics experts brought in to examine these cases, and
to ensure that the perpetrators of these atrocities are
brought to justice through open and fair trials;
(7) condemns the recent atrocities in Central Kalimantan
the failure of Indonesian police and other security forces to
intervene to stop these atrocities, as well as the underlying
social and economic conditions caused by systematic
transmigration programs, imported labor, and inequitable and
destructive exploitation of local natural resources that have
worsened the poverty and discrimination which were
contributing factors in their commission;
(8) condemns comparable Indonesian Government policies in
Maluku and the failure of Indonesian police and other
security forces in and around Ambon to halt sectarian
violence, including the operations of the Laskar Jihad
militia;
(9) calls upon the Government of Indonesia to take decisive
action to halt sectarian violence in Maluku and to arrest
those guilty of violence, including Laskar Jihad militia
leaders and armed forces officers guilty of complicity in
their operations against civilians, and to make significant
progress towards rehabilitation and reestablishment of local
communities displaced by the violence and rebuild the
physical infrastructure of the communities;
(10) calls upon the Department of State to support United
Nations and other international delegations and monitoring
efforts by international and nongovernmental agencies in West
Papua, Aceh, Maluku, Central Kalimantan, West Timor, and
other areas of Indonesia in order to deter further human
rights violations, and to encourage and support
international and nongovernmental agencies in efforts to
help the people of Indonesia rebuild and rehabilitate
communities torn by violence, particularly by assisting in
the return of internally displaced peoples and in efforts
at reconciliation within and among communities;
(11) calls upon the Department of State to ensure that all
appropriate information regarding current conditions in the
West Papua, Aceh, Maluku, Kalimantan, and elsewhere in
Indonesia is included in the Annual Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices and the Annual Report on International
Religious Freedom;
(12) calls upon the Government of Indonesia to devote
official attention, in an atmosphere of openness and
transparency and oversight, to investigations into the
numerous cases of disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and
other serious human rights violations in West Papua, Aceh,
Maluku, Central Kalimantan, elsewhere in Indonesia, and
occupied East Timor; and
(13) calls upon the United States Government to continue to
insist upon vigorous investigation into all such violations,
and upon trials according to international standards for
military and police officers, militia leaders, and others
accused of such violations.
SEC. 738. SENSE OF CONGRESS SUPPORTING PROPERLY CONDUCTED
ELECTIONS IN KOSOVA DURING 2001.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic
perpetrated a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the
ethnic Albanian population of Kosova, resulting in thousands
of deaths and rapes and the displacement of nearly 1 million
people.
(2) Prior to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia,
Kosova was a separate political and legal entity with a
separate and distinct financial sector, police force,
government, education system, judiciary, and health care
system.
(3) During that time, the people of Kosova successfully
administered the province.
(4) During the Milosevic era, Kosovar citizens demonstrated
again their ability to govern themselves by creating parallel
governmental and social institutions.
(5) Local elections held in Kosova in 2000 were considered
free and fair by international observers.
(6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244
authorizes the United Nations Mission in Kosova to provide
for transitional administration while establishing and
overseeing the development of democratic and self-governing
institutions, including the holding of elections, to ensure
conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants
of Kosova.
(7) The United Nations Mission in Kosova and the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe should
ensure that the conditions for properly conducted elections
in Kosova are in place prior to the election.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the United Nations Mission in Kosova should hold
properly conducted elections throughout Kosova during the
year 2001;
(2) the only way to maintain a true and lasting peace in
the region is through the creation of democratic Kosovar
institutions with real governing authority and
responsibility, and Kosova-wide jurisdiction;
(3) all persons, regardless of ethnicity, are encouraged to
participate in elections throughout Kosova; and
(4) the United States should work with the United Nations
Mission in Kosova and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe to ensure that the transition to
Kosovar self-government under the terms and conditions of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 proceeds
peacefully, successfully, expeditiously, and in a spirit of
ethnic inclusiveness.
SEC. 739. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO POLICY REVIEW OF
RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President of the United States and his advisors
should be commended for their success and the diplomatic
skill with which they negotiated the safe return of the 24
American crew members of the United States Navy
reconnaissance aircraft that made an emergency landing on the
Chinese island of Hainan on April 1, 2001; and
(2) the United States Government should conduct a policy
review of the nature of its relations with the Government of
the People's Republic of China in light of recent events.
SEC. 740. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO BROADCASTING IN THE
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE BY RADIO FREE EUROPE.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Broadcasting Board
of Governors should initiate surrogate broadcasting by Radio
Free Europe in the Macedonian language to Macedonian-speaking
areas of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
SEC. 741. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO MAGEN DAVID ADOM
SOCIETY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) It is the mission of the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement to prevent and alleviate human
suffering wherever it may be found, without discrimination.
(2) The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
is a worldwide institution in which all national Red Cross
and Red Crescent societies have equal status.
[[Page H2111]]
(3) The Magen David Adom Society is the national
humanitarian society in the state of Israel.
(4) The Magen David Adom Society follows all the principles
of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
(5) Since the founding of the Magen David Adom Society in
1930, the American Red Cross has regarded it as a sister
national society and close working ties have been established
between the two societies.
(6) The Magen David Adom Society has used the Red Shield of
David as its humanitarian emblem since its founding in 1930
for the same purposes that other national Red Cross and Red
Crescent societies use their respective emblems.
(7) Since 1949 Magen David Adom has been refused admission
into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
and has been relegated to observer status without a vote
because it has used the Red Shield of David.
(8) Magen David Adom is the only humanitarian organization
equivalent to a national Red Cross or Red Crescent society in
a sovereign nation that is denied membership into the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
(9) The American Red Cross has consistently advocated
recognition and membership of the Magen David Adom Society in
the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
(10) The House of Representatives adopted H. Res. 464 on
May 3, 2000, and the Senate adopted S. Res. 343 on October
18, 2000, expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives and the sense of the Senate, respectively,
that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
should recognize and admit to full membership Israel's Magen
David Adom Society with its emblem, the Red Shield of David.
(11) The Secretary of State testified before the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate on March 14, 2001, and stated
that admission of Magen David Adom into the International Red
Cross movement is a priority.
(12) The United States provided $119,230,000 for the
International Committee of the Red Cross in fiscal year 2000.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the International Committee of the Red Cross should
immediately recognize the Magen David Adom Society;
(2) the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
should grant full membership to the Magen David Adom Society
immediately following recognition by the International
Committee of the Red Cross of the Magen David Adom Society as
a full member of the International Committee of the Red
Cross;
(3) the Red Shield of David should be accorded the same
protections under international law as the Red Cross and the
Red Crescent; and
(4) the United States should continue to press for full
membership for the Magen David Adom in the International Red
Cross Movement.
SEC. 742. SENSE OF CONGRESS URGING THE RETURN OF PORTRAITS
PAINTED BY DINA BABBITT DURING HER INTERNMENT
AT AUSCHWITZ THAT ARE NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF
THE AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU STATE MUSEUM.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Dina Babbitt (formerly known as Dinah Gottliebova), a
United States citizen now in her late 70's, has requested the
return of watercolor portraits she painted while suffering a
year-and-a-half-long internment at the Auschwitz death camp
during World War II.
(2) Dina Babbitt was ordered to paint the portraits by the
infamous war criminal Dr. Josef Mengele.
(3) Dina Babbitt's life, and her mother's life, were spared
only because she painted portraits of doomed inmates of
Auschwitz-Birkenau, under orders from Dr. Josef Mengele.
(4) These paintings are currently in the possession of the
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.
(5) Dina Babbitt is unquestionably the rightful owner of
the artwork, since the paintings were produced by her own
talented hands as she endured the unspeakable conditions that
existed at the Auschwitz death camp.
(6) The artwork is not available for the public to view at
the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and therefore this unique
and important body of work is essentially lost to history.
(7) This continued injustice can be righted through
cooperation between agencies of the United States and Poland.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
(1) recognizes the moral right of Dina Babbitt to obtain
the artwork she created, and recognizes her courage in the
face of the evils perpetrated by the Nazi command of the
Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, including the atrocities
committed by Dr. Josef Mengele;
(2) urges the President to make all efforts necessary to
retrieve the seven watercolor portraits Dina Babbitt painted,
while suffering a year-and-a-half-long internment at the
Auschwitz death camp, and return them to her;
(3) urges the Secretary of State to make immediate
diplomatic efforts to facilitate the transfer of the seven
original watercolors painted by Dina Babbitt from the
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum to Dina Babbitt, their
rightful owner;
(4) urges the Government of Poland to immediately
facilitate the return to Dina Babbitt of the artwork painted
by her that is now in the possession of the Auschwitz-
Birkenau State Museum; and
(5) urges the officials of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State
Museum to transfer the seven original paintings to Dina
Babbitt as expeditiously as possible.
SEC. 743. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING VIETNAMESE REFUGEE
FAMILIES.
It is the sense of the Congress that Vietnamese refugees
who served substantial sentences in re-education camps due to
their wartime associations with the United States and who,
subsequently, were resettled in the United States should
be permitted to include their unmarried sons and daughters
as family members for purposes of such resettlement.
SEC. 744. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE
UNITED STATES IN UNESCO.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was created in 1946 with the
support of the United States as an integral part of the
United Nations systems, designed to promote international
cooperation and exchanges in the fields of education,
science, culture, and communication with the larger purpose
of constructing the defense of peace against intolerance and
incitement to war.
(2) In 1984, the United States withdrew from membership in
UNESCO over serious questions of internal management and
political polarization.
(3) Since the United States withdrew from the organization,
UNESCO addressed such criticisms by electing new leadership,
tightening financial controls, cutting budget and staff,
restoring recognition of intellectual property rights, and
supporting the principle of a free and independent
international press.
(4) In 1993, the General Accounting Office, after
conducting an extensive review of UNESCO's progress in
implementing changes, concluded that the organization's
member states, the Director General of UNESCO, managers and
employee associations demonstrated a commitment to management
reform through their actions.
(5) On September 28, 2000, former Secretary of State George
P. Schultz, who implemented the withdrawal of the United
States from UNESCO with a letter to the organization's
Director General in 1984, indicated his support for the
United States renewal of membership in UNESCO.
(6) The participation of the United States in UNESCO
programs offers a means for furthering the foreign policy
interests of the United States through the promotion of
cultural understanding and the spread of knowledge critical
to strengthening civil society.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the President should take all necessary steps to renew
the membership and participation of the United States in the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO).
SEC. 745. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO GLOBAL WARMING.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Global climate change poses a significant threat to
national security, the American economy, public health and
welfare, and the global environment.
(2) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
has found that most of the observed warming over the last
fifty years is attributable to human activities, including
fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide emissions.
(3) The IPCC has stated that global average surface
temperatures have risen since 1861.
(4) The IPCC has stated that in the last forty years, the
global average sea level has risen, ocean heat content has
increased, and snow cover and ice extent have decreased which
threatens to inundate low-lying Pacific island nations and
coastal regions throughout the world.
(5) The Environmental Protection Agency predicts that
global warming will harm United States citizens by altering
crop yields, causing sea levels to rise, and increasing the
spread of tropical infectious diseases.
(6) Industrial nations are the largest producers today of
fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide emissions.
(7) The United States has ratified the United Nations
Framework on Climate Change which states, in part, ``the
Parties to the Convention are to implement policies with the
aim of returning...to their 1990 levels anthropogenic
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases''.
(8) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change further states that ``developed country Parties should
take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse
effects thereof''.
(9) Action by the United States to reduce emissions, taken
in concert with other industrialized nations, will promote
action by developing countries to reduce their own emissions.
(10) A growing number of major American businesses are
expressing a need to know how governments worldwide will
respond to the threat of global warming.
(11) More efficient technologies and renewable energy
sources will mitigate global warming and will make the United
States economy more productive and create hundreds of
thousands of jobs.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the United States should demonstrate international
leadership and responsibility in mitigating the health,
environmental, and economic threats posed by global warming
by--
(1) taking responsible action to ensure significant and
meaningful reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases from all sectors; and
(2) continuing to participate in international negotiations
with the objective of completing the rules and guidelines for
the Kyoto Protocol in a manner that is consistent with the
interests of the United States and that ensures the
environmental integrity of the protocol.
[[Page H2112]]
SEC. 746. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE BAN ON SINN FEIN
MINISTERS FROM THE NORTH-SOUTH MINISTERIAL
COUNCIL IN NORTHERN IRELAND.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Good Friday Agreement established the North-South
Ministerial Council to bring together those with executive
responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland to discuss matters of mutual interest on a cross-
border and all-island basis.
(2) The Ulster Unionist Party, Social Democratic and Labour
Party, Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party comprise
the Northern Ireland executive.
(3) First Minister David Trimble continues to ban Sinn Fein
Ministers Martin McGuiness and Bairbre de Brun from attending
North-South Ministerial Council meetings.
(4) On January 30, 2001, the Belfast High Court ruled First
Minister Trimble had acted illegally in preventing the Sinn
Fein Ministers from attending the North-South Ministerial
Council meetings.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress calls upon First
Minister David Trimble to adhere to the terms of the Good
Friday Agreement and lift the ban on the participation of
Sinn Fein Ministers on the North-South Ministerial Council.
TITLE VIII--SECURITY ASSISTANCE
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Security Assistance Act of
2001''.
Subtitle A--Military and Related Assistance
CHAPTER 1--FOREIGN MILITARY SALES AND RELATED AUTHORITIES
SEC. 811. QUARTERLY REPORT ON PRICE AND AVAILABILITY
ESTIMATES.
Chapter 2 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 28. QUARTERLY REPORT ON PRICE AND AVAILABILITY
ESTIMATES.
``(a) Quarterly Report.--Not later than 15 days after the
end of each calendar quarter, the President shall transmit to
the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate a report that contains the information described in
subsection (b).
``(b) Information.--The information described in this
subsection is the following:
``(1)(A) Each price and availability estimate provided by
the United States Government during such calendar quarter to
a foreign country with respect to a possible sale under this
Act of major defense articles having a cost of $7,000,000 or
more, or of any other defense articles or services having a
cost of $25,000,000 or more.
``(B) The name of each foreign country to which an estimate
described in subparagraph (A) was provided, the defense
articles or services involved, the quantity of the articles
or services involved, and the price estimate.
``(2)(A) Each request received by the United States
Government from a foreign country during such calendar
quarter for the issuance of a letter of offer to sell defense
articles or defense services if the proposed sale does not
include a price and availability estimate (as described in
paragraph (1)(A)).
``(B) The name of each foreign country that makes a request
described in subparagraph (A), the date of the request, the
defense articles or services involved, the quantity of the
articles or services involved, and the price and availability
terms requested.''.
SEC. 812. OFFICIAL RECEPTION AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES.
Section 43(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2792(c)) is amended by striking ``$72,500'' and inserting
``$86,500''.
SEC. 813. TREATMENT OF TAIWAN RELATING TO TRANSFERS OF
DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
the transfer or potential transfer of defense articles or
defense services under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2751 et seq.), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151 et seq.), or any other provision of law, Taiwan shall be
treated as the equivalent of a major non-NATO ally.
SEC. 814. UNITED STATES POLICY WITH REGARD TO TAIWAN.
(a) Consultation With Congress.--Not later than 30 days
prior to consultations with Taiwan described in subsection
(b), the President shall consult, on a classified basis, with
Congress regarding the following matters with respect to the
availability of defense articles and services for Taiwan:
(1) The request by Taiwan to the United States for the
purchase of defense articles and defense services.
(2) The President's assessment of the legitimate defense
needs of Taiwan taking into account Taiwan's request
described in paragraph (1).
(3) The decisionmaking process used by the President to
consider such request.
(b) Consultation With Taiwan.--At least once every calendar
year, the President, or the President's designee, shall
consult with representatives of the armed forces of Taiwan,
at not less than the level of Vice Chief of the General
Staff, concerning the nature and quantity of defense articles
and services to be made available to Taiwan in accordance
with section 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C.
3302(b)). Such consultations shall take place in Washington,
D.C.
CHAPTER 2--EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLE AND DRAWDOWN AUTHORITIES
SEC. 821. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR CERTAIN EUROPEAN AND
OTHER COUNTRIES.
(a) Central and Southern European Countries.--Section 105
of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat. 1427) is amended by striking
``2000 and 2001'' and inserting ``2001, 2002, and 2003''.
(b) Certain Other Countries.--Notwithstanding section
516(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2321j(e)), during each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
funds available to the Department of Defense may be
expended for crating, packing, handling, and
transportation of excess defense articles transferred
under the authority of section 516 of such Act to Albania,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, the Former Yugoslavia Republic
of Macedonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania,
Mongolia, the Philippines, Slovakia, and Uzbekistan.
(c) Content of Congressional Notification.--Each
notification required to be submitted under section 516(f) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(f)) with
respect to a proposed transfer of a defense article described
in subsection (b) shall include an estimate of the amount of
funds to be expended under such subsection with respect to
that transfer.
SEC. 822. LEASES OF DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 61(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2796(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) Each lease agreement'' and inserting
``(b)(1) Each lease agreement''; and
(2) by striking ``of not to exceed five years'' and
inserting ``which may not exceed (A) five years, and (B) a
specified period of time required to complete major
refurbishment work of the leased articles to be performed
prior to the delivery of the leased articles,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) In this subsection, the term `major refurbishment
work' means work for which the period of performance is six
months or more.''.
SEC. 823. PRIORITY WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER OF EXCESS DEFENSE
ARTICLES.
Section 516(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321j(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``and to major
non-NATO allies on such southern and southeastern flank'' and
inserting ``, to major non-NATO allies on such southern and
southeastern flank, and to the Philippines''.
CHAPTER 3--NONPROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL ASSISTANCE
SEC. 831. INTERNATIONAL COUNTERPROLIFERATION EDUCATION AND
TRAINING.
Chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2349bb et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 584 and 585 as sections 585
and 586, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 583 the following:
``SEC. 584. INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-PROLIFERATION EDUCATION AND
TRAINING.
``(a) General Authority.--The President is authorized to
furnish, on such terms and conditions consistent with this
chapter (but whenever feasible on a reimbursable basis),
education and training to foreign governmental and military
personnel for the purpose of enhancing the nonproliferation
and export control capabilities of such personnel through
their attendance in special courses of instruction in the
United States.
``(b) Administration of Courses.--The Secretary of State
shall have overall responsibility for the development and
conduct of international nonproliferation education and
training programs, but may rely upon any of the following
agencies to recommend personnel for the education and
training, and to administer specific courses of instruction:
``(1) The Department of Defense (including national weapons
laboratories under contract with the Department).
``(2) The Department of Energy (including national weapons
laboratories under contract with the Department).
``(3) The Department of Commerce.
``(4) The intelligence community (as defined in section
3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a(4))).
``(5) The United States Customs Service.
``(6) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
``(c) Purposes.--Education and training activities
conducted under this section shall be--
``(1) of a technical nature, emphasizing techniques for
detecting, deterring, monitoring, interdicting, and
countering proliferation;
``(2) designed to encourage effective and mutually
beneficial relations and increased understanding between the
United States and friendly countries; and
``(3) designed to improve the ability of friendly countries
to utilize their resources, including defense articles and
defense services obtained by them from the United States,
with maximum effectiveness, thereby contributing to greater
self-reliance by such countries.''.
SEC. 832. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE PROLIFERATION OF MISSILES AND
ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL,
AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--The President shall transmit to the
designated congressional committees an annual report on the
transfer by any country of weapons, technology, components,
or materials that can be used to deliver, manufacture
(including research and experimentation), or weaponize
nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (hereinafter in this
section referred to as ``NBC weapons'') to any country other
than a country referred to in subsection (c) that is seeking
to possess or otherwise acquire such weapons, technology, or
materials, or other system that the Secretary of State or
Secretary of Defense has reason to believe could be used to
develop, acquire, or deliver NBC weapons.
(2) Deadline for initial report.--The first such report
shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act and on April 1 of each year
thereafter.
[[Page H2113]]
(b) Matters To Be Included.--Each such report shall
include, but not be limited to--
(1) the transfer of all aircraft, cruise missiles,
artillery weapons, unguided rockets and multiple rocket
systems, and related bombs, shells, warheads and other
weaponization technology and materials that the Secretary of
State or the Secretary of Defense has reason to believe may
be intended for the delivery of NBC weapons;
(2) international transfers of MTCR equipment or technology
to any country that is seeking to acquire such equipment or
any other system that the Secretary of State or the Secretary
of Defense has reason to believe may be used to deliver NBC
weapons; and
(3) the transfer of technology, test equipment, radioactive
materials, feedstocks and cultures, and all other specialized
materials that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of
Defense has reason to believe could be used to manufacture
NBC weapons.
(c) Content of Report.--Each such report shall include the
following with respect to preceding calendar year:
(1) The status of missile, aircraft, and other NBC weapons
delivery and weaponization programs in any such country,
including efforts by such country or by any subnational group
to acquire MTCR-controlled equipment, NBC-capable aircraft,
or any other weapon or major weapon component which may be
utilized in the delivery of NBC weapons, whose primary use is
the delivery of NBC weapons, or that the Secretary of State
or the Secretary of Defense has reason to believe could be
used to deliver NBC weapons.
(2) The status of NBC weapons development, acquisition,
manufacture, stockpiling, and deployment programs in any such
country, including efforts by such country or by any
subnational group to acquire essential test equipment,
manufacturing equipment and technology, weaponization
equipment and technology, and radioactive material,
feedstocks or components of feedstocks, and biological
cultures and toxins.
(3) A description of assistance provided by any person or
government, after the date of the enactment of this Act, to
any such country or subnational group in the acquisition or
development of--
(A) NBC weapons;
(B) missile systems, as defined in the MTCR or that the
Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense has reason to
believe may be used to deliver NBC weapons; and
(C) aircraft and other delivery systems and weapons that
the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense has reason
to believe could be used to deliver NBC weapons.
(4) A listing of those persons and countries which continue
to provide such equipment or technology described in
paragraph (3) to any country or subnational group as of the
date of submission of the report, including the extent to
which foreign persons and countries were found to have
knowingly and materially assisted such programs.
(5) A description of the use of, or substantial
preparations to use, the equipment of technology described in
paragraph (3) by any foreign country or subnational group.
(6) A description of the diplomatic measures that the
United States, and that other adherents to the MTCR and other
arrangements affecting the acquisition and delivery of NBC
weapons, have made with respect to activities and private
persons and governments suspected of violating the MTCR and
such other arrangements.
(7) An analysis of the effectiveness of the regulatory and
enforcement regimes of the United States and other countries
that adhere to the MTCR and other arrangements affecting the
acquisition and delivery of NBC weapons in controlling the
export of MTCR and other NBC weapons and delivery system
equipment or technology.
(8) A summary of advisory opinions issued under section
11B(b)(4) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50
U.S.C. App. 2401b(b)(4)) and under section 73(d) of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(d)).
(9) An explanation of United States policy regarding the
transfer of MTCR equipment or technology to foreign missile
programs, including programs involving launches of space
vehicles.
(10) A description of each transfer by any person or
government during the preceding 12-month period which is
subject to sanctions under the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-
Proliferation Act of 1992 (title XVI of Public Law 102-484).
(d) Exclusions.--The countries excluded under subsection
(a) are Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
(e) Classification of Report.--The Secretary of State shall
make every effort to submit all of the information required
by this section in unclassified form. Whenever the Secretary
submits any such information in classified form, the
Secretary shall submit such classified information in an
addendum and shall also submit concurrently a detailed
summary, in unclassified form, of that classified
information.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Designated congressional committees.--The term
``designated congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committees on Appropriations, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate.
(2) Missile; mtcr; mtcr equipment or technology.--The terms
``missile'', ``MTCR'', and ``MTCR equipment or technology''
have the meanings given those terms in section 74 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c).
(3) Person.--The term ``person'' means any United States or
foreign individual, partnership, corporation, or other form
of association, or any of its successor entities, parents, or
subsidiaries.
(4) Weaponize; weaponization.--The term ``weaponize'' or
``weaponization'' means to incorporate into, or the
incorporation into, usable ordnance or other militarily
useful means of delivery.
(g) Repeals.--
(1) In general.--The following provisions of law are
repealed:
(A) Section 1097 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2751 note).
(B) Section 308 of the Chemical and Biological Weapons
Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 5606).
(C) Section 1607(a) of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-484).
(D) Paragraph (d) of section 585 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1997 (as contained in section 101(c) of title I of division A
of Public Law 104-208).
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 585 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (b), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(B) in paragraph (c), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
period.
SEC. 833. FIVE-YEAR INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL AND
NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a five-year
international arms control and nonproliferation strategy. The
strategy shall contain the following:
(1) A five-year plan for the reduction of existing nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles and
for controlling the proliferation of these weapons.
(2) Identification of the goals and objectives of the
United States with respect to arms control and
nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
delivery systems.
(3) A description of the programs, projects, and activities
of the Department of State intended to accomplish goals and
objectives described in paragraph (2).
Subtitle B--Strengthening the Munitions Licensing Process
SEC. 841. LICENSE OFFICER STAFFING.
(a) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
under the appropriations account entitled ``Diplomatic and
Consular Programs'' for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, not less
than $10,000,000 shall be made available each such fiscal
year for the Office of Defense Trade Controls of the
Department of State for salaries and expenses.
(b) Assignment of License Review Officers.--Effective
January 1, 2002, the Secretary of State shall assign to the
Office of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State a
sufficient number of license review officers to ensure that
the average weekly caseload for each officer does not exceed
40.
(c) Detailees.--Given the priority placed on expedited
license reviews in recent years by the Department of Defense,
the Secretary of Defense should ensure that 10 military
officers are continuously detailed to the Office of Defense
Trade Controls of the Department of State on a
nonreimbursable basis.
SEC. 842. FUNDING FOR DATABASE AUTOMATION.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under the
appropriations account entitled ``Capital Investment Fund''
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, not less than $4,000,000
shall be made available each such fiscal year for the
Office of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of
State for the modernization of information management
systems.
SEC. 843. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES.
(a) Objective.--The Secretary of State shall establish a
secure, Internet-based system for the filing and review of
applications for export of Munitions List items.
(b) Establishment of a Mainframe.--Of the amounts made
available pursuant to section 842, not less than $3,000,000
each such fiscal year shall be made available to fully
automate the Defense Trade Application System, and to ensure
that the system--
(1) is an electronic system for the filing and review of
Munitions List license applications;
(2) is secure, with modules available through the Internet;
and
(3) is capable of exchanging data with--
(A) the Foreign Disclosure and Technology Information
System and the USXPORTS systems of the Department of Defense;
(B) the Export Control System of the Central Intelligence
Agency; and
(C) the Proliferation Information Network System of the
Department of Energy.
(c) Munitions List Defined.--In this section, the term
``Munitions List'' means the United States Munitions List of
defense articles and defense services controlled under
section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
SEC. 844. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AUTOMATED EXPORT SYSTEM.
(a) Mandatory Filing.--The Secretary of Commerce, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
the Treasury, shall publish regulations in the Federal
Register to require, upon the effective date of those
regulations, the mandatory filing through the Automated
Export System for the remainder of exports that were not
covered by regulations issued pursuant to section 1252(b) of
the Security Assistance Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1501A-506), as
enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113.
[[Page H2114]]
(b) Requirement for Information Sharing.--The Secretary of
State shall conclude an information sharing arrangement with
the heads of United States Customs Service and the Census
Bureau to adjust the Automated Export System to parallel
information currently collected by the Department of State.
(c) Secretary of Treasury Functions.--Section 303 of title
13, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, other than
by mail,''.
(d) Filing Export Information, Delayed Filings, Penalties
for Failure To File.--Section 304 of title 13, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``the penal sum of
$1,000'' and inserting ``a penal sum of $10,000''; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking ``a penalty not to
exceed $100 for each day's delinquency beyond the prescribed
period, but not more than $1,000, shall be exacted'' and
inserting ``the Secretary of Commerce (and officers and
employees of the Department of Commerce designated by the
Secretary) may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000
for each day's delinquency beyond the prescribed period, but
not more than $10,000 per violation'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Any person, other that a person described in
subsection (a), required to submit export information, shall
file such information in accordance with any rule,
regulation, or order issued pursuant to this chapter. In the
event any such information or reports are not filed within
such prescribed period, the Secretary of Commerce (and
officers and employees of the Department of Commerce
designated by the Secretary) may impose a civil penalty not
to exceed $1,000 for each day's delinquency beyond the
prescribed period, but not more than $10,000 per
violation.''.
(e) Additional Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Section 305 of title 13, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 305. Penalties for unlawful export information
activities
``(a) Criminal Penalties.--(1) Any person who knowingly
fails to file or knowingly submits false or misleading export
information through the Shippers Export Declaration (SED) (or
any successor document) or the Automated Export System (AES)
shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 per
violation or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
``(2) Any person who knowingly reports any information on
or uses the SED or the AES to further any illegal activity
shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 per
violation or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
``(3) Any person who is convicted under this subsection
shall, in addition to any other penalty, forfeit to the
United States--
``(A) any of that person's interest in, security of, claim
against, or property or contractual rights of any kind in the
goods or tangible items that were the subject of the
violation;
``(B) any of that person's interest in, security of, claim
against, or property or contractual rights of any kind in
tangible property that was used in the export or attempt to
export that was the subject of the violation; and
``(C) any of that person's property constituting, or
derived from, any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as
a result of the violation.
``(b) Civil Penalties.--The Secretary (and officers and
employees of the Department of Commerce specifically
designated by the Secretary) may impose a civil penalty not
to exceed $10,000 per violation on any person violating the
provisions of this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order
issued thereunder, except as provided in section 304. Such
penalty may be in addition to any other penalty imposed by
law.
``(c) Civil Penalty Procedure.--(1) When a civil penalty is
sought for a violation of this section or of section 304,
the charged party is entitled to receive a formal
complaint specifying the charges and, at his or her
request, to contest the charges in a hearing before an
administrative law judge. Any such hearing shall be
conducted in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of title
5, United States Code.
``(2) If any person fails to pay a civil penalty imposed
under this chapter, the Secretary may ask the Attorney
General to commence a civil action in an appropriate district
court of the United States to recover the amount imposed
(plus interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of
the final order). No such action may be commenced more than 5
years after the order imposing the civil penalty becomes
final. In such action, the validity, amount, and
appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to
review.
``(3) The Secretary may remit or mitigate any penalties
imposed under paragraph (1) if, in his or her opinion--
``(A) the penalties were incurred without willful
negligence or fraud; or
``(B) other circumstances exist that justify a remission or
mitigation.
``(4) If, pursuant to section 306, the Secretary delegates
functions under this section to another agency, the
provisions of law of that agency relating to penalty
assessment, remission or mitigation of such penalties,
collection of such penalties, and limitations of actions and
compromise of claims, shall apply.
``(5) Any amount paid in satisfaction of a civil penalty
imposed under this section or section 304 shall be deposited
into the general fund of the Treasury and credited as
miscellaneous receipts.
``(d) Enforcement.--(1) The Secretary of Commerce may
designate officers or employees of the Office of Export
Enforcement to conduct investigations pursuant to this
chapter. In conducting such investigations, those officers or
employees may, to the extent necessary or appropriate to the
enforcement of this chapter, exercise such authorities as are
conferred upon them by other laws of the United States,
subject to policies and procedures approved by the Attorney
General.
``(2) The Commissioner of Customs may designate officers or
employees of the Customs Service to enforce the provisions of
this chapter, or to conduct investigations pursuant to this
chapter.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
promulgate regulations for the implementation and enforcement
of this section.
``(f) Exemption.--The criminal fines provided for in this
section are exempt from the provisions of section 3571 of
title 18, United States Code.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 9 of title 13, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 305 and
inserting the following:
``305. Penalties for unlawful export information activities.''.
SEC. 845. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM
THE MUNITIONS LIST.
Section 38(f)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2778(f)(1)) is amended by striking the third sentence and
inserting the following: ``The President may not remove any
item from the Munitions List until 30 days after the date on
which the President has provided notice of the proposed
removal to the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate in accordance with the procedures
applicable to reprogramming notifications under section
634A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Such notice
shall describe the nature of any controls to be imposed on
that item under any other provision of law.''.
SEC. 846. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION THRESHOLDS FOR ALLIED
COUNTRIES.
The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (3)(A) of section 3(d), by adding
after ``at $50,000,000 or more'' each place it appears the
following: ``(or, in the case of a transfer to a country
which is a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) or Australia, Japan, or New Zealand, any
major defense equipment valued (in terms of its original
acquisition cost) at $25,000,000 or more, or of defense
articles or defense services valued (in terms of its original
acquisition cost) at $100,000,000 or more)'';
(2) in section 36(b)(1), by adding after ``for $14,000,000
or more'' the following: ``(or, in the case of a letter of
offer to sell to a country which is a member country of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia,
Japan, or New Zealand, any major defense equipment under this
Act for $25,000,000 or more, any defense articles or services
for $100,000,000 or more, or any design and construction
services for $300,000,000 or more)'';
(3) in section 36(b)(5)(C), by adding after ``or
$200,000,000 or more in the case of design or construction
services'' the following: ``(or, in the case of a letter of
offer to sell to a country which is a member country of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia,
Japan, or New Zealand, any major defense equipment for
$25,000,000 or more, any defense articles or services for
$100,000,000 or more, or any design and construction services
for $300,000,000 or more)'';
(4) in section 36(c)(1), by adding after ``$50,000,000 or
more'' the following: ``(or, in the case of an application by
a person (other than with regard to a sale under section 21
or section 22 of this Act) for a license for the export to a
country which is a member country of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia, Japan, or New
Zealand, of any major defense equipment sold under a contract
in the amount of $25,000,000 or more or of defense articles
or defense services sold under a contract in the amount of
$100,000,000 or more)''; and
(5) in section 63(a), by adding after ``$50,000,000 or
more'' the following: ``(or, in the case of such an agreement
with a country which is a member country of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or Australia, Japan, or
New Zealand, (i) major defense equipment valued (in terms of
its replacement cost less any depreciation in its value) at
$25,000,000 or more, or (ii) defense articles valued (in
terms of their replacement cost less any depreciation in
their value) at $100,000,000 or more)''.
Subtitle C--Authority to Transfer Naval Vessels
SEC. 851. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
(a) Authority To Transfer.--
(1) Brazil.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
Government of Brazil the ``Newport'' class tank landing ship
Peoria (LST 1183). Such transfer shall be on a sale basis
under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2761).
(2) Poland.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
Government of Poland the ``Oliver Hazard Perry'' class guided
missile frigate Wadsworth (FFG 9). Such transfer shall be on
a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(3) Taiwan.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
Taipai Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the
United States (which is the Taiwan instrumentality designated
pursuant to section 10(a) of the Taiwan Relations Act) the
``Kidd'' class guided missile destroyers Kidd (DDG 993),
Callaghan (DDG 994), Scott (DDG 995), and Chandler (DDG 996).
Such transfers shall be on a sales basis under section 21 of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761).
[[Page H2115]]
(4) Turkey.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
``Oliver Hazard Perry'' class guided missile frigates Estocin
(FFG 15) and Samuel Eliot Morrison (FFG 13). Each such
transfer shall be on a sale basis under section 21 of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761). The President is
further authorized to transfer to the Government of Turkey
the ``Knox'' class frigates Capadanno (FF 1093), Thomas C.
Hart (FF 1092), Donald B. Beary (FF 1085), McCandless (FF
1084), Reasoner (FF 1063), and Bowen (FF 1079). The transfer
of these 6 ``Knox'' class frigates shall be on a grant basis
under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321j).
(b) Grants Not Counted in Annual Total of Transferred
Excess Defense Articles.--The value of a vessel transferred
to another country on a grant basis under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) pursuant to
authority provided by subsection (a) shall not be counted for
the purposes of subsection (g) of that section in the
aggregate value of excess defense articles transferred to
countries under that section in any fiscal year.
(c) Costs of Transfers.--Notwithstanding section 516(e)(1)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2321j(e)(1)), any expense incurred by the United States in
connection with a transfer authorized to be made on a grant
basis under subsection (a) shall be charged to the recipient.
(d) Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards.--
To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall
require, as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under
this section, that the country to which the vessel is
transferred have such repair or refurbishment of the vessel
as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of
that country, performed at a United States Navy shipyard or
other shipyard located in the United States.
(e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided under
subsection (a) shall expire at the end of the 2-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 861. ANNUAL FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING REPORTS.
Section 656(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2416) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not later than January 31 of each year,''
and inserting ``Upon written request by the chairman or
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations of
the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate,''; and
(2) by inserting ``of a country specified in the request''
after ``personnel''.
SEC. 862. REPORT RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL ARMS SALES CODE OF
CONDUCT.
Section 1262(c) of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg
Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001 (as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law
106-113; 113 Stat 1501A-508) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``commencement of the negotiations under
subsection (a),'' and inserting ``date of the enactment of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002
and 2003,''; and
(B) by striking ``during these negotiations.'' and
inserting ``to begin negotiations and any progress made to
conclude an agreement during negotiations.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment is in order except those
printed in House Report 107-62. Except as specified in section 2 of
House Resolution 138, each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration any amendment printed in the report out of the order
printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the majority leader or his
designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
{time} 1200
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeLay
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. DeLay:
Page 90, after line 8, add the following:
Subtitle B--American Servicemembers' Protection Act
SEC. 631. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``American
Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2001''.
SEC. 632. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On July 17, 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic
Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an
International Criminal Court, meeting in Rome, Italy, adopted
the ``Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.'' The
vote on whether to proceed with the Statute was 120 in favor
to 7 against, with 21 countries abstaining. The United States
voted against final adoption of the Rome Statute.
(2) As of April 30, 2001, 139 countries had signed the Rome
Statute and 30 had ratified it. Pursuant to Article 126 of
the Rome Statute, the Statute will enter into force on the
first day of the month after the 60th day following the date
on which the 60th country deposits an instrument ratifying
the Statute.
(3) Since adoption of the Rome Statute, a Preparatory
Commission for the International Criminal Court has met
regularly to draft documents to implement the Rome Statute,
including Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Elements of
Crimes, and a definition of the Crime of Aggression.
(4) During testimony before the Congress following the
adoption of the Rome Statute, the lead United States
negotiator, Ambassador David Scheffer stated that the United
States could not sign the Rome Statute because certain
critical negotiating objectives of the United States had not
been achieved. As a result, he stated: ``We are left with
consequences that do not serve the cause of international
justice.''
(5) Ambassador Scheffer went on to tell the Congress that:
``Multinational peacekeeping forces operating in a country
that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the Court's
jurisdiction even if the country of the individual
peacekeeper has not joined the treaty. Thus, the treaty
purports to establish an arrangement whereby United States
armed forces operating overseas could be conceivably
prosecuted by the international court even if the United
States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is
this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty
law, it could inhibit the ability of the United States to use
its military to meet alliance obligations and participate in
multinational operations, including humanitarian
interventions to save civilian lives. Other contributors to
peacekeeping operations will be similarly exposed.''.
(6) Notwithstanding these concerns, President Clinton
directed that the United States sign the Rome Statute on
December 31, 2000. In a statement issued that day, he stated
that in view of the unremedied deficiencies of the Rome
Statute, ``I will not, and do not recommend that my successor
submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until
our fundamental concerns are satisfied''.
(7) Any American prosecuted by the International Criminal
Court will, under the Rome Statute, be denied procedural
protections to which all Americans are entitled under the
Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, such as the
right to trial by jury.
(8) Members of the Armed Forces of the United States
deserve the full protection of the United States Constitution
wherever they are stationed or deployed around the world to
protect the vital national interests of the United States.
The United States Government has an obligation to protect the
members of its Armed Forces, to the maximum extent possible,
against criminal prosecutions carried out by United Nations
officials under procedures that deny them their
constitutional rights.
(9) In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of
the United States to the risk of international criminal
prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the
President and other senior elected and appointed officials of
the United States Government may be prosecuted by the
International Criminal Court. Particularly if the Preparatory
Commission agrees on a definition of the Crime of Aggression
over United States objections, senior United States officials
may be at risk of criminal prosecution for national security
decisions involving such matters as responding to acts of
terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, and deterring aggression. No less than members
of the Armed Forces of the United States, senior officials of
the United States Government deserve the full protection of
the United States Constitution with respect to official
actions taken by them to protect the national interests of
the United States.
SEC. 633. WAIVER AND TERMINATION OF PROHIBITIONS OF THIS ACT.
(a) Authority To Initially Waive Sections 635 and 637.--The
President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and
requirements of sections 635 and 637 for a single period of
one year. Such a waiver may be issued only if the President
at least 15 days in advance of exercising such authority--
(1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of
the intention to exercise such authority; and
(2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional
committees that the International Criminal Court has entered
into a binding agreement that--
(A) prohibits the International Criminal Court from seeking
to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons with
respect to actions undertaken by them in an official
capacity:
(i) covered United States persons;
(ii) covered allied persons; and
(iii) individuals who were covered United States persons or
covered allied persons; and
(B) ensures that no person described in subparagraph (A)
will be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or
on behalf of the International Criminal Court.
[[Page H2116]]
(b) Authority To Extend Waiver of Sections 635 and 637.--
The President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and
requirements of sections 635 and 637 for successive periods
of one year each upon the expiration of a previous waiver
pursuant to subsection (a) or this subsection. Such a waiver
may be issued only if the President at least fifteen days in
advance of exercising such authority--
(1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of
the intention to exercise such authority; and
(2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional
committees that the International Criminal Court--
(A) remains party to, and has continued to abide by, a
binding agreement that--
(i) prohibits the International Criminal Court from seeking
to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons with
respect to actions undertaken by them in an official
capacity:
(I) covered United States persons;
(II) covered allied persons; and
(III) individuals who were covered United States persons or
covered allied persons; and
(ii) ensures that no person described in clause (i) will be
arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf
of the International Criminal Court; and
(B) has taken no steps to arrest, detain, prosecute, or
imprison any person described in clause (i) of subparagraph
(A).
(c) Authority To Waive Sections 634 and 636 With Respect to
an Investigation or Prosecution of a Named Individual.--The
President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and
requirements of sections 634 and 636 to the degree they would
prevent United States cooperation with an investigation or
prosecution of a named individual by the International
Criminal Court. Such a waiver may be issued only if the
President at least 15 days in advance of exercising such
authority--
(1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of
the intention to exercise such authority; and
(2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional
committees that--
(A) a waiver pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of the
prohibitions and requirements of sections 635 and 637 is in
effect;
(B) there is reason to believe that the named individual
committed the crime or crimes that are the subject of the
International Criminal Court's investigation or prosecution;
(C) it is in the national interest of the United States for
the International Criminal Court's investigation or
prosecution of the named individual to proceed; and
(D) in investigating events related to actions by the named
individual, none of the following persons will be
investigated, arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned
by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court with
respect to actions undertaken by them in an official
capacity:
(i) Covered United States persons.
(ii) Covered allied persons.
(iii) Individuals who were covered United States persons or
covered allied persons.
(d) Termination of Waiver Pursuant to Subsection (c).--Any
waiver or waivers exercised pursuant to subsection (c) of the
prohibitions and requirements of sections 634 and 636 shall
terminate at any time that a waiver pursuant to subsection
(a) or (b) of the prohibitions and requirements of sections
635 and 637 expires and is not extended pursuant to
subsection (b).
(e) Termination of Prohibitions of This Act.--The
prohibitions and requirements of sections 634, 635, 636, and
637 shall cease to apply, and the authority of section 638
shall terminate, if the United States becomes a party to the
International Criminal Court pursuant to a treaty made under
article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the
United States.
SEC. 634. PROHIBITION ON COOPERATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) Construction.--The provisions of this section--
(1) apply only to cooperation with the International
Criminal Court and shall not be construed to apply to
cooperation with an ad hoc international criminal tribunal
established by the United Nations Security Council before or
after the date of the enactment of this Act to investigate
and prosecute war crimes committed in a specific country or
during a specific conflict; and
(2) shall not be construed to prohibit--
(A) any action permitted under section 638;
(B) any other action taken by members of the Armed Forces
of the United States outside the territory of the United
States while engaged in military operations involving the
threat or use of force when necessary to protect such
personnel from harm or to ensure the success of such
operations; or
(C) communication by the United States to the International
Criminal Court of its policy with respect to a particular
matter.
(b) Prohibition on Responding to Requests for
Cooperation.--No agency or entity of the United States
Government or of any State or local government, including any
court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in
response to a request for cooperation submitted by the
International Criminal Court pursuant to Part 9 of the Rome
Statute.
(c) Prohibition on Specific Forms of Cooperation and
Assistance.--No agency or entity of the United States
Government or of any State or local government, including any
court, may provide financial support or other cooperation,
support, or assistance to the International Criminal Court,
including by undertaking any action described in the
following articles of the Rome Statute with the purpose or
intent of cooperating with, or otherwise providing support or
assistance to, the International Criminal Court:
(1) Article 89 (relating to arrest, extradition, and
transit of suspects).
(2) Article 92 (relating to provisional arrest of
suspects).
(3) Article 93 (relating to seizure of property, asset
forfeiture, execution of searches and seizures, service of
warrants and other judicial process, taking of evidence, and
similar matters).
(d) Restriction on Assistance Pursuant to Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaties.--The United States shall exercise its
rights to limit the use of assistance provided under all
treaties and executive agreements for mutual legal assistance
in criminal matters, multilateral conventions with legal
assistance provisions, and extradition treaties, to which the
United States is a party, and in connection with the
execution or issuance of any letter rogatory, to prevent the
transfer to, or other use by, the International Criminal
Court of any assistance provided by the United States under
such treaties and letters rogatory.
(e) Prohibition on Investigative Activities of Agents.--No
agent of the International Criminal Court may conduct, in the
United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States, any investigative activity relating to a
preliminary inquiry, investigation, prosecution, or other
proceeding at the International Criminal Court.
SEC. 635. RESTRICTION ON UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN
CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
(a) Policy.--Effective beginning on the date on which the
Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the
Rome Statute, the President should use the voice and vote of
the United States in the United Nations Security Council to
ensure that each resolution of the Security Council
authorizing any peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of
the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement
operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United
Nations permanently exempts, at a minimum, members of the
Armed Forces of the United States participating in such
operation from criminal prosecution by the International
Criminal Court for actions undertaken by such personnel in
connection with the operation.
(b) Restriction.--Members of the Armed Forces of the United
States may not participate in any peacekeeping operation
under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or
peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter
of the United Nations, the creation of which is authorized by
the United Nations Security Council on or after the date that
the Rome Statute enters into effect pursuant to Article 126
of the Rome Statute, unless the President has submitted to
the appropriate congressional committees a certification
described in subsection (c) with respect to such operation.
(c) Certification.--The certification referred to in
subsection (b) is a certification by the President that
members of the Armed Forces of the United States are able to
participate in the peacekeeping or peace enforcement
operation without risk of criminal prosecution by the
International Criminal Court because--
(1) in authorizing the operation, the United Nations
Security Council permanently exempted, at a minimum, members
of the Armed Forces of the United States participating in the
operation from criminal prosecution by the International
Criminal Court for actions undertaken by them in connection
with the operation;
(2) each country in which members of the Armed Forces of
the United States participating in the operation will be
present is either not a party to the International Criminal
Court and has not invoked the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 12 of the
Rome Statute, or has entered into an agreement in accordance
with Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the
International Criminal Court from proceeding against members
of the Armed Forces of the United States present in that
country; or
(3) the United States has taken other appropriate steps to
guarantee that members of the Armed Forces of the United
States participating in the operation will not be prosecuted
by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken by
such personnel in connection with the operation.
SEC. 636. PROHIBITION ON DIRECT OR INDIRECT TRANSFER OF
CERTAIN CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY
INFORMATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT.
(a) Direct Transfer.--Not later than the date on which the
Rome Statute enters into force, the President shall ensure
that appropriate procedures are in place to prevent the
transfer of classified national security information to the
International Criminal Court.
(b) Indirect Transfer.--Not later than the date on which
the Rome Statute enters into force, the President shall
ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to prevent
the transfer of classified national security information
relevant to matters under consideration by the International
Criminal Court to the United Nations and to the government of
any country that is a party to the International Criminal
Court unless the United Nations or that government, as the
case may
[[Page H2117]]
be, has provided written assurances that such information
will not be made available to the International Criminal
Court.
(c) Construction.--The provisions of this section shall not
be construed to prohibit any action permitted under section
638.
SEC. 637. PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) Prohibition of Military Assistance.--Subject to
subsections (b) and (c), no United States military assistance
may be provided to the government of a country that is a
party to the International Criminal Court.
(b) Waiver.--The President may waive the prohibition of
subsection (a) with respect to a particular country--
(1) for one or more periods not exceeding one year each, if
the President determines and reports to the appropriate
congressional committees that it is vital to the national
interest of the United States to waive such prohibition; and
(2) permanently, if the President determines and reports to
the appropriate congressional committees that such country
has entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant
to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the
International Criminal Court from proceeding against United
States personnel present in such country.
(c) Exemption.--The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not
apply to the government of--
(1) a NATO member country;
(2) a major non-NATO ally (including, inter alia,
Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and
New Zealand); or
(3) Taiwan.
SEC. 638. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS
HELD CAPTIVE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all
means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release
from captivity of any person described in subsection (b) who
is being detained or imprisoned against that person's will by
or on behalf of the International Criminal Court.
(b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of
subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:
(1) Covered United States persons.
(2) Covered allied persons.
(3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions
taken while the individual was a covered United States person
or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered
allied person, upon the request of such government.
(c) Authorization of Legal Assistance.--When any person
described in subsection (b) is arrested, detained,
prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf of the
International Criminal Court, the authority under subsection
(a) may be used--
(1) for the provision of legal representation and other
legal assistance to that person (including, in the case of a
person entitled to assistance under section 1037 of title 10,
United States Code, representation and other assistance in
the manner provided in that section); and
(2) for the provision of exculpatory evidence on behalf of
that person.
(d) Bribes and Other Inducements Not Authorized.--
Subsection (a) does not authorize the payment of bribes or
the provision of other incentives to induce the release from
captivity of a person described in subsection (b).
SEC. 639. ALLIANCE COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS.
(a) Report on Alliance Command Arrangements.--Not later
than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report with respect to each military alliance to
which the United States is party--
(1) describing the degree to which members of the Armed
Forces of the United States may, in the context of military
operations undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance, be
placed under the command or operational control of foreign
military officers subject to the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court because they are nationals of a
party to the International Criminal Court; and
(2) evaluating the degree to which members of the Armed
Forces of the United States engaged in military operations
undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance may be exposed to
greater risks as a result of being placed under the command
or operational control of foreign military officers subject
to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
(b) Description of Measures To Achieve Enhanced Protection
for Members of the Armed Forces of the United States.--Not
later than one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the President shall transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a description of modifications to
command and operational control arrangements within military
alliances to which the United States is a party that could be
made in order to reduce any risks to members of the Armed
Forces of the United States identified pursuant to subsection
(a)(2).
(c) Submission in Classified Form.--The report under
subsection (a), and the description of measures under
subsection (b), or appropriate parts thereof, may be
submitted in classified form.
SEC. 640. WITHHOLDINGS.
Funds withheld from the United States share of assessments
to the United Nations or any other international organization
during any fiscal year pursuant to section 705 of the Admiral
James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted by
section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501A-
460), are authorized to be transferred to the Embassy
Security, Construction and Maintenance Account of the
Department of State.
SEC. 641. NONDELEGATION.
The authorities vested in the President by sections 633,
635(c), and 637(b) may not be delegated by the President
pursuant to section 301 of title 3, United States Code, or
any other provision of law.
SEC. 642. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act and in sections 705 and 706 of the
Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) Classified national security information.--The term
``classified national security information'' means
information that is classified or classifiable under
Executive Order 12958 or a successor Executive order.
(3) Covered allied persons.--The term ``covered allied
persons'' means military personnel, elected or appointed
officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf
of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO
ally (including, inter alia, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan,
the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so
long as that government is not a party to the International
Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons
working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court.
(4) Covered united states persons.--The term ``covered
United States persons'' means members of the Armed Forces of
the United States, elected or appointed officials of the
United States Government, and other persons employed by or
working on behalf of the United States Government, for so
long as the United States is not a party to the International
Criminal Court.
(5) Extradition.--The terms ``extradition'' and
``extradite'' include both ``extradition'' and ``surrender''
as those terms are defined in article 102 of the Rome
Statute.
(6) International criminal court.--The term ``International
Criminal Court'' means the court established by the Rome
Statute.
(7) Major non-nato ally.--The term ``major non-NATO ally''
means a country that has been so designated in accordance
with section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(8) Party to the international criminal court.--The term
``party to the International Criminal Court'' means a
government that has deposited an instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval, or accession to the Rome Statute, and
has not withdrawn from the Rome Statute pursuant to Article
127 thereof.
(9) Peacekeeping operation under chapter vi of the charter
of the united nations or peace enforcement operation under
chapter vii of the charter of the united nations.--The term
``peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of
the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under
chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations'' means any
military operation to maintain or restore international peace
and security that--
(A) is authorized by the United Nations Security Council
under chapter VI or VII of the charter of the United Nations;
and
(B) is paid for from assessed contributions of United
Nations members that are made available for peacekeeping or
peace enforcement activities.
(10) Rome statute.--The term ``Rome Statute'' means the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by
the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries
on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on
July 17, 1998.
(11) Support.--The term ``support'' means assistance of any
kind, including financial support, material support,
services, intelligence sharing, law enforcement cooperation,
the training or detail of personnel, and the arrest or
detention of individuals.
(12) United states military assistance.--The term ``United
States military assistance'' means--
(A) assistance provided under chapters 2 through 6 of part
II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et
seq.);
(B) defense articles or defense services furnished with the
financial assistance of the United States Government,
including through loans and guarantees; or
(C) military training or education activities provided by
any agency or entity of the United States Government.
Such term does not include activities reportable under title
V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et
seq.).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
[[Page H2118]]
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, when the United States sends its Armed Forces into
harm's way, we do it to defend freedom and to maintain our commitment
to the principles enumerated by our founding documents. It would be an
irony of the cruelest sort if the men and women of America sends out to
defend the spirit of our Constitution were denied its protections.
We ask a lot of our Armed Forces. We should not ask them to sacrifice
their constitutional rights merely to serve as pawns for an
International Criminal Court that may pursue political vendettas at the
expense of the individual American soldiers. If the Congress allowed
such a thing to happen, we would not only be abdicating our duty to the
Nation, we would be abandoning the sacred covenant between Congress and
our men and women in uniform.
The birth of this rogue court forces Members to choose between
appeasing international bureaucrats and defending the rights of our
servicemembers. The choice is stark, defined and, I think, unavoidable.
There is no middle ground here. Members can side with the United
Nations or defend our military.
Last week, we were reminded how fickle the U.N. can be when a cabal
of human rights abusing nations were voted onto the Human Rights
Commission and the United States was booted off. Now these same people
may become the highest authority on international law. But make no
mistake, unlike the Commission on Human Rights whose power is mainly
rhetorical, the ICC poses a real threat to our Nation's military. We
simply cannot allow American soldiers to fall under the jurisdiction of
the ICC.
Under its terms, Americans could be brought before the court and
tried without important rights. They could be denied a jury trial. They
could be denied cross-examination of hostile witnesses. Americans could
even be forced to give self-incriminating testimony. This amendment
will make it clear that the United States cannot support a court that
places our citizens in the hands of U.N. bureaucrats. It will erect
essential legal barriers to protect Americans, and it will strengthen
our ability to demand changes to the court.
Last year, I received a letter supporting this amendment signed by 12
of the most respected foreign policy advisers to every President from
Nixon to President Clinton. This amendment is supported by the VFW, the
Fleet Reservists, the Noncommissioned Officers and the Reserve
Officers, just to name a few.
Mr. Chairman, we must remain cautious and watchful stewards of our
American sovereignty. Many nations have many reasons to erode our
rights. Members should not fail our first principles by allowing an
unaccountable international entity to trample core American freedoms.
Support this amendment and stop that from happening.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and I
ask all of my colleagues to oppose it as well. Clearly there is not a
single Member of this House on either side who is not fully,
enthusiastically and without any reservation and qualification in favor
of protecting our military personnel serving abroad. That is clearly
not the issue that this amendment raises. As my friend and colleague
from Massachusetts so eloquently and precisely outlined, there is no
chance of American military personnel being tried by the International
Criminal Court. That court, once it comes into being on a permanent
basis, is not designed to deal with servicemen and servicewomen
performing peacekeeping or other duties overseas. The International
Criminal Court is designed to deal with international criminals.
At the end of World War II, the United States led the way in
obtaining international justice by helping to establish the Nuremberg
trials and playing the key role in the Nuremberg Tribunal. At the
moment, international criminals who perpetrated the most outrageous
violations of human rights, including mass rape and mass murder, are
before an ad hoc International Criminal Court which deals with events
in the former Yugoslavia during the early 1990s.
In dealing with this legislation, Nobel prize winner Elie Wiesel
wrote to the committee in part as follows:
Fifty years ago the United States led the world in the
prosecution of Nazi leaders for the atrocities of World War
II. The triumph of Nuremberg was not only that individuals
were held accountable for their crimes but that they were
tried in a court of law supported by the community of
nations.
A vote for this amendment would mean our acceptance of the impunity
of the world's worst atrocities. The memory of the victims of past
genocide and war crimes compels us to take this issue, the issue of an
International Criminal Court, seriously.
Now, it is important to note that the proposals discussed in Rome
were not perfect. We were proposing modifications and amendments. And I
think it is critical we remain engaged in that process. But to flat out
oppose the creation of an International Criminal Court is not worthy of
this body.
I would also like to mention, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) so accurately and effectively indicated a
few minutes ago, that our servicemen and women will be tried by
military courts of our own if they engage in transgressions. The notion
that international criminal courts are designed to punish U.S.
servicemen is one that escapes me and many of my colleagues.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment which is unquestionably
well intended but is widely off the mark. We are talking about
international war criminals such as the ones in Bosnia, such as the
ones in Kosovo, such as the ones during the Second World War in Germany
and not American servicemen and women doing their duty.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the former chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I rise
in strong support of this amendment. I commend the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) for bringing this important amendment to the floor. It
would protect American military and government personnel from
prosecution by an international criminal court operating outside United
States sovereignty.
America's men and women in uniform are our best and brightest. They
risk their lives every day all around the world in defense of our
country's freedom and values. They should not be subjected to the risk
of prosecution by an international body that operates on procedures
inconsistent with the United States Constitution. This amendment would
prevent this from happening.
Last November, 12 former high-ranking United States Government
officials, including former Secretaries of State, Defense and Directors
of Central Intelligence, supported legislation similar to this
amendment that would extend protection from international prosecution
to our military personnel.
During his confirmation process, Secretary Rumsfeld warned that
without such protection, U.S. personnel could be exposed to politically
motivated prosecution.
Even former President Clinton, who signed the treaty last December,
conceded that it contained significant flaws and refused to recommend
its ratification by the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give our military service
personnel the legal protection they deserve, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to
have this opportunity to talk with the gentleman from California and
with my colleagues about the International Criminal Court. As a
survivor of the Holocaust, he is a steadfast reminder to all of us that
these kinds of war crimes are right in front of us every single day.
It is amazing to me that we would be standing in the well of this
House talking about this issue, the amendment of
[[Page H2119]]
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), when we have Rwanda, Burundi,
Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, East Timor, Saddam Hussein, all of
these places that need international criminal courts that do not have
them. We are the leaders in the world in terms of human rights. We
ought to be the leaders when it comes to the International Criminal
Court.
This amendment is a farce. I wish I could say as gently as the
gentleman from California that the gentleman was well intentioned. This
amendment is a lie, because this amendment makes you think that you are
going to keep American servicemembers from being prosecuted when that
is a lie. Right now if a servicemember under the American flag commits
a war crime, they are tried by our own military court. If the DeLay
amendment passes, they are going to be tried by the country in which
they commit that crime. Who do we want trying our servicemember? Do we
want some Saddam Hussein trying our servicemember if we do not sign
this treaty? Do we want them to be the ones to try our servicemember? I
do not.
I would be able to go to bat with the gentleman from Texas in front
of anybody on this issue because the facts are that if we pass the
DeLay amendment, we are actually going to end up doing what the
gentleman from Texas purports he does not want us to do. That is, if we
do not sign this treaty, our servicemembers are tried by other
countries internationally because that is the law of the International
Criminal Court.
Today's amendment, based on ``the American Servicemembers Protection
Act'' sounds great--of course we all want to protect American
servicemembers. As a former member of the Armed Services Committee, I
have spent many days in markups and debates over bills to support our
Armed Forces. But if we scratch below the surface, this amendment is
not about protecting our military, it is about risking our current
position of global leadership on human rights abroad. It will thwart
the efforts of one of the most important international bodies that is
about to come to fruition, the International Criminal Court.
Since coming to Congress I have been highly supportive of an I.C.C.,
and I strongly believe in its principal which is that human rights
abusers, who commit crimes against humanity or genocide, should be
brought to justice. But even if you do not support an I.C.C., or feel
that the Rome Statute needs complete revision, as I respectfully
understand the gentleman from Texas does, you should oppose this
amendment. It is crucial that we recognize, as the leaders of the free
world, that the only way to achieve a Court that we can live with, is
to stay engaged in the continuing negotiations over the scope, purpose,
and construction of the it. A permanent international criminal court
which can bring future perpetrators of war crimes to full and complete
justice is in our interests.
President Clinton recognized the importance of this effort and that
is why he signed the Rome Statute in December; bringing us into the
company of 139 other nations including 17 NATO allies who have signed
the Rome Treaty.
When 139 nations have signed this treaty and many have indicated that
they are close to ratification, why would we alienate ourselves from
this many of our global partners. This amendment would simply assure
that the members of the ICC will feel free to ignore our concerns.
I would also like to address the concerns about our Armed Forces or
politically motivated prosecutions by the Court. There is no doubt that
under the Rome Statute American soldiers who are accused of war crimes
will never be impacted because we have a thorough system of military
justice in our own Country that would prevent the need for any further
review. The ICC won't take this power away, it cannot.
In closing, I want to insure that everyone in this chamber
understands the message that we will send to the international
community if we pass this amendment.
To quote, from Elie Wiesel, famous human rights advocate who opposed
the bill that this amendment is based on
A vote for this legislation would signal US acceptance of
impunity for the world's worst atrocities. For the memory of
the victims of past genocide and war crimes, I urge you to
use your positions . . . to see that this legislation is not
passed.
Mr. Wiesel is right--let us think about the implications and the
signal we will send--oppose this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman), chairman emeritus of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority whip. The proposal
of an international criminal court has some appeal to some members of
our international community, but the international criminal court that
is now being considered by the U.N. is the wrong sort of a court. It
will be the equivalent of a world-ranging independent prosecutor
without any responsible constraints. The world criminal court could
threaten American servicemembers, government officials, and the
servicemembers and officials of our allies, including Israel. The Arab
League has already indicated it will make Israel the first target of
this court.
The DeLay amendment would help slow down the process of the
acceptance of this court and would keep American authorities from
cooperating with it. We need to send a strong message that we do not
accept this court as presently constituted. The passage of the DeLay
amendment and its enactment into law would accomplish that task.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support the DeLay amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, prior to coming to Congress I founded the Institute on
the Holocaust and the Law, which studied how the laws and courts were
used to oppress people rather than to protect them. So I fully
understand the concerns of the supporters of this amendment that the
International Criminal Court not be used to illegitimately prosecute
U.S. forces abroad. The law should never be used to perpetuate
injustice.
All of us demand that U.S. forces abroad not be subject to
illegitimate prosecution. But the strongest safeguards already exist in
the International Criminal Court against such possibilities. That is
why this amendment should be defeated today. One of our Nation's
proudest moments as the world emerged from the darkness of the
Holocaust was to help create the International Military Tribunal at
Nuremberg to use the law to achieve justice.
Last week, Mr. Chairman, Elie Wiesel said of a similar amendment,
which the gentleman from California has already quoted, that it ``would
erase the legacy of U.S. leadership by ensuring that the U.S. will
never again join the community of nations to hold accountable those who
commit war crimes and genocide.''
Protecting our military personnel is our utmost responsibility.
Bringing war criminals to justice is our legacy. Participating fully in
the International Criminal Court, Mr. Chairman, allows us to do both.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1215
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act as an amendment to H.R. 1646. The
International Criminal Court is the wrong solution to a real and
pressing problem and would affect a revolution in international law.
The ICC would transform the current international system based on equal
independent self-governing states to a system where the ultimate power
to judge the legality of state action is vested in a new and
unaccountable bureaucracy. The ICC would be fundamentally inconsistent
with the most basic principles of sovereignty.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to emphasize the potential threat the
ICC poses to many of our allies, specifically Israel, our only
Democratic ally in the Middle East.
When the most recent violence broke out last fall, Israel's enemies
sought to use the threat of U.N. prosecution to pressure the Jewish
state. Under the broad and unclear jurisdiction of the ICC, any action
undertaken by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza could be subject to
review and interpreted as a war
[[Page H2120]]
crime. The ICC serves as a danger to the security of Israel because of
some members of the international community's stated opposition to the
legitimacy of that state.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the passage of this amendment.
The creation of a permanent, supranational court with the independent
power to judge and punish elected leaders represents a decisive break
with fundamental American ideals of self-government and sovereignty. It
would constitute the transference of authority to judge the actions of
U.S. officials, away from Americans to an unelected and unaccountable
international bureaucracy.
Certain United Nations' members have a long history of anti-Israeli
rhetoric and activity. In October of 2000, for example, the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights condemned Israel for supposedly causing the
recent violence in the Middle East, going so far as to accuse it of
``war crimes'' and ``crimes against humanity.'' It is possible, perhaps
likely, that these same countries would use the ICC to further their
own anti-Israel agenda.
I strongly urge the passage of the American Servicemembers'
Protection Act amendment to protect the notion of National sovereignty
in America and around the world.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLay amendment. Mr.
Chairman, let me just read a statement: ``As it currently stands, the
Rome Treaty could expose service members and the government officials
of nonparty states to criminal liability based on politically-motivated
charges brought by other states that object to the nonparty state's
international policies.''
Mr. Chairman, that statement was made last year by Secretary of
Defense Cohen on behalf of the Clinton administration. I think Members
do not fully realize that this process has gone on for years. We have
held hearings in the full International Relations Committee on this.
There are serious flaws. Just as we saw with the U.N. Human Rights
Commission, rogue states are now in charge of and acting as the
``conscience of humanity,'' to quote the chief of that commission. We
are talking about the Sudan and China, and countries like Cuba. They
now will sit with the black robes on and will judge our peacekeepers.
I support ad hoc tribunals, but this grant of authority in the Rome
Treaty goes far beyond that.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good
friend, Tom DeLay. I was an original cosponsor of the American
Servicemen's Protection Act introduced by Mr. Tom DeLay in the last
Congress. This important amendment would prohibit U.S. cooperation with
the International Criminal Court (including restrictions on U.S.
military participation in UN peacekeeping operations and the transfer
of U.S. classified national security information, and the provision of
U.S. military assistance, to the Court). The amendment also authorizes
the President to use all means necessary to bring about the release of
U.S. military personnel and certain other persons held captive by or on
behalf of the Court.
I am reminded of the raging debate which occurred at the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly meeting last year regarding the International
Criminal Court. Our European allies were lambasting the United States,
among others, for not supporting the Rome Statute of the ICC. The final
text of the OSCE PA resolution in fact called on ``all member States to
ratify the Rome Statute of the future International Criminal Court
without delay.'' Members of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE PA (which I
led) expounded on the provisions which were most problematic. In the
waning days of the Clinton administration, he did sign the Rome
Statute. I would warn the Bush administration about the serious
pitfalls of the ICC, and I would encourage the President to not seek
ratification of the Treaty.
At the end of World War II, many people urged the creation of a
permanent and independent international war crimes tribunal as a
mechanism to deter future violations and to punish those responsible
for committing systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide. It was envisioned as a permanent court in The Hague with the
authority to prosecute suspected perpetrators of war crimes. The
statute that ultimately emerged from the Rome negotiations in 1998,
however, includes provisions which I believe would create unacceptable
risks for the United States.
The subject matter jurisdiction of the Court includes crimes against
humanity, war crimes, genocide, and ``aggression.'' But during the
negotiations on the treaty, negotiators were unable to agree on a
definition of ``aggression.'' This is particularly significant because
the Nuremberg Tribunal used the term ``war of aggression'' in its
charges against Nazi Germany, not the term ``aggression.'' In fact,
acts of aggression by states already fall within the mandate of the
U.N. Security Council and it is completely unclear what will be
considered acts of aggression by individuals. States that have already
ratified this treaty have bought a pig in a poke.
The jurisdiction of the ICC can extend to citizens of states which
are not party to the Treaty. This is particularly troublesome when you
consider the possibility of U.S. military personnel stationed in a
country party to the ICC--or serving on a UN peacekeeping mission--
being subject to the investigation and prosecution of the ICC even
though the U.S. has not, and hopefully will not, become a party to the
Treaty. This, in fact, is the provision to which the amendment being
offered by Mr. DeLay is directed.
Article 120 of the Statute forbids reservations to the ICC Treaty.
Thus, the United States or any other country would have to either
accept or reject the treaty in its entirety. In light of the problems I
have alluded to, I believe that rejecting the ICC in its entirety is
the only reasonable course open to the United States at this time.
During the negotiations on the ICC Treaty, the effort by the United
States to limit the application of the Court's jurisdiction over non-
States Parties was squelched by the successful passage of a non-action
vote requested by Norway. The United States also sought to curb the
broad powers of the Court to prosecute the military personnel of UN
Members States which are not party to the ICC Treaty but we were
rebuffed.
Mr. Chairman, let's consider for a moment the potential effects of
the International Criminal Court should 60 States ratify the Treaty and
should the ICC have the force of international law. Some supporters of
the ICC have belittled concern that the United States--or other
countries, for that matter--might find itself the target of politically
driven prosecutions. But consider, for a moment, the reaction in some
quarters to the use of force by NATO against Serbia in 1999. Serbia is
suing eight NATO countries before the International Court of Justice
right now for their participation in the NATO campaign; there are also
charges by Serbian citizens that have been brought against 15 NATO
countries before the European Court of Justice. More troubling are the
accusations that were leveled by a group of lawyers from several
countries who sought to have some 60 government officials from NATO
countries, including NATO's Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark,
charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia. The accusations included ``willful killing, willfully
causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive
destruction of property, not justified by military necessity, and
carried out unlawfully and wantonly, employment of poisonous weapons or
other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering.''
Human rights organizations raised concerns about NATO's
attack on TV and radio transmission facilities, dropping
cluster bombs and destroying power plants inside Serbia.
Others argued that NATO's rules of engagement, which called
for pilots to fly high out of range of Serbian missiles,
endangered civilians and were thus ``clearly prohibited under
international humanitarian law.'' Ironically, many of the
same groups that had urged intervention to stop and prevent
further atrocities in Kosovo quickly denounced NATO for its
action. While I respect human rights groups that have raised
legitimate questions about the conduct of the campaign, some
NATO critics have clearly revealed a knee-jerk anti-American
sentiment in their accusations. For the record, the Chief
Prosecutor of the Yugoslav Tribunal considered the materials
submitted to her regarding NATO actions and declined to
pursue charges against any NATO officials.
Inevitably, if the U.S. assumes a leadership role in maintaining
peace and security and promoting human rights around the globe, the
enemies of peace, security and human rights will continue to seek ways
to undermine our efforts. Unfortunately, the current ICC statute does
not provide sufficient safe-guards against the initiation of
politically motivated prosecutions.
The concerns raised by the United States regarding the Rome Statute
are well-founded and I urge my colleagues to support fully the
amendment offered by Mr. DeLay. This will help provide a modicum of
protection for our men and women in uniform who may be serving on the
territory of a country which has ratified the Treaty.
[[Page H2121]]
The International Criminal Court
hearings before the committee on international relations, house of
representatives, one hundred sixth congress, second session, july 25
and 26, 2000
Selected Excerpts--Page 37
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. The concept of a permanent
International Criminal Court charged with prosecuting the
gravest of crimes against humanity is not a new one. The idea
was proposed and dismissed after the conclusion of the
Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crime Tribunals that followed World
War II.
In recent years the idea has gained new momentum, driven
largely by memories of the horrific crimes committed in
Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. I share the ideals of many
ICC supporters. If we could construct an entity that would
impartially prosecute only genocidal tyrants and war
criminals I would support it without hesitation, but we do
not inhabit an ideal world. The difficulty is in devising a
system that will prosecute Pol Pot, but not President
Clinton, that will indict Ratko Mladic but not Norman
Schwartzkopf.
I am concerned that the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court fails to accomplish that goal and that it is
susceptible to serious abuse and manipulation.
As it took form, the draft statute ballooned from an
instrument focused on well-established war crimes into an
encyclopedia of still-emerging human rights law. The
resulting statute is a 30,000 word document that covers 77
pages. It contains sweeping language that leaves many
elements of vaguely defined crimes up to the imagination of
international lawyers.
For example, according to article VI the crime of genocide
includes, ``causing serious mental harm'' to members of a,
``national, ethnic, racial or religious group.''
It is true that similar language is contained in the
Convention against Genocide, but the United States took a
reservation to the jurisdiction of the World Court over the
definition of genocide. This is not because we intend to
commit genocide, but because the United States was
unwilling to surrender its sovereignty to a body that
might be manipulated by hostile parties using the vague
language of the convention as an ideological hobbyhorse.
Similarly, article V asserts ICC jurisdiction over the,
``crime of aggression''--an offense that is not defined in
international law or even in the Rome Statute itself, a point
that I made repeatedly at the OSCE parliamentary assembly in
Bucharest earlier this month. In the context of domestic law,
such vagueness would be problematic. In the more combative
context of international law it is dangerous.
In addition to the problems posed by its vague definitions,
the statute also claims a jurisdictional reach that is
without precedent. Once 60 countries have ratified it, the
statute claims ICC jurisdiction over any defendant who may
have committed a crime in a signatory state regardless of
whether the defendant's own state had ratified the treaty. By
claiming to bind the subjects of non-signatory states, this
self-executing, potentially universal jurisdiction directly
challenges traditional concepts of national sovereignty.
Finally, the Rome Statute gives the ICC prosecutor a vast
amount of personal power with a minimum amount of oversight.
The statute drafters rejected a U.S. proposal that the
prosecutor only be allowed to proceed on cases referred
either by a sovereign state or by the U.N. Security Council.
Instead, the ICC prosecutor may initiate investigations and
prosecutions on his own authority without control or
oversight by any national or international party.
Under article 44, the prosecutor may also accept any offer
of, ``gratis personnel offered by nongovernmental
organizations to assist with the work of any of the organs of
the Court.''
I have long been a supporter of the important work
undertaken by International NGO's, particularly relating to
the protection of human rights and the provision of
humanitarian relief, but it is also true that there exist
hundreds of highly ideological NGO's who look to
international bodies to promote agendas that go far beyond
the domestic political consensus in their home countries. The
combination of the independent prosecutor's extreme
discretion with staff provided by well-funded extremist NGO's
could lead to serious problems and partisanship by the ICC.
These are but a few of the problems that I have with the
present form of the Rome Statute.
I readily acknowledge that many, probably most, ICC
supporters do not intend for the Court to be used as a club
for U.S.-bashing or as an engine or radical social
engineering, but once the ICC is established it will take on
a life of its own. Its activities will be restricted by the
language of the Rome Statute itself rather than by the best
intentions of its most responsible supporters, and I just
would say finally, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I take a back
seat to no one in promoting--in the past and present--both
the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal and the International War
Crimes Tribunal for the Balkans.
When we were holding early hearings in our subcommittee as
well as on the Helsinki Commission I offered language and
amendments to boost the U.S. donation to those important
tribunals and so I take a back seat to no one, but this I
think has some very real problems that need to be addressed.
I yield back.
Page 52
Mr. Smith [presiding].
Let me ask a few questions and then I will yield to my
friend, Mr. Berman, if he has any further questions.
You mentioned checks and balances that exist within the
Yugoslavian War Crimes Tribunal. Do those same checks and
balances also exist in the Rome Statute?
Ambassador Scheffer. Congressman, there are many more
checks and balances in the ICC statute, and I can go into
some of those. But the power of the prosecutor is much more
qualified within the ICC statute. The principle of
complementarity, which is nowhere found in the Yugoslav or
Rwanda Tribunal statutes is a central feature of this
particular Court.
And, furthermore, this Court, the ICC, depends upon the
states parties to the Court to actually make very important
decisions relating to the Court, whereas, the Yugoslav and
Rwanda Tribunals look to no governments whatsoever for their
decisionmaking.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you what kind of checks and balances
there are. In terms of elected officials, our Founding
Fathers, I
Page 53
think, were right in vesting only limited power in each of
the three branches, being so distrustful, as they were, of
any single entity being given so much power. Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What happens if a prosecutor and/or judges were to run amok
and to engage in an ideological crusade against certain
individuals? I think we already have a shot across the bow
when lawyers brought action against NATO for alleged war
crimes, that our planes were flying too high, putting
additional civilians at risk, the choice of targets, which
they seem to disagree with. A war crime then potentially
could be in the eye of the beholder. Because, again, I do
think there is some true elasticity to these terms.
Yes, Mrs. Del Ponte did not accept and did not proceed on
those charges, but some other prosecutor may not be so
favorably inclined. You might want to comment on that.
Looking back, if the Rome Statute were in effect during World
War II, for example, and we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, and we did the firebombing of Dresden and the other
German cities with a huge number of civilian casualties,
would that be construed as a war crime under the plain
meaning of the Rome Statute?
Ambassador Scheffer. Well, Congressman, it is far too
speculative to try to get into that. Remember that during
World War II, the question is, were those actions violations
of codified or customary international law at that time?
Mr. Smith. That is not the question I am asking.
Ambassador Scheffer. No, I know.
Mr. Smith. Fast-forward those military actions that this
country undertook with our Alliance.
Ambassador Scheffer. It is entirely speculative to say we
would use exactly the same military tactics today as we did
during World War II. I would not speculate in that direction,
not at all. We are far more precise----
Mr. Smith. But there is no doubt a reasonable man or woman
could use the Rome Statute in cases analogous to matters of
historical fact, where military decisions were made which
resulted in huge casualties. Thankfully, at least, the
consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the ending of the
war. But there is an argument that has been made ever since
as to the advisability of those actions.
I think it is fair question. Past is prologue. We may be
faced with this in the future. We all know that NATO, in
terms of its war doctrine, would rely on superiority, at
least during the Soviet days, rather than quantity. Quality
was what we would rely on. There is the potential that a
United States President, or a French President, or a British
Prime Minister may have to make a decision some day to use
nuclear weapons. It is not beyond the realm of possibility
and it is not highly speculative. Those things have to be
thought through.
Since we have the historical record, I think it needs to be
plugged in to see whether or not this would have triggered a
war crimes prosecution.
Ambassador Scheffer. Well, we were careful in the drafting
of the statute, as well as the elements of crimes, to
establish very high barriers to actually launching
investigations and prosecuting the crimes. Not isolated
incidents, there has to be systematic widespread events.
There have to be plans and policies to directly assault
civilian populations. If military necessity dominates the
reasoning behind the use of any particular military force,
then that is in conformity with international law and it
is in conformity with the statute.
But if you are asking me, speculate as to whether or not it
can conceivably be drawn that the United States takes a
particular type of military action without describing what
the intent was behind it, the plan or the policy behind it, I
can't answer questions like that because you have to go
through every step of the analysis before you can answer
whether or not this statute would actually apply to that
particular use of military force.
Mr. Smith. Well, one of the more perverse outcomes would be
that our military strategists would be faced with factoring
in not
[[Page H2122]]
just what is in the best interests of the United States and
our allies, and how are we more likely to achieve a military
end to a conflict. they would also have to factor in whether
or not such an action would violate the Rome Statute.
Let me also say, our nuclear doctrine rests on deterrence,
and if the Russians were to attack us or to launch, we would
destroy Russian cities. How would that fit into a Rome
Statute world?
Ambassador Schheffer. Congressman, this statute, as I said,
specifically provides very high barriers that have to be met.
Mr. Smith. But crimes of aggression aren't even defined
yet.
Ambassador Scheffer. And it is contrary to U.S. Federal law
as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice to violate
the laws of war. So I would assume the plan or policy of the
United States would not be to violate the laws of war. If it
were the plan or policy to violate the laws of war, then we
have a lot to answer for. But if it is not the policy to
violate the laws of war, there should be symmetry between our
actions and what has been set forth in the statute, which we
agree with.
We agree that the crimes set forth in the statute are
crimes under customary international law which we must adhere
to. We are not disagreeing with what is in the statute in
terms of the list of crimes, we agree with them They must be
complied with.
Mr. Smith. And again, signing a document that still has not
defined crimes of aggression----
Ambassador Schiffer. And by the way, I noticed that in your
opening statement. I did want to get back to you on that. The
whole process in the Preparatory Commission now is to try to
determine, can there be a definition for aggression? The
crime of aggression is not actionable under the statute
unless there has been an agreement among the states parties
to the statute at the 7-year review conference as to what is
the definition of that crime. So you can't--there is no way
to prosecute that crime until such a definition has been
arrived at. And we have a very significant coalition of
governments in total agreement with us as to how to proceed
in those talks to define the crime of aggression.
Interestingly enough, under the statute, if one is a state
party to the statute, you have every right, if a new crime is
added to the statute, to completely exclude yourself from the
coverage of that crime.
Page 55
Mr. Smith. Mr. Slocombe, Secretary Slocombe, if you could
respond to the hypothetical posed earlier about not just our
deterrence strategy, which is based on the obliteration of
cities, unless something has changed there that I don't know
about, but also the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the
firebombing that took place in Germany. If the Rome Statute
were in effect, would that have precluded those actions?
Mr. Slocombe. Mr. Smith, I think the way I would answer
that would be to say that, in our view, if the Rome Statute
were properly applied, American military personnel or the
political officers, the President and, I guess in those
cases, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy who
ordered operations could not properly be prosecuted under
them because they were legitimate. In the case of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, and, indeed, in general, with respect to the
strategic bombing campaign against both Japan and Germany
with conventional weapons, I would maintain that, judged by
the context in which they occurred, they were not violations
of the law of war under any circumstances.
So that, as a lawyer, the way I would answer the question
would be that the United States would have a good defense if
such cases were, in your case, hypothetically tried.
What I am concerned about, what the United States is
concerned about, is that there could be a politically
motivated prosecution based on what would, in our view, be a
misinterpretation of the law of war, and, therefore, a
misinterpretation of the Rome Statute. And once one is in a
court, once you concede the principle of jurisdiction, there
are no guarantees as to the result.
Mr. Smith. So it would be possible that a Hiroshima,
Nagasaki type action or the firebombing in Japan and in
Germany could be prosecuted in the future if such a thing
were----
Mr. Slocombe. As we have said repeatedly, our concern in
respect of this statute, in respect of the Court, is
precisely the concern about politically motivated, in effect,
bad faith prosecutions. Exactly.
Mr. Smith. But what about a good faith prosecution, by
someone who honestly believed that Hiroshima was a war crime?
I mean it is possible that it could happen?
Mr. Slocombe. Well, there is no question that on its face,
the Court has jurisdiction over actual ``war crimes''. That
is what the statute says, that is what is intended. Our
concern, the United States military, through the United
States military justice system, prosecutes and prosecutes
vigorously well-founded allegations that American military
personnel have violated the law of war.
We do not need the International Criminal Court to deal
with that problem. So that is a non-problem. Our concern is
not that there would be valid prosecutions of American
military personnel. Our concern, rather, is as I said, and as
we had said repeatedly, our concern is with politically
motivated prosecutions based not really on serious
allegations of war crimes, but on disagreement with U.S. or
other alliance policies, of which I think the rejected
allegations with respect to Kosovo are a good example.
Mr. Smith. Could I ask, and ask you to provide it for the
record, that the Pentagon undertake an analysis as to whether
or not Rome would apply to World War II actions like I
mentioned before?
Ambassador Scheffer, I think if these other issues were
ironed out, you probably would like to see us sign this. But
we have got to know what we are heading toward, and we need
to look back before we look forward. Such an analysis, if it
hasn't been done, really should be done.
Mr. Slocombe. It has been done, that is the reason we
opposed the treaty.
Mr. Smith. What has been done, a look back at past
conflicts?
Mr. Slocombe. Well, I don't know that anyone did it in the
mind of saying Dresden could have been prosecuted, I think
they did it in the mind of saying you don't have to go back
to World War II or to the Vietnam War to say that there is a
very real danger that there could be politically motivated
prosecutions through the International Criminal Court, and
that is precisely the reason that not just the Department of
Defense, but the Administration voted against the text and
have refused to sign the treaty.
Mr. Smith. And Ambassador Scheffer, you agree with that,
there could be politically motivated prosecutions?
Ambassador Scheffer. Precisely.
Mr. Smith. I'm sorry?
Ambassador Scheffer. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Do you, Ambassador Scheffer, personally think
that President Clinton made a mistake when he decided against
signing the treaty in 1998?
Your mike is not on.
Ambassador Scheffer. I'm sorry, Congressman. My answer to
your other questions was yes.
Mr. Smith. OK. Thank you.
Ambassador Scheffer. No, there was no mistake whatsoever.
In fact, the issue of signing was simply not the issue. In
Rome it was, do we agree with other governments to release
the text of the statute out of the Rome Conference in the
form that existed at the end of the conference? That was the
only issue there.
It truly is a more responsible course to take not to
consider even the issue of signing until one sees the
totality of this treaty regime.
Mr. Slocombe. If I could, Mr. Chairman, could I read a
sentence from a letter which Secretary Cohen, with the
concurrence of his colleagues in the senior levels of the
Administration, sent in support of Ambassador Scheffer's
effort, which responds exactly to your point? It reads, ``As
it currently stands, the Rome Treaty could expose
servicemembers and Government officials of nonparty states to
criminal liability based on politically motivated charges
brought by other states that object to the nonparty states'
international policies.'' That is our position and that, in a
sentence, is the reason for our concerns.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask a final question or two. Ambassador
Scheffer, how likely do you really think it is that you will
succeed in your efforts to get the ICC to forego criminal
jurisdiction over Americans and persons from other countries
that are not a party to the Rome Statute? And what happens if
you fail? Obviously there are a different set of diplomats
and parliamentarians that I was meeting with, but at the
Bucharest Conference we were all alone in our opposition. I
was amazed in speaking one-on-one during the course of the
week in Bucharest at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at how
Pollyanna-ish some of the views were of members who did not
have a clue what was contained in the statute but just said
``We want an ICC and that is it.'' The British were probably
more emphatic than anyone, although they seem to have been
informed and knew the contents of the statute They were
vigorously pushing for rapid ratification, which is what the
operative language was that they were offering.
The Germans offered it. We tried to weaken it with an
amendment and it was not acceptable, regrettably. It seems as
if, as Mr. Bereuter pointed out earlier, in terms of a
willingness to just cede sovereignty, the Europeans have no
problem with that, it seems. But obviously we do.
What is the next step if they do not include us--or exclude
us, I should say--from jurisdiction? What would be the next
step?
Ambassador Scheffer. Well, I think there will be some--let
met just describe it as serious results if we cannot prevail
with a provision or a document that is satisfactory to us in
the Preparatory Commission talks.
I think as Under Secretary Slocombe said earlier we are
going to have to take a very serious reassessment of this. I
think there is going to be a clearer assessment as to what we
can consider in terms of military contingencies for this
Government, but at the same time I would hope that that
assessment could, the fact that there would be such an
assessment would encourage a good number of governments,
particularly our allies, that they have far more to gain from
this process from the United States being a cooperative
partner in this Treaty, even as a nonparty, than they do to
isolate us by not taking into consideration the very specific
requirements that we have in the international community, so
all I can say is I hope I can succeed.
I don't want to pretend to say that I have got an easy job
ahead of me. Right now the deck is stacked against me, but we
have to try. This is a step-by-step process. We have
[[Page H2123]]
had to exercise some patience in getting there, but every
time we have pursued our objectives since Rome to actually
accomplish what we need to accomplish, we have accomplished
it, so I want to go that final mile and see if we can
accomplish this objective.
Mr. Smith. Again, what is the likelihood of doing it? I
mean Secretary Bolton and--
Ambassador Scheffer. It could be 50-50 at this stage.
Mr. Smith. Secretary Bolton and Eagleburger, former
Secretary of State, have made it clear that they thought we
lost the fight 2 years ago.
Ambassador Scheffer. Well, as I said, we simply do not
share their vision of either having lost or waging this
campaign. I think you have to be in the trenches of it to
recognize that other governments truly do not want, at least
many other governments, truly do not want to see the United
States walk out of this process. They know how valuable we
can be in the long-run for this Court and therefore I would
hope that we could persuade them that a reasonable
accommodation within the Treaty regime of U.S. interests is
going to be to the betterment of the entire process and to
the Court itself.
Mr. Smith. I would respectfully suggest that we did lose it
2 years ago. We are trying to fix it now, and I obviously
wish you success. We all would wish you success on that, but,
you know, you mentioned serious repercussions or serious
consequences. I think we are more likely to avoid that if we
are very specific in saying this or that happens.
Predictability I think is your friend now. Can you elaborate
on some of the consequences if we lose?
Ambassador Scheffer. Well, as we have already stated to our
colleagues in other governments in letters that the Secretary
of Defense has sent to his counterparts, we would have to re-
evaluate our ability to participate in military contingencies
if we cannot prevail on that, and I think that is a fairly
powerful consequence.
In addition to that, I think governments truly are having
to gauge what is the consequence if the United States cannot
be a good neighbor to this treaty. It will severely cripple
the operation of this Court if we cannot be a player in it.
Mr. Smith. How would it affect peacekeeping in your view,
and Mr. Slocombe, you might want to add your views on
peacemaking as well?
Ambassador Scheffer. I think it could have a very severe
impact on that. Walt?
Mr. Slocombe. What the Secretary of Defense said in his
letter was unfortunately a negative result--that is, a
negative result with respect to the article 98 effort--could
have a major impact on our decision whether to participate in
certain types of military contingencies.
That is what he said. I would not see that as an absolute
judgment that we will never send American troops overseas in
any situation, but it would have to be a factor we would have
to take into account.
Mr. Smith. Just getting back to the legislation, and I know
in its current form you have made it clear you don't support
it, but can you not at least admit there is some value in
again broadcasting to the world that we are very serious and
that the Congress is very serious about there being very
negative consequences if this thing proceeds and we are
included, having not been made a party to it, having not
ceded or signed it?
Ambassador Scheffer. Well, I think there is some value to
it and the mere existence of the legislation I think has sent
that signal very loudly and clearly.
What I am saying is that actual adoption of this
legislation would then have the reverse effect on our ability
to actually negotiate our common objective.
Mr. Smith. Let me just take that one step further. I mean
the President obviously would have the capability of vetoing
the bill if he thought it was not the right vehicle.
But let me point out that the Congress also has
prerogatives, and we do fund peacekeeping. We obviously
provide the necessary and requisite moneys for our military.
It seems to me that we need to be very much a part of this
because the outcome could be a disaster going forward for the
world and for U.S. men and women in uniform who may be
deployed overseas.
As I have read this, and I have read just about everything
I can get my hands on, I have grave concerns. I said at the
outset that no one has been more favorably inclined toward ad
hoc tribunals than I am. When we had the first hearings in
the Helsinki Commission on what became the Yugoslavian
Tribunal we were being told by its leader, the man that was
charged by the United Nations to take on the responsibility,
that it was designed to fail, that he had been given
insufficient resources, that it was nothing but fluff in
order to placate certain individuals in countries, but it
really was not a serious effort.
Now if we go in the other extreme and all of a sudden pass
or enact something that potentially could prosecute the
President or our Secretary of State or Defense or Supreme
NATO Allied Commander, I think we have erred significantly as
well, and I don't think there has been enough vetting of this
issue.
I think a very small group of people have decided this. As
I mentioned earlier, you know, I really want to take a look
at who the actual participants were. We have heard that NGO's
were filling the seats and taking on the responsibility of
negotiating rather than the respective governments, who were
kind of like brushed aside and the designated hitters were
making decisions. That is serious if that indeed turns out to
be the case. So I think there has been far less scrutiny
brought to this, and hopefully these hearings are the
beginning of even more focus by the Congress, but I thank you
for your testimony.
Mr. Tancredo is here. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Tancredo. No.
Mr. Smith. I do thank you for your comments. We look
forward to working with you in the future.
Ambassador Scheffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Slocombe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, maybe either the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) or my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), could answer this question. And that is, if we
do not sign this treaty, then we will not have primary jurisdiction
over our soldiers; meaning if we do sign this treaty, our soldiers are
under the jurisdiction of our courts; but if we pass the DeLay
amendment our soldiers will be under the jurisdiction of another
country and/or the ICC that the gentleman purports he does not want our
soldiers to be subject to.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on the gentleman's time. I
do not have the time. The gentleman has more time than we do.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on the gentleman's own
time I will yield. It is his amendment. If he wants to answer the basic
question.
Mr. DeLAY. The gentlemen asked me a question. He controls the time.
Would he like an answer?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I control the time and I am not going to
yield. I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who is
offering this amendment, to explain his amendment and explain to this
House that what he is trying to do he actually does not do, because the
very service member who he is purporting to protect actually will end
up subject to other foreign nations' courts, and not our own, if we
pass this DeLay amendment. I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) on his own time to explain why his amendment does exactly the
opposite of what he purports it to do.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, let me take a shot at this. Since I am also
a JAG officer and I have been in a theater of war, what the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is purporting I would say is false.
When a war is fought, it is fought under the laws of war. There are
also the Geneva Conventions. Our country has treaties with other
countries. We have memorandums of understanding. We have exchanges of
letters with regard to the jurisdiction and who can prosecute whom
under what circumstance.
I am going to support the DeLay amendment because I do not want our
military to be tried by Iraq or some other nation out there. If we have
a nation, take Germany, for example, and that military officer or an
enlisted person commits a crime in the line of duty, we prosecute
those; we take care of that. If they commit an offense in the civilian,
outside the line of duty, they are prosecuted by Germany. That occurs
out there.
I think we need to pause and really think whether we want to subject
our military to an international court.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that the distinguished majority whip, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has given me this time, and I
appreciate his efforts and his diligence in defending our men and women
in uniform who, but for this amendment, might be
[[Page H2124]]
subject to arbitrary and capricious actions of rogue nations bent on
perverting the International Criminal Court.
None other than President George Washington warned his posterity
about certain relations with foreign governments that might put liberty
at risk.
The system of law that is likely to be practiced in the ICC is
outside of our Constitution and our rule of law. It does violence to
the very common law that is our inheritance. There is little doubt that
the framers of the Constitution would reject this peculiar foreign
legal system outright as a form of tyranny. The notion that our
citizens, men and women in uniform, would be subject to the whims of a
foreign court is anathema to the principles of the American founding.
American citizens and their military personnel should never be
subject to laws not created by the American people. The fear voiced by
George Washington must control our debate today.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a terrible mistake to submit our
military to this International Criminal Court. First of all, double
jeopardy. If we read the Statute of Rome, it is left to a court to
decide if our court martial was a genuine, honorable, honest effort. If
they do not like it and one gets discharged, that person can be
retried.
The decision is made, ``The case is being investigated or prosecuted
by a state which has jurisdiction over it unless the State is unwilling
or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation.'' Who decides if it
was a genuine investigation? A Chinese court?
The same means by which we were excluded from the Human Rights
Commission can exclude us from participation in this court, because one
becomes a member by the votes of the member states.
Now, the crime of aggression, maybe that is flying along the China
coast in international waters; maybe that is the crime of aggression to
some people. Why submit our people to this? It is alien.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to close.
Mr. Chairman, no Member of this body is in favor of having American
servicemen or servicewomen tried by an International Criminal Court. As
we outlined earlier, our service people abroad are tried by our own
military courts.
We are in favor of establishing an International Criminal Court
similar to the one at the end of the Second World War, the Nuremberg
Tribunal, and similar to the one currently dealing with international
criminals of the former Yugoslavia's bloodshed.
I ask my colleagues to vote against the DeLay amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Mr. DeLay in expressing
serious concern over the subject matter of his amendment, that is, the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
Considering the detestable substance of the balance of H.R. 1646,
fortunately, the underlying bill is silent on the ICC other than to
prohibit funds authorized for International Organizations from being
used to advance the International Criminal Court. As such, I have some
reservations with the amendment offered by Mr. DeLay because it singles
out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction
(thus violating the doctrine of equal protection), it supposes that if
the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, U.S. citizens would then be subject
to the court it creates, and it illegitimately delegates authority over
which U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC to the U.S. president.
Moreover, his amendment would authorize U.S. military actions to
``rescue'' citizens of allied countries from the grips of the ICC, even
if those countries had ratified the treaty. It may be better to remain
silent (as the bill does in this case) rather than lend this degree of
legitimacy to the ICC.
It is certainly my view (and that of the 21 cosponsors of my bill,
HCR 23), that the President should immediately declare to all nations
that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the
International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of
former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed
otherwise.
The problems with the ICC treaty and the ICC are numerous. The
International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International
Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the
ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide
for its national defense.
The term ``crimes of aggression'', as used in the treaty, is not
specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate
the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior
United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal
Court confirmation before engaging in military action--thereby putting
United States military officers in jeopardy of an International
Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty
creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United
States military personnel, could be brought before a court that
bypasses the due process requirements of the United States
Constitution.
The people of the United States are self-governing, and they have a
constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their
elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no
others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear
before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without
the rights and protections that the United States Constitution
guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from
double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one,
the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.
Today's amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case
with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens
to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252
U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey
v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government
may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the
United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize
what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal
Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths
of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution
clearly provides that ``[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States,'' and vested powers cannot be
transferred.
Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the
International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the
legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the
International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that
would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the
United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States
Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of
the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal
government's authority to ``treaty away.''
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United
States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States
Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates
the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and
popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all
nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify
the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty
should not be construed otherwise.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support
of the amendment offered by my colleague, Majority Whip Tom DeLay. This
amendment to H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act is
important if we are to overturn a last minute act by the previous
Administration. By signing the U.S. onto the International Criminal
Court just a few hours before leaving office, Mr. Clinton chose to
subject U.S. troops and our military actions to second guessing by
international judicial bureaucrats appointed by an international body.
Mr. DeLay's amendment provides legal protections to ensure that
American citizens, especially U.S. military personnel, are not
prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken
by them on behalf of the U.S. government. This amendment prohibits (1)
U.S. cooperation with the Court except to free American citizens or
those of our allies; and (2) providing classified information to the
court. In addition, it requires that countries receiving U.S. military
assistance (other than NATO, non-NATO allies and Taiwan) must exempt
Americans from prosecution or arrest by the court on their soil.
Finally, it requires that the U.N. Security Council exempt American
military personnel engaged in assessed U.N. peacekeeping operations
from prosecution by the Court.
A brief look at recent actions by the United Nations demonstrates how
foolish it would be to sign up to this treaty. The United Nations just
recently removed the United States from the Human Rights Commission,
and placed on
[[Page H2125]]
the commission Cuba, China and Sudan. Cuba is run by a dictator who has
no regard to human rights and imprisons people at his will. China
oppresses religious freedom and detains individuals without due
process. And, the government of Sudan has killed 2 million Christians
over the past few years. Sudan also still engages in slavery. Those who
are arguing that the United States should sign up to a treaty that
allows these nation's to put American citizens and service members on
trial, are putting these brave men and women in jeopardy.
The United Nations conference ignored U.S. objections and endorsed a
plan for establishing a permanent international criminal court. the
American representatives at the negotiations on this treaty, under
pressure from the Republicans in Congress, sought to obtain a guarantee
that U.S. military service personnel and agents could never be held
liable to this court. This was rejected. This represents a dangerous
potential for usurping national autonomy, and I will continue to work
to see that this proposal is fully rejected. Our Founding Fathers
warned us about foreign entanglements. Certainly, ceding national
autonomy falls into this category.
I will continue to oppose any effort to permit the U.S. to join this
``court.'' I am pleased that President bush has expressed his
objections, and the U.S. Senate has made it clear that it would reject
this treaty. Mr. DeLay's amendment will be an important step in
stopping this problematic agreement.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Delay
amendment to H.R. 1646.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) will be a permanent court to
try individuals, not countries, for the most serious crimes of concern
to the international community. These would be heinous crimes such as
genocide and widespread systematic torture and rape.
The horrendous crimes in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sierra Leon, Kosovo and far
too many other countries have awakened the international community to
the need to punish the criminals responsible for inhuman acts of
violence. The same concerns that led to the trials at Nuremberg and
Tokyo, the creation of ad hoc tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda, and the existence of established international criminal law
have made the ICC more feasible now.
The Court will hear a case only when no national court is available
or willing to hear it. In the case of the United States, our courts
would decide whether to try a case or submit it to the ICC. In theory
the ICC could try Americans. However, the ICC would only intervene when
the U.S. chooses to relinquish its right to try a case. In practical
terms, it is highly unlikely that the American judicial system would be
unwilling or unavailable to try a case.
Also, it is important to remember that Americans arrested abroad for
committing a crime are already subject to prosecution by other
countries. In the highly unlikely event of an American being arrested
abroad for war crimes, in many cases a trial in the ICC would be fairer
and the country might well agree to turn the accused over to the ICC.
The U.S. Government has taken great pains to require that the accused
receive a fair trial and be accorded the due process of law. The draft
statue defines the rights of the accused in accordance with the rights
guaranteed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the Declaration of Human Rights. They include the presumption of
innocence, the right to counsel, the right to confront one's accusers,
and the right to a speedy trial.
I support the U.S. participation in the ICC as well as all efforts
that seeks justice for the victims of genocide, torture, rape and
systematic violence against civilian men, women and children.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 107-62.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hyde
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hyde:
Page 76, after line 12, insert the following new subsection
(and redesignate the subsequent subsections accordingly):
(a) Additional Restriction on Release of Arrearage Payments
Relating to United States Membership on the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights and Use of Secret Ballots.--In
addition to the satisfaction of all other preconditions
applicable to the obligation and expenditure of funds
authorized to be appropriated by section 911(a)(3) of the
United Nations Reform Act of 1999, such funds may not be
obligated or expended until the Secretary of State certifies
to the appropriate congressional committees that--
(1) the United States has obtained full membership on the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights for a term
commencing after May 3, 2001; and
(2)(A) neither the United Nations nor any specialized
agency of the United Nations takes any action or exercises
any authority by any vote of the membership of the body by a
secret ballot which prevents the identification of each vote
with the member casting the ballot; or
(B) a detailed analysis of voting within the United Nations
and specialized agencies of the United Nations has
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State
that the use of secret ballots can serve the interests of the
United States and that analysis has been transmitted to the
appropriate congressional committees.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes
of my time on this amendment to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) and that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires that the final tranche of
arrearage payments to the United Nations and other designated agencies
be contingent upon a certification by the Secretary of State that the
United States has regained its seat on the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights.
I urge support for this amendment that expresses our strongest
possible concern over the vote on May 4 by the 53 members of the U.N.
Economic and Social Council to remove the U.S. from its seat on the
Human Rights Commission, a seat I might add that we have held
continuously since the Commission's inception in 1947.
Let there be no mistake about the message being sent to the U.S. with
this unprecedented action to remove our strong and uncompromising voice
from the proceedings of this body. This is a deliberate attempt to
punish the United States for its insistence that we tell the truth
about human rights abuses, wherever they occur; including in those
countries represented on the Commission such as China and Cuba.
The U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, spoke for many other member
states when he noted in a statement in the aftermath of this vote that
the United States has played a leading role over the years in drafting
landmark documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and has been a key member of the Commission. The U.S. made a major
contribution to the work of the United Nations in the field of human
rights.
In response to this inexplicable and inexcusable decision, it is
appropriate that the U.S. send its own message to U.N. member states,
and particularly the members of the western European group. If allowed
to stand, this decision threatens to turn the Human Rights Commission
into just one more irrelevant international organization.
If our voice is stilled, other countries will have even greater
difficulty in speaking openly and plainly about rampant human rights
abuses around the world.
The adoption of this amendment will assist the administration in its
efforts to take whatever steps are necessary over the next year to
restore our voice and vote in this body.
To those critics who say we are overreaching and overreacting, I
would argue that to do anything less would be a repudiation of our own
values and principles of freedom, democracy, and respect for human
rights enshrined in the U.N. Charter and in our own Constitution.
I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I am so pleased to share
its authorship with the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2126]]
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is
recognized for 20 minutes.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment, and
I find myself in agreement with the Bush administration on this issue.
I agree that the United Nations has a poor record in some important
areas. All we need to do is look at United Nations behavior in Rwanda
and Srebrenica where it aided and abetted in the needless slaughter of
1 million Rwandans and thousands of Bosniacs. Even that, however, is no
reason to withhold paying back dues that the United States owes to the
United Nations.
How can we expect the United Nations to improve its performance or to
respect us if we go back on our word and refuse to pay our bills?
I know that Secretary of State Colin Powell would never agree with
going back on our word to the world community, but that is exactly what
this amendment will do.
President Bush's spokesperson said yesterday, ``While the United
States is disappointed with the results of the Human Rights Commission
election, the President feels strongly that this issue should not be
linked to the payment of our arrears to the U.N. and other
international organizations.''
However, it is important that while we talk today about human rights
around the world and human rights abusers, and even human rights
abusers who now sit on the United Nations Human Rights Commission, we
must also talk about ourselves.
{time} 1230
We cannot continually stand before the world community with finger
pointed outward while never looking inward. And look inward we must. We
must look at the way we treat others in our foreign policy, and we must
look at the way we treat our own citizens right here in this country.
Christopher Hitchens has written a powerful piece on Henry
Kissinger's policies that resulted in deaths all over Asia, in Vietnam,
in Indonesia, in East Timor. Hitchens also discusses U.S. policy in
Chile. Problems created decades ago that we still suffer the
repercussions of today.
I have written tomes myself in disgust at Madeleine Albright's Africa
policy, which had the U.S. join hands with hand choppers and rapists of
little 12-year-old girls in Sierra Leone, purposely delayed U.S.
response in the Rwanda genocide, and then rewarded those at the U.N.
and inside our own government who turned a blind eye to what was
happening in Africa's Great Lakes region.
Africa is still suffering from what we did not do to help people who
wanted to escape dictatorship and establish democracy and the rule of
law. What other suffering will we create or ignore?
But then I cannot talk about the U.S. position on human rights
without discussing what is happening right here in America. What about
the human rights of America's black men who are dying on the streets?
What about the human rights of America's black people?
On the streets of America, I see homelessness and poverty. Here in
the Nation's Capital, I see black man after black man after black man
sleeping on the streets. They sleep in makeshift cardboard beds, they
sleep on sidewalk benches, over heating grates, and under bridges.
Black women lie clad in newspapers during the night on the same block
as the White House. They are discarded like trash on the streets of
America.
On the streets of America, I see racial profiling. The Justice
Department admits that blacks are more likely than whites to be pulled
over by police, imprisoned, and even put to death. Yet only 2 days ago
a Cincinnati grand jury offered the equivalent of a holiday vacation
for a white police officer in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black
man.
Another black man last week was driving his fiance's 10- and 8-year-
old daughters to school. He was approached by a white policeman, who
pulled his gun and shot him in the neck, killing him instantly as the
two little girls ran screaming in horror down the street.
The FBI said blacks and whites have about the same rate of drug use,
yet while the majority of people arrested for drug abuse are white, the
vast majority of those incarcerated are black.
Government studies on health disparities confirm that blacks are less
likely to receive surgery, transplants, even prescription drugs, than
whites. A black baby boy born in Harlem today has less chance to reach
the age of 5 than a baby born in Bangladesh.
I serve in the Congress where the Congressional Black Caucus is
shrinking, and yet sections of the Voting Rights Act will soon expire,
and, quite frankly, after crippling Supreme Court decisions, there is
not much left of affirmative action to mend.
I believe this state of affairs is no accident. We are what we are
because it was meant to be.
In the FBI's own words, its counterintelligence program, then known
as COINTELPRO, had as a goal to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit
or otherwise neutralize the activities of black organizations and to
prevent and, I quote, black ``leaders from gaining respectability.''
We need only remember that Geronimo Pratt spent 27 years in prison
for a crime that he did not commit.
Twenty-six black men were executed in the year 2000. Some of them
were probably innocent. And we started this year by executing a
mentally retarded black woman.
Now the Bush administration tells us that they are not going to
participate in the United Nations Conference on Racism scheduled to
take place in the Republic of South Africa in August of this year. I
say shame on the Bush Administration for boycotting the United Nations
Conference on Racism, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that my good friend the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I had to offer this amendment to condition our
U.N. arrears payment on the resumption of our membership on the U.N.
Human Rights Commission.
I think it is important to analyze what happened at the vote in
Geneva carefully. There are three seats reserved for the western
nations and there were four candidates. I predict that every single
time this should happen in the future, we will be rejected, because we
are the most articulate and principled and outspoken proponents of
human rights.
Austria does not irritate anybody. The Austrians are getting the
votes, but the United States is not getting the votes, because we speak
out on human rights violations in Cuba and China and Sudan and Libya
and Syria and all over the world. And there are many more human rights
violators, Mr. Chairman, than countries that honor human rights.
So in a very fundamental and mechanical sense, the failure of our
being on the Human Rights Commission as we speak is the result of the
failure of our European friends to act together; and I hope that next
year when this similar vote will take place, they will designate only
two of their members, so the United States will be the third one and we
will be voted again to serve on the Human Rights Commission of which we
have been, since its inception, the single most important, most
powerful, and most principled member.
It is a separate issue, Mr. Chairman, that 14 members apparently who
have given our Department of State written assurances that they will
vote for us, taking advantage of the secret ballot, chose not to do so.
Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and I are proposing
a reasonable and moderate amendment. Our amendment calls for paying our
current tranche which is due, almost $600 million, without any delay,
and to make our last payment, over $200 million, contingent upon the
United States being voted back on to the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to have a lengthy telephone
conversation with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi
Annan; and I explained to him the procedure, which he clearly
understands. It is our intention to pay every dime
[[Page H2127]]
we owe the United Nations, but we will simply not turn the other cheek
as the Sudans and the Lybias of this world declare the United States
unfit to serve on the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.
One important provision of our legislation calls on our
representative at the U.N. to insist that no nation may serve on the
U.N. Human Rights Commission that does not allow on its territory
international human rights monitors. When this provision prevails, the
Cubas and the Chinas and the Sudans and the Lybias of this world will
have no opportunity to serve on the Human Rights Commission.
The Hyde-Lantos amendment is a reasonable response to an outrage that
was perpetrated in Geneva. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, with great pleasure, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment.
The failure of the U.N. to reelect our Nation to the Human Rights
Commission is outrageous. Our Nation has been a member of the
commission since 1946. Our Nation is being penalized obviously for
speaking out for human rights abuses.
This commission has become a refuge for despots and scoundrels,
indicative of our Nation's inattention to this problem for the past 8
years, regrettably allowing powerful nations such as China to dominate
the commission.
The Human Rights Commission has become a closely knit group of human
rights abusers. The Chinese, Cuban, Libyan, and Syrian commission
members have incarcerated thousands of political prisoners. It is
hypocritical that Sudan, which practices slavery, is also a commission
member.
Denying our Nation membership while allowing those despotic
governments to become members underscores that we have not effectively
challenged those dictatorships.
This is truly a sad day for democracy, for the rule of law, and for
the United States. Accordingly, I strongly urge support for the Hyde-
Lantos-Sweeney amendment.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield such time as
she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time and for her leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Hyde-Lantos-
Sweeney amendment, which withholds U.S. payments to the United Nations
in retaliation for the removal of the U.S. from the Human Rights
Commission.
Although I share the displeasure of the chair and ranking member of
the Committee on International Relations on the loss of the United
States' seat, payment of arrears to the U.N. should not be jeopardized
in retribution.
This action would be unfairly punitive. The United Nations does not
nominate nor elect members to the commission. The 54 members of the
U.N. Economic and Social Council elect members of the commission in a
secret ballot. Payment of our long-standing debt to the U.N. should not
be jeopardized, particularly at a time when the United Nations has met
nearly every condition of the Helms-Biden agreement.
A deal is a deal. The U.S. agreed to pay nearly $1 billion in debt to
the U.N. if the U.N. met certain conditions. The United Nations has
kept their end of the deal.
We demanded that the U.N. reduce the amount the U.S. pays to the U.N.
regular budget, and the U.N. did. We demanded that they reduce the
amount the U.S. pays to the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and the U.N. did.
We demanded they form an Office of Inspector General, and they did. We
demanded they maintain a zero growth budget, and they did. We demanded
that they did not charge us interest on the delinquent bills, and they
have not charged interest.
Now, after the United Nations has met all of our demands and it is
our time to honor our commitment, we have new demands.
It is not even logical. The United Nations did not remove the United
States from the Human Rights Commission. That action was by the 54
member states of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. It is not fair.
To penalize the U.N. for the actions of individual member states
violates every sense of fair play. It is like failing the whole class
for the actions of one child.
{time} 1245
My opponents here today will say that the U.S. deserves a seat on the
commission, and it does. But the U.N. cannot put us back on the
commission any more than they could prevent us from being taken off. So
why penalize the U.N.?
Also, it is not productive. Requiring new conditions for payment of a
longstanding debt when a deal has already been made will not only not
win us back a seat, but could very well jeopardize our relations with
the very nations who we need to vote in favor of us to put us back on
the commission.
Secretary of State Colin Powell does not want additional conditions.
President Bush does not want additional conditions. These are the
people charged with implementing our Nation's foreign policy. Just
yesterday, the President spokesperson said, and I quote, ``The whole
question of arrears and payment to the United Nations, that is separate
and apart from this current matter.''
The Atlanta Constitution wrote a long statement, but I will just
quote a short part: ``Unfortunately, Members of the House are
threatening to `get back' by withholding U.N. dues. Seeking retribution
against the world body is the wrong reaction from Congress or the
administration. After all, it wasn't just U.S. detractors who
participated in the coup, but also some of our allies: France, Sweden
and Austria, who didn't cast enough votes to help the U.S. retain a
seat.''
The Los Angeles Times wrote on May 10, and I quote: ``Members of the
House, angry that the United States last night lost its seat on the
U.N. Human Rights Commission, want to withhold a further planned U.N.
payment of $244 million unless the seat is restored next year. It's
hard to conceive of anything more foolish than making payment of a
legitimate debt conditional on an action by a subsidiary U.N. body that
the U.N. doesn't even control.''
The New York Times wrote on May 5: ``Such a response would ignore the
underlying issues that caused the revolt and only worsen American
relations with the United Nations. Payment of Washington's back dues is
vital to maintaining American influence in the U.N.''
And the San Francisco Chronicle's headline today says, ``U.S. Should
Pay Its Dues.''
It sort of reminds me of the old book, everything I learned in
kindergarten is all I need to conduct my life in a reasonable way. We
made a deal. They have held up to their end of the deal. It is wrong
for us to turn around and change the rules.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of the Bush administration
urging that we live up to our end of the commitment and pay our dues at
the United Nations. I oppose the Hyde-Lantos amendment and other
conditions put on this requirement that we have agreed to.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and I would
like to respond to some of these editorials.
Some of us do not accept the sanctity of our Western European
friends. They would stand on firmer moral ground if they would stand
with the United States in our dealings with Iran or Iraq or Syria or
other totalitarian states. Actions have consequences. The United States
was fully prepared to make these payments, but the situation has
changed with encouragement on the part of some of our ``friends.''
There is great glee that the United States was booted off the U.N.
Human Rights Commission where unquestionably we were the most
important, most valuable, most articulate, and most principal member
for over half a century.
And while I am very pleased to see my friend defending the Bush
administration in this instance, I do not. I believe the Bush
administration is dead wrong in saying that we should turn
[[Page H2128]]
the other cheek. Actions have consequences. We had an arrogant and
irresponsible action: booting the leading champion of human rights off
the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) and I am proposing a modest response, a temporary withholding of
a portion of our dues. Our U.N. fellow members have an option. If they
would like to get this payment, they will vote the United States back
on to the Commission. If they do not, it will cost them $244 million.
And I urge France or Austria or anybody else to come up with that
money, because certainly the United Nations needs those funds.
I think it is important that we do not engage in blaming the United
States first. We are the least responsible party for this action. The
people who are responsible for this action are the Chinese, who went
around trying to get votes against us by economic incentives and by
threats; the Cubans, who did the same; and a number of our quote-
unquote ``friends,'' who shall remain nameless.
Mr. Chairman, I proudly join my friend, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) in this measure. This will teach countries a lesson: actions
have consequences. They have taken an irresponsible action, and we are
giving them an opportunity to rectify it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sweeney).
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond as well to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), my friend and colleague, from
the perspective that I am pleased to join the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) as a sponsor on
this amendment.
The notion that what we are doing here is somehow a violation of fair
play is really quite foreign to me at this point. What we are doing in
bringing this amendment forward is disallowing the Libyans, the
Chinese, those in Sudan and those who throughout the world want to sit
in judgment of human rights violations and sit in judgment by excluding
and pushing the United States out from that conversation.
This amendment is about fighting and protecting human rights
throughout the world, Mr. Chairman. Secret ballots at the United
Nations enable human rights violators and those who impede our ability
to combat international narcotics and other important causes, they push
us from that debate and that argument.
So I am proud to come forward and offer this amendment, because after
all, the greatest sense of leverage we have as a Nation is the fact
that we contribute 25 percent for the activities at the United Nations.
To not have the United States sitting on the Human Rights Commission is
a travesty.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am outraged by what happened at the United Nations. I
am as outraged as anyone. I am cochair of the U.N. Working Group, along
with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman form Iowa (Mr. Leach). The
U.N. certainly is not always right, and in this instance they are
absolutely wrong and it is absolutely outrageous.
But in trying to weigh what our reaction should be, I come down on
the opposite side of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sweeney), my good friends, because I do not believe that trying to
blackmail nations into supporting us ever really works. I think that
that is really not the way to go.
I agree with everything the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
said, and I have more respect for him than almost anyone else in this
body when it comes to these matters, and he was right on the money in
everything he says; but I just think that our reaction ought to be
different.
There has been a buildup of anger at the United States because
frankly, we have not been paying our dues. I know we are on track to do
it now, but it was a long struggle; and it was many, many years before
we went on track. There has been anti-U.N. rhetoric from this body and
in other places, and there is some anger at the fact that we have not
ratified at a convention on the rights of a child, banning land mines,
the Kyoto Protocol and other treaties as well. That is not an excuse
for the U.N., but the question is, how do we react? How do we react to
this at all?
I do not believe that these votes at the U.N. should be linked to the
payment of arrears. We owe them money, and we ought to pay it. We ought
to express our outrage. There are other ways to do it. I do not think
that withholding the money is the right way to go.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, for whom I have enormous respect, said, frankly,
somebody was not watching the store. We could point fingers at
everybody and do a lot of fingerpointing all the way around, but that
really does not have any beneficial effect. We have made our point
known. The administration, the Bush administration, opposes this
amendment. We have to now decide what the best way to go is. I just
think that this may do us a lot of good in expressing our personal
pique, but I think in the long run it is counterproductive.
So I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and colleague.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the premise that the United
States should participate in the United Nations and that if we want to
maintain our leadership role that we ought to pay our dues. I must say,
therefore, that I am ambivalent on the means used in this resolution,
but I am not ambivalent at all on the sentiments and the point that it
makes.
I rise, therefore, in support of the intent of this resolution. I
have not decided, frankly, how I am going to vote, but there ought to
be 435 of us who, in the strongest possible terms, say that this was an
act of a commission that knows that it is the United States day after
day, week after week, month after month, in every forum in the world,
the OSCE, the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I participate in on a
year-round basis; the chairman of the committee has participated in
that heavily, as has the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the
former chairman; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
This was an act perpetrated, frankly, by the abusers of human rights,
by those who would like to hide the abuses that exist in so many parts
of this world; that would like to hide the shortcomings to
international standards that so many nations demonstrate. That ought
not to be left to stand. The exclusion of the United States from the
Human Rights Commission, the one Nation that consistently raises the
issue of human rights around the world, and yes, even in the United
States.
So I applaud the sponsors of this resolution for raising for the rest
of the world and for our country how critically we view this issue.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.
{time} 1300
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hyde) for yielding the time to me.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, this is a serious matter. I want to thank
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, for bringing this to the
floor.
Mr. Chairman, I look around this Chamber and I see the Members of
this body that have traveled the globe out of concern to speak up for
human rights, to reach out a hand of comfort and support and
encouragement for the
[[Page H2129]]
beleaguered people across this globe repeatedly.
Year in and year out, our Members from this Chamber make that trek to
show that America knows and America cares. I look across this country
and I see the heart of the American people that reaches out to all the
world for freedom, dignity, justice, respect.
I look across this Nation's history and I find a legacy of courage,
commitment, sacrifice. This Nation has lent its heroes to the cause of
liberty on behalf of the nations of all the world time and time again.
Without this Nation's leadership, there would be no United Nations.
Without this Nation's participation, the United Nations could not
endure to this day. The United Nations expels this Nation, the greatest
Nation in the history of the world, for the defense and protection of
human rights from the very commission whose only sacred purpose is to
be the guardian and the protector of human rights and in its stead
places what can only be judged the world's worst perpetrator.
The horrors of Sudan will break your heart, the slavery. Slavery, we
thought perhaps that was gone from this globe; it should be gone. The
religious persecution, the murders, the torture that happens in Sudan
should be the object of investigation of this commission and should be
the object of this commission's scorn, yet they put this nation, this
unholy nation, on that commission.
Yes. We should be outraged even more for that inclusion than for the
exclusion of this great Nation. And Libya, scarcely any better.
My colleagues say what should be our response? Our response should be
that the taxpayers, the heroes of this great Nation who care so much,
will not provide as a matter of patronage support to an institution
that makes a mockery out of the concern for human rights and makes of
itself a farce in that theater.
Mr. Chairman, yes, we are here right today doing the right thing. And
I implore my colleagues, if my colleagues believe in the cause of
liberty, freedom, safety, security, respect and decency, vote yes for
this amendment. Send the world a message, America cares and America
dares to stand up for any lost soul, beleaguered and tortured in any
part of the world at any time and even in the case of the most callous
affront that I have seen from this United Nations in my lifetime.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, George Bush said it well when he said that we do not
need to do this. A superpower pays its bills. A superpower leads by
example. A superpower does not cry when it does not get its way and
then go and take all the marbles. Already this tit-for-tat mentality
has resulted in the Bush administration canceling administration
appointments with visiting members of the European parliament.
I met with them yesterday and I am sure that they enjoyed meeting
with me but I am not the same as meeting with the administration on
very, very important and critical issues that pertain to the
relationship between the United States and Europe, that very
relationship that we are talking about today.
Those members of parliament are going to go back to Europe, and they
are going to write a report that is critical of the United States. So,
yet again, we are going to involve ourselves in this tit-for-tat
mentality that has the potential of spiralling out of control into the
absurd.
The last thing we need is for Congress to add fuel to the fire. We
need to pay our bills. We need to participate in the United Nations. We
need to help change those things that need to be corrected, and we need
to do it through diplomacy not by going back on our word.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and
agree with the Bush administration that the last thing we need it do is
withhold funds that the United Nations severely needs that will result
in us going back on our word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois
(Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for
bringing up this important bill.
I agree with my colleagues in the condemnation of what happened at
the United Nations at the hands and behest of China, Cuba, and other
abusers of human rights. It is remarkable that the values of Sudan are
now replacing the values of the United States at the United Nations in
the human rights matters; a country that has already killed 2 million
of their own occupants; a country that sells children to slavery for as
little as $23; a country that, of course, crucifies children as young
as 12 years old, 13 years old, 14 years old that refused to convert to
Islam; a country this year that is holding back food aid unless people
convert to the religion of their choice.
The only thing I find humorous are the excuses for expulsion of the
United States, Kyoto, family planning, SDI. Come on, give me a break.
This is all about the fact that the United States has dared to stand
down China, dared to stand down Sudan, Libya, other human rights
abusers.
That is all it is about. That is why we are out and that why is why
France, who has constantly played to Third World dictators and tyrants
got the most votes. Maybe that is not politically correct to say. It is
the truth though.
Chris Matthews last week said in response to this that the U.S.
practically invented human rights. I know that sounds arrogant maybe to
some of our friends in Europe who were offended, and they are going to
go back and write reports about how they are offended at the United
States.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the United Nations Economic
and Social Council, ECOSOC, took an action again that raises grave
doubts about what kind of organization it is.
During the last 6 days, editorial writers all across this country
been working overtime to try and explain away the outrageous vote to
deprive the U.S. of its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission. As
always, they are saying that it was the Kyoto treatment or the criminal
court or somehow if we just paid our arrearages a little faster the
problem would be solved. These are bogus, false pretenses, Mr.
Chairman.
The real reason why we have been thrown off the U.N. Human Rights
Commission is because they want to silence what is clearly the
strongest voice on the Commission in favor of human rights. The U.S.
has insisted that the Commission tell the honest and unvarnished truth
about human rights violations the world over. Some of the other nations
on the commission, such as China, Cuba, Vietnam, Malaysia, Libya,
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and now Sudan, have problems with the truth--
especially at it pertains to human rights.
Mr. Chairman, instead of excluding countries from the U.N. Human
Rights Commission because they are too strong on human rights, the U.N.
should be concerned about excluding governments that routinely engage
in torture, extrajudicial killings, rape as an instrument of terror,
forced abortions, sterilization, and other kinds of discriminations.
I urge a yes vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress voted to resolve the dispute
over so-called ``United Nations arrearages''. The agreement was simple:
we would pay almost all of the disputed amount, provided the United
Nations would agree to treat the United States more fairly when it came
to dues, peacekeeping assessments, and other issues--and provided the
UN would also take concrete steps to put its own house in order.
Then the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) took an action
that again raises grave doubts about what kind of an organization it
is. During the last six days, Mr. Chairman, editorial writers have been
working overtime trying to explain away the outrageous vote to deprive
the United States of the seat it has held since 1947 on the U.N. Human
Rights Commission. As always, the central theme of these editorials is
to blame America first. If only we had ratified the Kyoto Convention,
or the CEDAW agreement, or the International Criminal Court. Or if only
we had paid those disputed arrearages a little quicker. If only we had
not been so ``unilateral'' which is the most bogus of all. Then perhaps
we would have stayed in the good graces of ECOSOC and kept our seat on
the Human Rights Commission.
[[Page H2130]]
Mr. Chairman, the editorial writers are even more wrong this time
than they usually are. The vote to exclude the United States from the
Commission was primarily a vote to silence the strongest voice on the
Commission in favor of human rights. The United States has insisted
that the commission tell the honest and unvarnished truth about human
rights violations the world over. And some of the other nations on the
Commission, such as China, Cuba, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Libya, Algeria,
Saudi Arabia, and now Sudan, have problems with the truth.
Mr. Chairman, not only did this year's Human Rights Commission
members vote for a ``no-action motion'' that prevented the Commission
from even debating the human rights record of the People's Republic of
China. It also voted for a resolution on Sudan that did not even
mention the word ``slavery,'' and for a resolution on the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict that did not mention human rights violations
committed by the Palestinian Authority. I was there in Geneva with
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart--we are resented for sadly
raising true issues.
Mr. Chairman, instead of excluding countries from the Human Rights
Commission because they are too strong on human rights, the U.N. should
be concerned about excluding governments that routinely engage in
torture, extrajudicial killing, rape as an instrument of terror, forced
abortion, forced sterilization, and other forms of persecution on
account of race, religion, or political opinion. If being in arrears
can result in the loss of a vote in the General Assembly--which is the
rule--surely barbaric behavior should disqualify a nation from the U.N.
Human Rights Commission. Without these important reforms, the
Commission will be in grave danger of becoming, as our colleague Mr.
Diaz-Balart has observed, no more than a ``club of tyrannies.''
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
Page 16, strike line 21 and all that follows through line
10 on page 17.
Page 117, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 2
on page 119.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, during committee consideration of this bill, an en bloc
amendment was adopted authorizing the $67 million per year that it
would cost the United States to rejoin UNESCO and added a sense of
Congress provision that the President should renew the membership and
participation of the U.S. in this organization.
My amendment would strike these provisions from the bill. I am well
aware that several of my colleagues have argued that this agency has
reformed itself over the past 15 years, but serious arguments against
rejoining UNESCO remains. I believe that UNESCO can best be described
as an organization in search of a mission. Unfortunately when it does
stumble upon the mission, it is almost always one that is quite
perverse.
As I mentioned just a minute ago, it would cost us some $67 million
per year to get back in; and I question whether this is a wise use of
resources.
David Malone, the president of the International Peace Academy in New
York and a former Canadian Foreign Ministry official, is not optimistic
about the prospects for reform by the new Director General of UNESCO,
Mr. Koichiro Matsura of Japan, ``the problem of UNESCO is that
successive heads have turned it into a personal patronage machine,
neglecting programs and bloating the staffing.'' Mr. Malone went on to
say, ``we used to all know what the UNESCO objectives were. Now nobody
knows what UNESCO does beyond the World Heritage sites, and whoever
consults UNESCO now on science?''
By the way, UNESCO is the organization that has charge of the man and
the biosphere sites, another one of those peculiar entities that this
House, by the way, has struck down several times.
An article from The New York Times from March of last year reported
that the new director general plans to use millions of dollars of his
organization's funds to help restore colonial Havana. It is not at all
clear to me why we should be rejoining an organization which is
promoting tourism in Cuba.
According to an independent audit by the Canadian government, UNESCO
rarely evaluates the cost effectiveness of its programs or sets
specific objectives. It is an annual budget of close to $400 million.
It continues to promote such things as the New World Information Order.
This is the name of this organization, quote, ``Presenting and
Revitalizing Our Intangible Heritage'' and ``Planet Society, a
Worldwide Exchange Network for a New Art of Living on Earth.''
One of the arguments of the proponents of rejoining UNESCO appears to
be based on the principle that the U.S. should be a member of every
major organization in the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, in light of our
summary exclusion from U.N. Economic and Social Council, the
International Narcotics and Drug Control Board and the Commission on
Human Rights, now is the time to critically review our existing
memberships in the United Nations organizations and not the time to
rejoin another U.N. body at enormous expense.
Finally, the U.S. government now gives $2 million to $3 million
annually to UNESCO in voluntary contributions to cover projects we
believe to be worthwhile. If we were to rejoin, we would be obliged to
fund the good and the bad alike.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), whose action was strongly approved by
members of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding time on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that UNESCO is the most important
international body that has ever been created. I can say it is a
credible international body. The United States chose to withdraw from
UNESCO in the 1980s for a variety of reasons. Some stem from management
styles; some stem from politicalization on several kinds of issues. But
in each of these circumstances, there has been reform.
We object to not being reelected to another U.N. body and we may be,
in the eyes of some, poor losers.
{time} 1315
But the fact of the matter is, in UNESCO, we are a poor winner. We
have achieved the objectives we wanted. Not to return implies that,
when the United States gets its way, we continue to put our head in the
sand.
It is interesting that Secretary of State George Shultz, who signed
the withdrawal notice in the 1980s, now supports returning. There are
188 member nations of UNESCO. While UNESCO does have a cost, for the
United States to say we cannot afford our share is a bit awkward for
the world's wealthiest country.
I do acknowledge that there is a costliness of Paris. Having said
that, France was our first ally. For the United States simply to be
opposed to institutions in Paris is not a very credible circumstance.
Finally, let me say education, science, culture are esoteric. On the
other hand, they matter in the world. For the United States of America
to argue we are better off with empty chair diplomacy is an error if
not an oxymoron. Therefore, for very decent, credible reasons that
apply to UNESCO itself but also have ramifications for our whole role
in international organizations in the world today, it is very
[[Page H2131]]
appropriate for the United States to resume a world leadership
position. That is exactly what we should do.
Therefore, with great respect, I hope this amendment would be turned
back.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Tancredo
amendment which would strike an ill-advised provision of the foreign
relations authorization bill.
It is regrettable that the authorization bill provides for the United
States to rejoin UNESCO and set aside funds for that purpose from a
strained international organization's budget. Whatever funding we give
to UNESCO would have to come from other U.N. agencies such as the World
Health Organization or the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Furthermore, UNESCO continues to be plagued with poor management
practices.
The world has struggled on without American membership in UNESCO
since 1984 without any noticeable effect. We do, however, participate
on a voluntary basis in several UNESCO projects that directly benefit
American institutions. If we were now to rejoin UNESCO, we would be
putting ourselves in a position of being forced to bear a large portion
of a budget in an institution where we would be constantly outvoted.
This is just the sort of a situation that the recent fiasco
surrounding our U.N. Human Rights Commission membership should warn us
against being forced to bear costs all out of proportion to any
influence we may have to bear.
Hopefully, if the administration will consider and report on the best
way to change our relationship to UNESCO, it would be helpful. But I am
simply not prepared at this time to accept the provision reported by
our committee.
Accordingly, I urge support for the Tancredo amendment striking the
UNESCO provision from the authorization bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, arguably the most respected Republican Secretary of
State of recent decades is George Shultz. In 1984, Secretary Shultz
recommended that we withdraw from the United Nations; and many of us,
myself included, supported him because the UNESCO at that time was a
corrupt anti-American organization. It has cleaned up its act. Our
former Secretary of State, Republican George Shultz, and our former
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Democrat, are recommending now
that we rejoin UNESCO.
I find it almost ludicrous that we spent the previous hour debating
the United States being voted off a U.N. body. Here we have an
opportunity of joining a U.N. body, the Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization. It is waiting for us with open arms.
We are debating as to whether we should enter an organization which
has over 180 members. The United States is conspicuous by its absence,
and the lack of a United States voice on UNESCO is hurting our foreign
policy and international interests.
I urge all of my colleagues to reject the amendment of the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), to preserve the action taken in the
Committee on International Relations, and usher in a new era of U.S.
participation in UNESCO.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, section 104 would provide an
enormous amount of money, $130 million over 2 years. That is more than
half a billion dollars over 10 years, $60 million a year thereafter for
the U.S. to become a part of UNESCO.
The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to strike
this new commitment of funds is prudent, and I believe it deserves
support of this body. It seems to me that, before we make this enormous
financial commitment, should not we know the cost benefit of this open-
ended commitment? How vital is UNESCO vis-a-vis other commitments that
we might make otherwise?
We left, Mr. Chairman, in 1984, because of mismanagement, because of
highly questionable policies especially in the realm of state control
of the press.
I would point out to my colleagues no recent hearings have been held
on rejoining. What is it that we are buying into? We need, it seems to
me, a generous amount of due diligence before any decision is made on
this.
I would just note parenthetically that, if we have a half a billion
dollars over the next 10 years and it is in excess of that lying
around, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have some
very, very worthy projects in the area of health care that I would like
to dedicate that money to before we start throwing money at UNESCO.
So I would hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) would get the support of this body.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, whatever any American may have thought about UNESCO
when the U.S. withdrew in 1984, today UNESCO is a different body. It
has adopted a culture of reform that is improving management and
streamlining personnel and putting the organization's finances in
order. Today UNESCO is an efficient and effective advocate for free
speech, for education and scientific collaboration worldwide.
Membership in UNESCO would benefit every American.
As the gentleman friend from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out,
even former Secretary Shultz, who presided over U.S. withdrawal, now
has reversed his position, has indicated that the improvements call for
reentry of U.S. into UNESCO.
Now, as a scientist and a policy maker, I believe that UNESCO would
lead, of course, to cultural enrichment but even more. CIA director
George Tenet recently testified that some of the greatest threats to
the U.S. from abroad come from official corruption, endemic poverty,
mass illiteracy, environmental disruption, and the spread of infectious
diseases. UNESCO addresses these emerging threats by promoting good
government, universal education, sustainable development, and disease
control.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Tancredo amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this
amendment. If one takes a look across this country, and people talk
about reducing the debt, they talk about money for education, health
care, but yet they want to put $1 billion into the United Nations. They
want to spend $67 million a year for UNESCO.
I mean, think about it. That money is going to take away from the
World Health Fund. It is going to take away from the Children's Fund
and things that are effective to a risky scheme like UNESCO that they
say, quote, has changed. It has not.
The authors of this amendment have thought it through very, very
carefully. It is no wonder that there was never a balanced budget on
this House floor for 40 years or people wanted to dump money into
welfare without reform when the average was 16 years on welfare. We owe
it to the American people to be the guardians of their tax dollars and
the effectiveness of those dollars.
Support the Tancredo amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in firm opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
When the United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984, I believe we did
so for the right reasons. Mismanagement and corruption characterized an
organization best known for being a forum for American bashing.
Today UNESCO is not the same as it was in 1984. This organization is
making important contributions in the
[[Page H2132]]
area of education and science around the world. The U.S. participation
in such an organization can only strengthen its ability to carry out
the fine work it performs every day. In fact, the United Kingdom, which
also withdrew its support from UNESCO in step with the United States in
1984, had returned as a full member of this worthy organization.
The recent decision by the Taliban government in Afghanistan to
destroy the historical Buddhist statues demonstrates that the
preservation and restoration of cultural treasures sometimes cannot be
left solely in the hands of national governments. From preserving these
statues to preserving Timbuktu, the role of UNESCO is still important
today.
During a week in which we lost two important seats on the United
Nations commissions, it is important we send a message to the
international community that the United States is ready and willing to
participate whenever it is called to duty.
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just note in response to my colleagues
discussion here that I do not believe the Taliban asked permission from
UNESCO when they blew up those statues, and of course they never would.
That is the whole point here. UNESCO is irrelevant in this whole
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the committee.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my unqualified support for the
Tancredo amendment. There are one or two organizations in the world we
do not have to join and do not have to subsidize to survive, and one is
certainly UNESCO.
$65 million a year at least for 2 years takes money away from the
World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization,
things that are useful, that do have an agenda, that works for the
people.
This money the State Department does not want, has not asked for it.
If we go ahead with this, we are going to have to take it from
something else. We withdrew in 1984, and we have gotten along famously
since then without this heavy subsidization to an organization whose
aims are amorphous at best.
One of the things they do, I find this hard to believe, is they are
engaged in a project of renovating downtown Havana. Now, that may be a
wonderful thing if one lives in Havana, but I do not see why the
taxpayers from my district should pay for something like that.
The sense of taking money away because of the Human Rights Commission
and thrusting it forward because someone thinks it is a good idea to
belong to UNESCO does not make a lot of sense. I think we can save the
$65 million. What a wonderful thing that would be.
We do not need to join UNESCO. Let those other countries that like
that sort of thing do it. So I would support the Tancredo amendment
with great enthusiasm.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me applaud both the chairman
and the ranking member for bringing this important legislation to the
floor of the House.
I think if one asks the American people, one will find out that the
American people are concerned about world affairs; and to dismiss the
myth, they are concerned and they want to be engaged.
So I come to the floor of the House to, first of all, support the
United Nations and offer the fact that we are engaged, we are in
conversation, we are speaking to individuals in countries that we
heretofore have opportunity.
World peace is truly more viable than world war. I think it is
important to support UNESCO. We need to understand what it does. It
promotes free press. It promotes education. It only costs 25 cents per
American. It allows us to promote the cultural values of these Nations
and have the cultural exchange of these Nations.
{time} 1330
And I believe that we should stand here today and acknowledge the
importance of world affairs, the importance of America being engaged in
world affairs, the importance of freedom, and the importance of the
United Nations. And I hope as we do that, we will find that this Nation
will get its seat on the Human Rights Commission and will lead out in
world affairs in the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Tancredo amendment to H.R. 1646,
the State Authorization Bill. This amendment would strike language in
the bill directing the President to rejoin the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and strike
language authorizing payment of the U.S. assessed contribution to the
organization.
I strongly urge you to vote ``no'' on the Trancredo amendment. It
fails to recognize the great progress UNESCO has achieved in reforming
its management and mission. It fails to appreciate the significant
benefits Americans would enjoy with U.S. membership in UNESCO. And it
fails to seize the opportunity to exercise American leadership and
further our national interests.
When the United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 under Secretary
of State George Shultz, I fully supported the decision, as did many of
our Democratic and Republican colleagues. At the time, UNESCO was
chronically mismanaged and corrupt, and had become a forum for
spreading anti-American propaganda and suppressing free speech.
But since then, UNESCO has reinvented itself. Under the leadership of
its new Director General, Koichiro Matsuura, UNESCO has adopted a
culture of reform that has yielded concrete progress toward improving
management, stamping out corruption, streamlining personnel, and
putting the organization's financial house in order. Today, UNESCO is
an efficient and effective champion of free speech, education and
scientific collaboration worldwide.
This dramatic progress has not gone unnoticed. In 1993, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) audited UNESCO and concluded that it had made
``good progress' toward implementing improvements and ``demonstrated a
commitment to management reform.'' And as a recent article appearing in
the International Herald Tribune on the reverse side observes, UNESCO
has overcome ideological divisions to forge a ``new spirit of
activism'' that ``aims to spread knowledge and preserve diversity.'' In
light of these changes at UNESCO, former Secretary of State Shultz, in
a letter dated September 26 of last year, reversed his position and
indicated his support for America's re-entry into UNESCO. Secretary
Shultz was right to advocate U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO in 1984--and
he is right to advocate U.S. reentry into UNESCO today.
Membership in UNESCO is clearly in U.S. National interests. As the
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet recently testified, the
greatest future threats to U.S. national security from abroad include
instability caused by official corruption, endemic poverty, mass
illiteracy, environmental disruptions, and the spread of infectious
diseases. UNESCO addresses each of these emerging threats by promoting
good government, universal education, sustainable development, and
preventative disease control. U.S. membership in UNESCO will enable us
to better combat the threats Americans face in the 21st century.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to the Tancredo amendment
tomorrow and support strengthening America's leadership role by
rejoining UNESCO.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time,
and I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment.
Like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I fully supported
the decision of the Reagan administration to withdraw the U.S. from
UNESCO because of its anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israeli
stance. Today, however, UNESCO has reformed itself, improved its
management, stamped out corruption, and put UNESCO's financial house in
order.
UNESCO is no longer the proponent of anti-Western propaganda it once
was. It no longer espouses anti-U.S., anti-Israeli, and anti-Western
rhetoric. And we can see today that UNESCO is the U.N. agency for press
freedom, setting up an uncensored newspaper and broadcasters in the
former Yugoslavia, East Timor, Burundi. It is advancing
[[Page H2133]]
human rights, core U.S. interests, such as economic development and
trade, and American values in every country.
It is a tiny fraction, the $59.8 million, of what the U.S. spends on
military expenditures when instability abroad escalates into conflict
and refugee migrations. This is the purpose for which the U.S. founded
UNESCO with its allies in 1945, conflict prevention, and that is why I
think we should not support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, let me say a word about the costs. The cost of rejoining this
important international organization, that every other nation on the
face of this planet is a member of, is 25 cents per person per year. So
I cannot see the crocodile tears that the United States cannot afford
25 cents to join a global organization dealing with education, science,
and cultural affairs.
I also think, Mr. Chairman, that it is irrational unilateralism to
suddenly declare, despite the statements of the distinguished
Republican former Secretary of State, George Shultz, that this is a
worthless organization. George Shultz was our Secretary of State for
the entire period almost of the Reagan administration. Everybody had
great respect for him. Why do we suddenly think that he is not worthy
of listening to? He is telling us rejoin UNESCO. That is the voice of
the Secretary of State of the Reagan administration. Madeleine Albright
is telling us the same thing.
And all of us who have studied this organization are rejoicing in the
fact it has corrected its ways. It is functioning in a professional
fashion, and it is in America's national interest to have our voice
heard within UNESCO. Please reject the Tancredo amendment.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Tancredo amendment, which would strike language in the bill urging the
administration to rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, and providing funding for that purpose. I
commend the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Leach, for introducing the UNESCO
provision into H.R. 1646 at the markup of the House International
Relations Committee. I strongly agree with Mr. Leach that UNESCO has
undergone substantial reforms and made important changes to address the
management problems and anti-American bias that existed when the U.S.
withdrew in 1984. The reforms have been independently confirmed by a
GAO study in 1993.
The 188-Member States of UNESCO pursue a common objective of
contributing to peace and security internationally by promoting
collaboration among nations through education, science, culture and
communication. UNESCO's global agenda addresses threats on the U.S.,
such as environmental crises and infectious disease, and promotes
democratic values such as freedom of speech and press, universal
education and human rights.
Mr. Chairman, now that UNESCO has been reformed, it is appropriate
and in our national interest that the United States participate with
this organization in pursuit of these worthy goals. I urge our
colleagues to oppose the Tancredo amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 1
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), amendment No. 2
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and amendment No. 3
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeLay
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded voted on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 282,
noes 137, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 106]
AYES--282
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Largent
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--137
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
[[Page H2134]]
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rangel
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--11
Cubin
Diaz-Balart
Emerson
Hunter
Latham
Moakley
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Sensenbrenner
Stump
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1357
Messrs. MANZULLO, PHELPS, SPRATT, SCHIFF, SMITH of Washington, Mrs.
THURMAN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to clause 6 of
rule XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device
will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed
further proceedings.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hyde
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252,
noes 165, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 107]
AYES--252
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--165
Ackerman
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Houghton
Hutchinson
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Hoyer
NOT VOTING--13
Allen
Cubin
Diaz-Balart
Emerson
Hunter
Latham
Moakley
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Stump
Thune
{time} 1406
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 107 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 225, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 108]
AYES--193
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
[[Page H2135]]
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--225
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Allen
Cubin
Diaz-Balart
Emerson
Eshoo
Hunter
Latham
Moakley
Portman
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Sensenbrenner
Stump
{time} 1414
Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HUTCHINSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because I was unavoidably detained, I was
absent for rollcall vote No. 108.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________