Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 67 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H2224-H2251]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1646.

{time} 1613

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 further 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.
Simpson (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
earlier today, amendment No. 4, offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde), had been disposed of.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it shall be in order at
any time for the chairman of the Committee on International Relations
or a designee to offer amendments en bloc printed in House Report 107-
62 or germane modifications of any such amendment.
The amendments en bloc shall be considered read, except that
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 40 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority
member, or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.

{time} 1615

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hyde

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the order of the House of today
and House Resolution 138, I offer en bloc amendments consisting of the
following amendments printed in House Report 107-62: Amendment No. 5;
amendment No. 6, as modified; amendments numbered 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will designate the
amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:
Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hyde, consisting of the following:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Lampson:
Page 32, after line 5, insert the following:

(c) Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.--Section
2803(a) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act
of 1998 (as contained in division G of Public Law 105-277) is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``2001,'' and
inserting ``2003,''.
____

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Hyde:
Page 66, after line 12, add the following:

SEC. 344. CORRECTION OF TIME LIMIT FOR GRIEVANCE FILING.

Section 1104(a) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 4134(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``but in no case less than two years after the occurrence
giving rise to the grievance'' and inserting ``but in no case
more than three years after the occurrence giving rise to the
grievance.''.

SEC. 345. CLARIFICATION OF SEPARATION FOR CAUSE.

Section 610(a) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 4010(a)) is amended--
(a) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``decide to'' after
``may'';
(b) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and
inserting the following:
``(2) When the Secretary decides under paragraph (1) to
separate, on the basis of misconduct, any member of the
service (other than a United States citizen employed under
section 311 who is not a family member) who either (A) is
serving under a career appointment, or (B) is serving under a
limited appointment, the member may not be separated from the
Service until the member receives a hearing before the
Foreign Service Grievance Board and the Board decides that
cause for separation has been established, unless the member
waives the right to such a hearing in writing, or the
member's appointment has expired, whichever occurs first.
``(3) If the Board decides that cause for separation has
not been established, the Board may direct the Department to
pay reasonable attorneys fees to the extent and in the manner
provided by section 1107(b)(5). A hearing under this
paragraph shall be conducted in accordance with the hearing
procedures applicable to grievances under section 1106 and
shall be in lieu of any other administrative procedure
authorized or required by this or any other law. Section 1110
shall apply to proceedings under this paragraph.
``(4) Notwithstanding the hearing required by paragraph
(2), when the Secretary decides to separate a member of the
Service for cause, the member shall be placed on leave
without pay. If the member does not waive the right to a
hearing, and the Board decides that cause for separation has
not been established, the member shall be reinstated with
back pay.''.
____

Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
Page 95, after line 3, add the following:

SEC. 706. PARTICIPATION BY SMALL BUSINESSES IN PROCUREMENT
CONTRACTS OF USAID.

(a) Study.--The Administrator of the United States Agency
for International Development shall conduct a study to
determine what industries are under-represented by small
businesses in the procurement contracts of the Agency.
(b) Initial Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit
to the designated congressional committees a report that
contains the following:
(1) The results of the study conducted pursuant to
subsection (a).
(2)(A) A specific plan of outreach to include measurable
achievement milestones, to increase both the total numbers of
contracts and the percentage of total contract dollars to
small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned
businesses (as such terms are defined in the Small Business
Act), and small businesses participating in the program under
section 8(a) of such Act.
(B) The plan shall include proposals for all contracts
(Washington, D.C.-based, field-based, and host country
contracts) issued by the Agency or on behalf of the Agency.
(C) The plan shall include proposals and milestones of the
Agency to increase the amount of subcontracting to businesses
described in subparagraph (A) by the prime contractors of the
Agency.
(D) The milestones described in subparagraph (C) shall
include a description of how the Agency will use failure to
meet goals by prime contractors as a ranking factor in
evaluating any other submissions from this vendor for future
contracts by the Agency.
(c) Semiannual Report.--The Administrator shall submit to
the designated congressional committees on a semiannual basis
a report that contains a description of the percentage of
total contract dollars awarded and the total numbers of
contracts awarded to businesses described in subsection
(b)(2)(A), including a description of achievements toward
measurable milestones for both direct contracts of the
Agency, host country contracts, and for subcontracting by
prime contractors of the Agency.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``designated
congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives;
and
(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Small Business of the Senate.
____

Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 95, after line 3, add the following:

SEC. 706. ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS COUNTRY REPORTS ON CHILD
SOLDIERS.

(a) Countries Receiving Economic Assistance.--Section
116(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151n(f)) is amended--

[[Page H2225]]

(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9)(A) wherever applicable, a description of the nature
and extent of--
``(i) the recruitment and conscription of individuals under
the age of 18 by armed forces of the government of the
country, government-supported paramilitaries, or other armed
groups, and the participation of such individuals in such
groups; and
``(ii) the participation of such individuals in conflict;
``(B) what steps, if any, taken by the government of the
country to eliminate such practices; and
``(C) such other information related to the use by the
country of individuals under the age of 18 as soldiers, as
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary of State.''.
(b) Countries Receiving Security Assistance.--Section
502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2304(b)) is amended by inserting after the sixth sentence the
following: ``Each report under this section shall also
include (i) wherever applicable, a description of the nature
and extent of the recruitment and conscription of individuals
under the age of 18 by armed forces of the government of the
country, government-supported paramilitaries, or other armed
groups, the participation of such individuals in such groups,
and the participation of such individuals in conflict, (ii)
what steps, if any, taken by the government of the country to
eliminate such practices, and (iii) such other information
related to the use by the country of individuals under the
age of 18 as soldiers, as determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary of State.''.
____

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 95, after line 3, add the following:

SEC. 706. AMENDMENTS TO THE VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING AND
VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2000.

(a) Assistance for Victims in Other Countries.--Section
107(a)(1) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000 is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``In addition, such programs and initiatives
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, include the
following:
``(A) Support for local in-country nongovernmental
organization-operated hotlines, culturally and linguistically
appropriate protective shelters, and regional and
international nongovernmental organization networks and
databases on trafficking, including support to assist
nongovernmental organizations in establishing service centers
and systems that are mobile and extend beyond large cities.
``(B) Support for nongovernmental organizations and
advocates to provide legal, social, and other services and
assistance to trafficked individuals, particularly those
individuals in detention.
``(C) Education and training for trafficked women and girls
upon their return home.
``(D) The safe reintegration of trafficked individuals into
an appropriate community or family, with full respect for the
wishes, dignity, and safety of the trafficked individual.
``(E) Support for increasing or developing programs to
assist families of victims in locating, repatriating, and
treating their trafficked family members.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 113 of the
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for fiscal year 2002''
and inserting ``for each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002'' and inserting ``, $10,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, and $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``for fiscal year 2001''
and inserting ``for each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, and
2003''; and
(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (e), by
striking ``and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002'' each place
it appears and inserting ``, $10,000,000 for fiscal year
2002, and $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003''.
____

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
Page 95, after line 3, add the following:

SEC. 706. REPORT ON EXTRADITION EFFORTS BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in
conjunction with the Attorney General, shall prepare and
submit to the Congress a report on efforts between the United
States and the governments of foreign countries to extradite
to the United States individuals described in paragraph (2).
(2) Individuals described.--An individual described in this
paragraph is an individual who is being held in custody by
the government of a foreign country (or who is otherwise
known to be in the foreign country), and with respect to
which a competent authority of the United States--
(A) has charged with a major extraditable offense described
in paragraph (3);
(B) has found guilty of committing a major extraditable
offense described in paragraph (3); or
(C) is seeking extradition in order to complete a
judicially pronounced penalty of deprivation of liberty for a
major extraditable offense described in paragraph (3).
(3) Major extraditable offenses described.--A major
extraditable offense described in this paragraph is an
offense of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated
assault, kidnapping, abduction, or other false imprisonment,
drug trafficking, terrorism, or rape.
(b) Additional Information.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall also include the following:
(1) The aggregate number of individuals described in
subsection (a)(2) who are being held in custody by all
governments of foreign countries (or are otherwise known to
be in the foreign countries), including the name of each such
foreign country and the number of such individuals held in
custody by the government of each such foreign country.
(2) The aggregate number of requests by competent
authorities of the United States to extradite to the United
States such individuals that have been denied by each foreign
government, the reasons why such individuals have not been so
extradited, and the specific actions the United States has
taken to obtain extradition.
(c) Additional Requirement.--In preparing the report under
subsection (a), the Secretary of State, in conjunction with
the Attorney General--
(1) shall establish procedures under which a competent
authority of a State, which is requesting extradition of 1 or
more individuals from a foreign country as described in
subsection (a)(2) and with respect to which the foreign
country has failed to comply with such request, may submit to
the Attorney General appropriate information with respect to
such extradition request; and
(2) shall include information received under paragraph (1)
in the report under subsection (a).
____

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
Page 95, after line 3, add the following:

SEC. 706. PAYMENT OF ANTI-TERRORISM JUDGMENTS.

Section 2002(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386; 114
Stat. 1542)), is amended by inserting ``June 6, 2000,'' after
``March 15, 2000,''.''
____

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
Page 122, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE NEGOTIATION OF
EFFECTIVE EXTRADITION TREATIES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) According to the Department of Justice, there are
approximately 3,000 open extradition cases worldwide at any
time.
(2) The United States has extradition treaties with only
approximately 60 percent of the worlds nations.
(3) Of such treaties, nearly half were enacted prior to
World War II and are seriously out of date.
(4) Treaties enacted prior to the 1970's are basically
ineffective because only specific crimes listed in the
treaties are extraditable offenses.
(5) Treaties negotiated since the 1970's are much more
effective because they are flexible and reflect modern
criminal justice issues such as international child abduction
and cybercrimes.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress calls on the Secretary
of State to develop and implement a process for negotiating
new effective extradition treaties with countries with which
the United States has no current extradition treay, as well
as renegotiating old ineffective treaties, and to work
closely with the Department of Justice in achieving these
objectives.
____

Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Faleomavaega:
Page 122, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO UPCOMING
ELECTIONS IN FIJI, EAST TIMOR, AND PERU.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the upcoming national elections in Fiji and East
Timor in August 2001 and Peru in June 2001 are crucial and
should be conducted in a free, fair, and democratic manner;
and
(2) the Secretary of State should send election monitors
to Fiji, and should offer technical support, as appropriate,
to East Timor and Peru, to support free and fair elections in
these nations.
____

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Brady of Texas:
Page 122, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE MURDER OF JOHN M.
ALVIS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On November 30, 2000, John M. Alvis was brutally
murdered in Baku, Azerbaijan.
(2) John Alvis was serving his final two weeks of a two
year full-time commitment to the International Republican
Institute, an American nongovernmental organization carrying
out assistance projects for the United States Government to
help promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law in
Azerbaijan.
(3) Almost immediately following the news of the murder of
John M. Alvis, our United States Ambassador to Azerbaijan,
Ross Wilson, raised the issue with the the President

[[Page H2226]]

of Azerbaijan and with the Minister of Interior, and was
assured that every effort would be made to carry out a prompt
and thorough investigation.
(4) After the murder, 18 members of Congress, led by
Congressman Kevin Brady and then-Chairman of the House
International Relations Committee, Ben Gilman, wrote
President Aliyev expressing the commitment of the Congress to
seeing John's murder solved, and Senator John McCain wrote
former President Clinton's Administration requesting the
FBI's involvement.
(5) The United States Ambassador to Azerbaijan continues to
raise this issue with Azerbaijani officials.
(6) The Government of Azerbaijan has cooperated with the
FBI to find the individual or individuals responsible for
killing John Alvis.
(7) United States President George W. Bush wrote
Azerbaijan's President Hedar Aliyev and thanked Azerbaijan
for its efforts to find the murderer or murderers of John M.
Alvis.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States and the Congress is absolutely
committed to ensuring that the truth of the murder of John M.
Alvis is determined and the individual or individuals
responsible for this heinous act are brought to justice; and
(2) the Congress--
(A) appreciates the efforts of the Government of Azerbaijan
to find the murderer or murderers of John M. Alvis and urges
it to continue to make it a high priority; and
(B) urges the United States Department of State to continue
to raise the issue of the murder of John M. Alvis with the
Government of Azerbaijan and to make this issue a priority
item in relations between the Government of the United States
and the Government of Azerbaijan.
____

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 122, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO REMARKS BY THE
PRESIDENT OF SYRIA CONCERNING ISRAEL.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) On March 27, 2001, at the first regular Arab summit
gathering in more than 10 years, President Bashar al-Assad
used his speech to lash out at Israel.
(2) On March 28, 2001, the New York Times reported, ``In
electing Mr. Sharon to be their leader, President Assad said,
Israelis had chosen a man who hated anything to do with Arabs
and had dedicated his career to killing them.''.
(3) President Assad additionally said, ``We say that the
head of the government is a racist, it's a racist government,
a racist army and security force,'' he said, adding that by
extension, ``It is a racist society and it is even more
racist than the Nazis.''.
(4) On March 28, 2001, State Department spokesman Richard
Boucher described President Assad's remarks as, ``absolutely
wrong...totally unacceptable and inappropriate.''.
(5) On March 29, 2001, the Bush administration's top Middle
East diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Edward Walker,
responding to Assad's remarks stated, ``His statement at the
Arab League was unacceptable, particularly his reference to
Zionism as racism.''.
(6) On May 5, 2001, in his welcoming speech to Pope John
Paul II, upon the Pope's arrival in Damascus, President Assad
said, ``They, Israelis, try to kill all the principles of
divine faiths with the same mentality of betraying Jesus
Christ and torturing Him, and in the same way that they tried
to commit treachery against Prophet Mohammad.''.
(7) On May 6, 2001, at the Umayyad Mosque, Muhammad
Ziyadah, Syria's minister of religious affairs, said, ``We
must be fully aware of what the enemies of God and malicious
Zionism conspire to commit against Christianity and Islam.''.
(8) On May 7, 2001, State Department spokesman Richard
Boucher condemned President Assad's remarks, ``Our view is
that these comments are as regrettable as they are
unacceptable. There's no place from anyone or from any side
for statements that inflame religious passions and hatred.''.
(9) It is only through constructive diplomacy, and not
through hateful, counterproductive speech, that peace can
possibly be achieved in the Middle East.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
(1) condemns Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for his
inflammatory remarks on March 27, 2001, and May 5, 2001;
(2) expresses its solidarity with the state and people of
Israel at this time of crisis;
(3) calls upon President Assad and the Syrian Government to
refrain from any future inflammatory remarks;
(4) commends the Administration for its swift response to
President Assad's remarks; and
(5) urges the Administration to emphasize to Syrian
Government officials the concerns of the United States about
the negative impact such remarks make on Middle East peace
negotiations.
____

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Underwood:
Page 122, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION AND HEALTH EFFECTS IN THE
PHILIPPINES EMANATING FROM FORMER UNITED STATES
MILITARY FACILITIES.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the Secretary of State, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Defense, should continue to work with the
Government of the Philippines and with appropriate non-
governmental organizations in the United States and the
Philippines to fully identify and share all relevant
information concerning environmental contamination and health
effects emanating from former United States military
facilities in the Philippines following departure of the
United States military forces from the Philippines in 1992;
(2) the United States and the Government of the Philippines
should continue to build upon the agreements outlined in the
Joint Statement by the United States and the Republic of the
Philippines on a Framework for Bilateral Cooperation in the
Environment and Public Health signed on July 27, 2000; and
(3) Congress should encourage an objective non-governmental
study which would examine environmental contamination and
health effects emanating from former United States military
facilities in the Philippines, following departure of United
States military forces from the Philippines in 1992.
____

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Shays:
Page 122, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF PEACE
CORPS OFFICES ABROAD.

It is the sense of the Congress that, to the degree
permitted by security considerations, the Secretary of State
should give favorable consideration to requests by the
Director of the Peace Corps that the Secretary exercise his
authority under section 606(a)(2)(B) of the Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (22 U.S.C.
4865(a)(2)(B)) to waive certain requirements of that Act in
order to permit the Peace Corps to maintain offices in
foreign countries at locations separate from the United
States embassy.
____

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Engel:
Page 122, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE MISTREATMENT OF
UNITED STATES CIVILIAN PRISONERS INCARCERATED
BY THE AXIS POWERS DURING WORLD WAR II.

(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Axis Powers captured and incarcerated 18,745 United
States civilians who were living or traveling abroad during
World War II, of which 1,704 died or were executed in
captivity.
(2) These civilian prisoners of war were subjected to
barbaric prison conditions and endured torture, starvation,
and disease.
(3) The incarceration of these United States civilians and
the conditions of such incarceration violated international
human rights principles.
(4) The vast majority of these civilian prisoners of war
have never received any formal recognition or compensation
for their suffering, despite the physical and emotional
trauma they endured.
(5) The incarceration of United States civilians by the
Axis Powers during World War II and the conditions of such
incarceration violated international human rights principles.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
(1) extends its sympathies to the brave men and women who
endured the terrible hardships of such incarceration and to
their families; and
(2) encourages foreign nations that incarcerated United
States civilians during World War II to formally apologize to
these individuals and their families.
____

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 122, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-
MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

In the case of any equipment or products that may be
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
under this Act (including any amendment made by this Act), it
is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving such
assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only
American-made equipment and products.
____

Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Menendez:
Page 153, after line 23, add the following:

TITLE IX--IRAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2001

SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Iran Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 2001''.

SEC. 902. WITHHOLDING OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY FOR PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS IN IRAN.

Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2227) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), the limitations of
subsection (a) shall apply to programs and projects of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Iran, unless the
Secretary of State makes a determination in writing to the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate that such programs and projects are consistent with
United States nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals, will
not

[[Page H2227]]

provide Iran with training or expertise relevant to the
development of nuclear weapons, and are not being used as a
cover for the acquisition of sensitive nuclear technology. A
determination made by the Secretary of State under the
preceding sentence shall be effective for the 1-year period
beginning on the date of the determination.''.

SEC. 903. ANNUAL REVIEW BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY
AGENCY; UNITED STATES OPPOSITION TO PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS OF THE AGENCY IN IRAN.

(a) Annual Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall undertake a
comprehensive annual review of all programs and projects of
the International Atomic Energy Agency in the countries
described in section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227(a)) and shall determine if such programs
and projects are consistent with United States nuclear
nonproliferation and safety goals.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter for 5
years, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Congress
a report containing the results of the review under paragraph
(1).
(b) Opposition to Certain Programs and Projects of
International Atomic Energy Agency.--The Secretary of State
shall direct the United States representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency to oppose programs of the
Agency that are determined by the Secretary under the review
conducted under subsection (a)(1) to be inconsistent with
nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals of the United
States.

SEC. 904. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter
for 5 years, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
United States representative to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, shall prepare and submit to the Congress a
report that--
(1) describes the total amount of annual assistance to Iran
from the International Atomic Energy Agency, a list of
Iranian officials in leadership positions at the Agency, the
expected timeframe for the completion of the nuclear power
reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, and a summary of
the nuclear materials and technology transferred to Iran from
the Agency in the preceding year which could assist in the
development of Iran's nuclear weapons program; and
(2) contains a description of all programs and projects of
the International Atomic Energy Agency in each country
described in section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227(a)) and any inconsistencies between the
technical cooperation and assistance programs and projects of
the Agency and United States nuclear nonproliferation and
safety goals in these countries.
(b) Additional Requirement.--The report required to be
submitted under subsection (a) shall be submitted in an
unclassified form, to the extent appropriate, but may include
a classified annex.

SEC. 905. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States
Government should pursue internal reforms at the
International Atomic Energy Agency that will ensure that all
programs and projects funded under the Technical Cooperation
and Assistance Fund of the Agency are compatible with United
States nuclear nonproliferation policy and international
nuclear nonproliferation norms.
____

Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Lantos:
Page 153, after line 23, add the following:

TITLE IX--EAST TIMOR TRANSITION TO INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 2001

SECTION 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``East Timor Transition to
Independence Act of 2001''.

SEC. 902. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On August 30, 1999, the East Timorese people voted
overwhelmingly in favor of independence from Indonesia. Anti-
independence militias, with the support of the Indonesian
military, attempted to prevent then retaliated against this
vote by launching a campaign of terror and violence,
displacing 500,000 people and murdering at least 1,000
people.
(2) The violent campaign devastated East Timor's
infrastructure, destroyed or severely damaged 60 to 80
percent of public and private property, and resulted in the
collapse of virtually all vestiges of government, public
services and public security.
(3) The Australian-led International Force for East Timor
(INTERFET) entered East Timor in September 1999 and
successfully restored order. On October 25, 1999, the United
Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET)
began to provide overall administration of East Timor, guide
the people of East Timor in the establishment of a new
democratic government, and maintain security and order.
(4) UNTAET and the East Timorese leadership currently
anticipate that East Timor will become an independent nation
as early as late 2001.
(5) East Timor is one of the poorest places in Asia. A
large percentage of the population live below the poverty
line, only 20 percent of East Timor's population is literate,
most of East Timor's people remain unemployed, the annual per
capita Gross National Product is $340, and life expectancy is
only 56 years.
(6) The World Bank and the United Nations have estimated
that it will require $300,000,000 in development assistance
over the next three years to meet East Timor's basic
development needs.

SEC. 903. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO SUPPORT FOR EAST
TIMOR.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States should--
(1) facilitate East Timor's transition to independence,
support formation of broad-based democracy in East Timor,
help lay the groundwork for East Timor's economic recovery,
and strengthen East Timor's security;
(2) help ensure that the nature and pace of the economic
transition in East Timor is consistent with the needs and
priorities of the East Timorese people, that East Timor
develops a strong and independent economic infrastructure,
and that the incomes of the East Timorese people rise
accordingly;
(3) begin to lay the groundwork, prior to East Timor's
independence, for an equitable bilateral trade and investment
relationship;
(4)(A) recognize East Timor, and establish diplomatic
relations with East Timor, upon its independence;
(B) ensure that a fully functioning, fully staffed,
adequately resourced, and securely maintained United States
diplomatic mission is accredited to East Timor upon its
independence; and
(C) in the period prior to East Timor's independence,
ensure that the United States maintains an adequate
diplomatic presence in East Timor, with resources sufficient
to promote United States political, security, and economic
interests with East Timor;
(5) support efforts by the United Nations and East Timor to
ensure justice and accountability related to past atrocities
in East Timor through--
(A) United Nations investigations;
(B) development of East Timor's judicial system, including
appropriate technical assistance to East Timor from the
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and the Drug Enforcement Administration;
(C) the possible establishment of an international tribunal
for East Timor; and
(D) sharing with the United Nations Transitional
Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) and East Timorese
investigators any unclassified information relevant to past
atrocities in East Timor gathered by the United States
Government; and
(6)(A) as an interim step, support observer status for an
official delegation from East Timor to observe and
participate, as appropriate, in all deliberations of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other
international institutions; and
(B) after East Timor achieves independence, support full
membership for East Timor in these and other international
institutions, as appropriate.

SEC. 904. BILATERAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Authority.--The President, acting through the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, is authorized to--
(1) support the development of civil society, including
nongovernmental organizations in East Timor;
(2) promote the development of an independent news media;
(3) support job creation, including support for small
business and microenterprise programs, environmental
protection, sustainable development, development of East
Timor's health care infrastructure, educational programs, and
programs strengthening the role of women in society;
(4) promote reconciliation, conflict resolution, and
prevention of further conflict with respect to East Timor,
including establishing accountability for past gross human
rights violations;
(5) support the voluntary and safe repatriation and
reintegration of refugees into East Timor; and
(6) support political party development, voter education,
voter registration, and other activities in support of free
and fair elections in East Timor.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the President to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are
authorized to remain available until expended.

SEC. 905. MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.

The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct the United
States executive director at the International Board for
Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank
to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to
support economic and democratic development in East Timor.

SEC. 906. PEACE CORPS ASSISTANCE.

The Director of the Peace Corps is authorized to--
(1) provide English language and other technical training
for individuals in East Timor as well as other activities
which promote education, economic development, and economic
self-sufficiency; and
(2) quickly address immediate assistance needs in East
Timor using the Peace Corps Crisis Corps, to the extent
practicable.

[[Page H2228]]

SEC. 907. TRADE AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) OPIC.--The President should initiate negotiations with
the Government of East Timor (after independence for East
Timor)--
(1) to apply to East Timor the existing agreement between
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Indonesia; or
(2) to enter into a new agreement authorizing the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation to carry out programs with
respect to East Timor,

in order to expand United States investment in East Timor,
emphasizing partnerships with local East Timorese
enterprises.
(b) Trade and Development Agency.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Trade and Development
Agency is authorized to carry out projects in East Timor
under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2421).
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--
(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Trade and Development Agency to carry out this subsection
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(B) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subparagraph (A) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
(c) Export-Import Bank.--The Export-Import Bank of the
United States should expand its activities in connection with
exports to East Timor to the extent such activities are
requested and to the extent there is a reasonable assurance
of repayment.

SEC. 908. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should encourage the Government of East Timor
(after independence for East Timor) to seek to become
eligible for duty-free treatment under title V of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.; relating to generalized
system of preferences).
(b) Technical Assistance.--The United States Trade
Representative and the Commissioner of the United States
Customs Service are authorized to provide technical
assistance to the Government of East Timor (after
independence for East Timor) in order to assist East Timor to
become eligible for duty-free treatment under title V of the
Trade Act of 1974.

SEC. 909. BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY.

It is the sense of Congress that the President should seek
to enter into a bilateral investment treaty with the
Government of East Timor (after independence for East Timor)
in order to establish a more stable legal framework for
United States investment in East Timor.

SEC. 910. PLAN FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES IN
EAST TIMOR.

(a) Development of Detailed Plan.--The Secretary of State
shall develop a detailed plan for the official establishment
of a United States diplomatic mission to East Timor, with a
view to--
(1) recognize East Timor, and establish diplomatic
relations with East Timor, upon its independence;
(2) ensure that a fully functioning, fully staffed,
adequately resourced, and securely maintained United States
diplomatic mission is accredited to East Timor upon its
independence; and
(3) in the period prior to East Timor's independence,
ensure that the United States maintains an adequate
diplomatic presence in East Timor, with resources sufficient
to promote United States political, security, and economic
interests with East Timor.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than three months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
submit 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 detailed
plan described in subsection (a), including a timetable for
the official opening of a facility in Dili, East Timor, the
personnel requirements for the mission, the estimated costs
for establishing the facility, and its security requirements.
(2) Form of report.--The report submitted under this
subsection shall be in unclassified form, with a classified
annex as necessary.
(c) Consultation.--Beginning six months after the
submission of the report under subsection (b), and every six
months thereafter until January 1, 2004, the Secretary of
State shall consult with the chairmen and ranking members of
the committees specified in that paragraph on the status of
the implementation of the detailed plan described in
subsection (a), including any revisions to the plan
(including its timetable, costs, or requirements).

SEC. 911. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR EAST TIMOR.

(a) Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The President shall conduct a study to
determine--
(A) the extent to which East Timor's security needs can be
met by the transfer of excess defense articles under section
516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
(B) the extent to which international military education
and training (IMET) assistance will enhance professionalism
of the armed forces of East Timor, provide training in human
rights, and promote respect for human rights and humanitarian
law; and
(C) the terms and conditions under which such defense
articles or training, as appropriate, should be provided.
(2) Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit 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 a report that contains the
findings of the study conducted under paragraph (1).
(b) Authorization of Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Beginning on the date on which Congress
receives the report transmitted under subsection (a), or the
date on which Congress receives the certification transmitted
under paragraph (2), whichever occurs later, the President is
authorized--
(A) to transfer excess defense articles under section 516
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) to
East Timor in accordance with such section; and
(B) to provide military education and training under
chapter 5 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) for
the armed forces of East Timor in accordance with such
chapter.
(2) Certification.--A certification described in this
paragraph is a certification that--
(A) East Timor has established an independent armed forces;
and
(B) the assistance proposed to be provided pursuant to
paragraph (1)--
(i) is in the national security interests of the United
States; and
(ii) will promote both human rights in East Timor and the
professionalization of the armed forces of East Timor.

SEC. 912. AUTHORITY FOR RADIO BROADCASTING.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is authorized to
further the communication of information and ideas through
the increased use of audio broadcasting to East Timor to
ensure that radio broadcasting to that country serves as a
consistently reliable and authoritative source of accurate,
objective, and comprehensive news.

SEC. 913. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.

(a) In General.--Not later than six months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter
until January 1, 2004, the Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the United States Trade Representative, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, the Director of the Trade and Development
Agency, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of the
Peace Corps, shall consult with the Chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate concerning the information described
in subsection (b).
(b) Information.--The information described in this
subsection includes--
(1) developments in East Timor's political and economic
situation in the period covered by the report, including an
evaluation of any elections occurring in East Timor and the
refugee reintegration process in East Timor;
(2)(A) in the initial consultation, a 2-year plan for
United States foreign assistance to East Timor in accordance
with section 904, prepared by the Administrator of the United
States Agency for International Development, which outlines
the goals for United States foreign assistance to East Timor
during the 2-year period; and
(B) in each subsequent consultation, a description in
detail of the expenditure of United States bilateral foreign
assistance during the period covered by each such
consultation;
(3) a description of the activities undertaken in East
Timor by the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the Asian Development Bank, and other
international financial institutions, and an evaluation of
the effectiveness of these activities;
(4) an assessment of--
(A) the status of United States trade and investment
relations with East Timor, including a detailed analysis of
any trade and investment-related activity supported by the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import
Bank of the United States, and the Trade and Development
Agency during the period of time since the previous
consultation; and
(B) the status of any negotiations with the United Nations
Transitional Administration for East Timor (UNTAET) or East
Timor to facilitate the operation of the United States trade
agencies in East Timor;
(5) the nature and extent of United States-East Timor
cultural, education, scientific, and academic exchanges, both
official and unofficial, and any Peace Corps activities;
(6) a description of local agriculture in East Timor,
emerging opportunities for producing, processing, and
exporting indigenous agricultural products, and
recommendations for appropriate technical assistance from the
United States; and
(7) statistical data drawn from other sources on economic
growth, health, education, and distribution of resources in
East Timor.
____

Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Lantos:
Page 153, after line 23, add the following:

TITLE IX--FREEDOM INVESTMENT ACT OF 2001

SECTION 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Freedom Investment Act of
2001''.

[[Page H2229]]

SEC. 902. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Supporting human rights is in the national interests of
the United States and is consistent with American values and
beliefs.
(2) Defenders of human rights are changing our world in
many ways, including protecting freedom and dignity,
religious liberty, the rights of women and children, freedom
of the press, the rights of workers, the environment, and the
human rights of all persons.
(3) The United States must match its rhetoric on human
rights with action and with sufficient resources to provide
meaningful support for human rights and for the defenders of
human rights.
(4) Providing one percent of amounts available annually for
foreign affairs operations for human rights activities,
including human rights monitoring, would be a minimal
investment in protecting human rights around the world.
(5) The Department of State should have individuals in
positions in foreign countries that are designated for
monitoring human rights activities and developments in such
countries, including the monitoring of arms exports.

SEC. 903. SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF THE BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY,
HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR.

For fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter, not
less than 1 percent of the amounts made available to the
Department of State under the heading ``Diplomatic and
Consular Programs'', other than amounts made available for
worldwide security upgrades and information resource
management, are authorized to be made available only for
salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, including funding of positions at United
States missions abroad that are primarily dedicated to
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. 904. HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY FUND.

(a) Establishment of Fund.--There is established a Human
Rights and Democracy Fund (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ``Fund'') to be administered by the
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
(b) Purposes of Fund.--The purposes of the Fund are--
(1) to support defenders of human rights;
(2) to assist the victims of human rights violations;
(3) to respond to human rights emergencies;
(4) to promote and encourage the growth of democracy,
including the support for nongovernmental organizations in
other countries; and
(5) to carry out such other related activities as are
consistent with paragraphs (1) through (4).
(c) Funding.--Of the amounts made available to carry out
chapter 1 and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 and chapter 4 of part II of such Act for each of
the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, $27,000,000 for each
such fiscal year is authorized to be made available only to
the Fund for carrying out the purposes described in
subsection (b).

SEC. 905. REPORTS ON ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES TO
ENCOURAGE RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.

(a) Section 116 Report.--Section 116(d) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) for each country with respect to which a
determination has been made that extrajudicial killings,
torture, or other serious violations of human rights have
occurred in the country, the extent to which the United
States has taken or will take action to encourage an end to
such practices in the country.''.
(b) Section 502B Report.--Section 502B(b) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304(b)) is amended by
inserting after the 4th sentence the following: ``Such report
shall also include, for each country with respect to which a
determination has been made that extrajudicial killings,
torture, or other serious violations of human rights have
occurred in the country, the extent to which the United
States has taken or will take action to encourage an end to
such practices in the country.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report Amendment No. 6, as
modified.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 6, as modified, offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Page 43, insert the following after line 21:

SEC. 214. REPORT CONCERNING THE GERMAN FOUNDATION
``REMEMBRANCE, RESPONSIBILITY, AND THE
FUTURE''.

(a) Report Concerning the German Foundation ``Remembrance,
Responsibility, and the Future''.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 180
days thereafter until all funds made available to the German
Foundation have been disbursed, the Secretary of State shall
report to the appropriate congressional committees on the
status of the implementation of the Agreement and, to the
extent possible, on whether or not--
(1) during the 180-day period preceding the date of the
report, the German Bundestag has authorized the allocation of
funds to the Foundation, in accordance with section 17 of the
law on the creation of the Foundation, enacted by the Federal
Republic of Germany on August 8, 2000;
(2) the entire sum of DM 10,000,000,000 has been made
available to the German Foundation in accordance with Annex B
to the Joint Statement of July 17, 2000;
(3) during the 180-day period preceding the date of the
report, any company or companies investigating a claim, who
are members of ICHEIC, were required to provide to the
claimant, within 90 days after receiving the claim, a status
report on the claim, or a decision that included--
(A) an explanation of the decision, pursuant to those
standards of ICHEIC to be applied in approving claims;
(B) all documents relevant to the claim that were retrieved
in the investigation; and
(C) an explanation of the procedures for appeal of the
decision;
(4) during the 180-day period preceding the date of the
report, any entity that elected to determine claims under
Article 1(4) of the Agreement was required to comply with the
standards of proof, criteria for publishing policyholder
names, valuation standards, auditing requirements, and
decisions of the Chairman of ICHEIC;
(5) during the 180-day period preceding the date of the
report, an independent process to appeal decisions made by
any entity that elected to determine claims under Article
1(4) of the Agreement was available to and accessible by any
claimant wishing to appeal such a decision, and the appellate
body had the jurisdiction and resources necessary to fully
investigate each claim on appeal and provide a timely
response;
(6) an independent audit of compliance by every entity that
has elected to determine claims under Article 1(4) of the
Agreement has been conducted; and
(7) the administrative and operational expenses incurred by
the companies that are members of ICHEIC are appropriate for
the administration of claims described in paragraph (3).

The Secretary of State's report shall include the Secretary's
justification for each determination under this subsection.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the resolution of slave and forced labor claims is an
urgent issue for aging Holocaust survivors, and the German
Bundestag should allocate funds for disbursement by the
German Foundation to Holocaust survivors as soon as possible;
and
(2) ICHEIC should work in consultation with the Secretary
of State in gathering the information required for the report
under subsection (a).
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the Agreement
between the Government of the United States of America and
the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning
the Foundation ``Remembrance, Responsibility and the
Future'', done at Berlin July 17, 2000.
(2) Annex b to the joint statement of july 17, 2000.--The
term ``Annex B to the Joint Statement of July 17, 2000''
means Annex B to the Joint Statement on occasion of the final
plenary meeting concluding international talks on the
preparation of the Federal Foundation ``Remembrance,
Responsibility and the Future'', done at Berlin on July 17,
2000.
(3) German foundation.--The term ``German Foundation''
means the Foundation ``Remembrance, Responsibility and the
Future'' referred to in the Agreement.
(4) ICHEIC.--The term ``ICHEIC'' means the International
Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims referred to in
Article 1(4) of the Agreement.

Mr. HYDE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This en bloc amendment, Mr. Chairman, consists of 19 amendments that
were made in order by the rule on H.R. 1646. The inclusion of these 19
provisions into this en bloc amendment reflects the concurrence of each
sponsor and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking
Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations.
I assure my fellow Members that these measures are noncontroversial,
and I recommend an aye vote on this en bloc amendment. I appreciate
very much the cooperation we have received from the sponsors of these
amendments and from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my
Democratic

[[Page H2230]]

colleague, for working with us to advance these measures in this
manner.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first, let me express my deep appreciation to the
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for the extraordinarily
cooperative and collegial manner in which he has handled both this
matter and all matters that we have dealt with in the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment. This en
bloc amendment includes amendments from both sides of the aisle and
includes a technical provision requested by the Department of State.
I would like to highlight several provisions that enjoy broad
bipartisan support: the amendment of the gentleman from American Samoa
(Mr. Faleomavaega) supporting free, fair and democratic elections in
Fiji, East Timor, and Peru; the amendment of the gentleman from Guam
(Mr. Underwood) on the Philippines; the amendment of the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) on small business contracting by AID; the
amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on child
soldiers; the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on
trafficking; the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel)
on U.S. civilian prisoners during World War II; and the amendment by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) on IAEA and Iran.
Mr. Chairman, a provision offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) seeks to ensure congressional oversight and enforcement
in the area of Holocaust restitutions by requiring the Secretary of
State to determine in a report to Congress whether the foundation
established for this purpose is meeting its responsibilities to
claimants.
The en bloc amendment also contains the East Timor Transition to
Independence Act, legislation I introduced with the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
I would express my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois
(Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), chairman of
the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, and the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), ranking Democratic member, for their
help on this legislation, along with the East Timor Action Network.
Two years ago, Mr. Chairman, the people of East Timor voted
overwhelmingly for independence from Indonesia. In response, anti-
independence militias, with the support of the Indonesian military,
launched a campaign of terror and violence.
The East Timorese have now won their hard-earned freedom, and the
United States is playing a lead role in helping the East Timorese get
back on their feet. This legislation provides a 3- to 5-year trade,
aid, and security agenda with East Timor so that our Nation remains a
key player in helping to rebuild that small and long-suffering country.
It authorizes $25 million in bilateral U.S. assistance to East Timor,
authorizes the establishment of a Peace Corps Program in that country,
and mandates a series of steps to increase the involvement of U.S.
trade and export agencies in East Timor.
I also wish to point to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and myself titled the Freedom Investment Act.
This amendment ensures that our human rights and democracy programs are
not merely part of our foreign policy rhetoric, but are also part of
U.S. foreign policy reality.
If we are to accomplish this, the human rights function within the
Department of State must be strengthened appreciably.
This provision provides a permanent authorization for the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor equal to 1 percent of the
Department's main operating account. This continues specific
authorizations that the Congress has provided for the democracy and
human rights functions and boosts the human rights and democracy fund.
This fund administered by the Department of State has been crucial to
providing small level grants to human rights causes around the globe,
and it definitely should be increased.
So I want to reiterate my support, Mr. Chairman, of the en bloc
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and I
urge my colleagues to vote for his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Lampson), my good friend, thanking the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for including in his en bloc amendment our
amendment, which extends until 2003 the reporting requirement of the
State Department on compliance with the provisions of the Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
My colleagues will recall that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson)
and I offered legislation last year adopted in both the House and the
Senate that urged compliance by signatory countries with the Hague
Convention. The legislation became necessary because, sadly, some Hague
signatories consistently fail to comply fully with both the letter and
the spirit of their international legal obligations under the
Convention.
The Hague Convention establishes reciprocal rights and duties between
and among its contracting states to expedite the return of children to
the state of their habitual residence as well as to ensure that rights
of custody and of access under the laws in one contracting state are
respected in other contracting states. Unfortunately, some parties to
the Convention have been routine offenders.
My colleagues have often heard me talk about the case of a Cincinnati
man, Tom Sylvester, whose then baby daughter, Carina, was abducted by
her mother back in 1995 and taken to Austria where she remains today.
Six years after the abduction, the case remains unresolved despite a
number of court orders in Mr. Sylvester's favor in both the United
States and Austria, including an order all the way up to the Austrian
Supreme Court in Mr. Sylvester's favor.
Unfortunately, the Sylvester case is not a rarity. Every year, more
and more American parents suffer similar circumstances and face similar
obstacles from other nations, many of whom are signatories of the Hague
Convention.
This amendment which extends for 2 years the reporting requirements
of the Department of State on compliance by Hague signatories is,
unfortunately, quite necessary. The continuation of this language in
the State Department authorization legislation sends a message to those
offending countries who consistently fail to honor their obligations
under international law, that the Congress takes their failure to
comply very seriously and will continue to pursue efforts to bring our
American children home.
I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). As chairman
of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, he has
done an extraordinary job in bringing national and international
attention to this growing problem that devastates so many American
families. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) on their
continuing efforts on focusing their attention on this very tragic
situation that so many parents are in across our Nation. We welcome the
opportunity to include this amendment in the en bloc, and I thank the
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for including it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, part of the en bloc is one that I offer
on Iran because I am deeply concerned about U.S. taxpayer dollars being
used to

[[Page H2231]]

support the development of a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power reactor at
Bushehr in Iran's Persian Gulf coast. I want specifically to address
the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency's technical
assistance for this plant, because I believe the agency is indirectly
supporting Iran in its well-known endeavors to acquire dangerous
nuclear technology.
Iran claims it is merely seeking the wherewithal to meet its publicly
desired statement to have a civil nuclear power program to generate
electricity, which is suspect in light of Iran's having the world's
largest oil and natural gas reserves. But it is no secret that Iran is
also pursuing a nuclear weapon's development program.
Last fall, Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Bob
Einhorn stated in testimony before the Senate that the administration
opposed construction of the Bushehr plant because, ``it would be used
as a cover for maintaining wide-ranging contacts with Russian nuclear
entities and for engaging in more sensitive forms of cooperation with
more direct applicability to a nuclear weapons program.'' I could not
agree more.
Let me suggest to my colleagues that we must decide as a government
whether to oppose or acquiesce in the construction of the plant, which
is being built with Russian support. I submit to my colleagues that
acquiescence in this case is tantamount to our acceptance as inevitable
the construction of the nuclear power plant. This is not about safety,
this is about operational capacity. If we do not speak out, who will?
My amendment would simply withhold U.S. proportional voluntary
assistance to the IAEA for programs and projects of the agency which go
for technical assistance for the Bushehr plant. I have no interest in
cutting off all IAEA assistance to Iran, but it is ludicrous for the
United States taxpayers to support a plant which could pose a threat to
the United States and to stability in the Middle East.
Please support my colleagues in supporting the en bloc amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the Flake-Gilman-Cantor-Wexler amendment is
a bipartisan straightforward resolution condemning the remarks of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
On March 27 at the first regular Arab summit gathering in more than
10 years, President Assad used his speech to lash out against Israel.
In electing Mr. Sharon to be their leader, President Assad said
Israelis ``had chosen a man who hated anything to do with Arabs and had
dedicated his career to killing them.''
President Assad continued by saying, ``We say that the head of the
government is a racist, it's a racist government, a racist army and
security force.'' ``It is a racist society and it is even more racist
than the Nazis.''
Mr. Chairman, as if President Assad's remarks back in March were not
enough, he reiterated his anti-Semitic remarks 11 days ago in his
welcoming speech to Pope John Paul, II, in Damascus.
In both cases, the administration has been swift to condemn Assad's
remarks. The time has now come for Members of the House to go on record
condemning these inflammatory remarks and express its support for
people of Israel.
Finally, President Assad's remarks illustrate a counterproductive
pattern beginning there. These types of actions will only have a
negative impact on the region in this time of crisis.
This amendment sends a message that the United States opposes this
type of speech by world leaders. For this reason, I urge my colleagues
to support the en bloc amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

{time} 1630

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona
for his cogent remarks with regard to the appalling remarks made by the
President of Syria recently. He was criticized by the press, by leaders
throughout the world for encouraging and inciting more hostility rather
than being a leader for peace.
We had looked to the new President of Syria for greater leadership
than he has demonstrated, and we hope he will take a good hard look at
what he has done to stir up the problems in the Middle East and recant
his statement, and we look forward to hearing from the President of
Syria further on this issue.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California, the
ranking member, the distinguished gentleman, for yielding time to me.
I certainly agree with the remarks of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) condemning the
President of Syria, and I would also add that Syrian troops ought to
leave Lebanon as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is rolled into the en bloc
amendments, addresses the unfortunate events of World War II in which
almost 19,000 American civilians living or traveling abroad were
captured by the Axis powers and incarcerated, 1,700 of whom either died
in captivity or were executed. It is really a shocking statistic. To
date, no formal apology has been offered for these terrible actions.
My amendment would extend the Congress' sympathy to the brave men and
women who were incarcerated and their families for the terrible
hardships they endured. Also, it encourages foreign nations that
incarcerated U.S. civilians during World War II to formally apologize
to these individuals and their families.
Passage of this amendment would honor the many who suffered,
including Michael Kolanik, Sr., of Westchester County, New York, which
I represent. He was captured by Nazi Germany and was a slave laborer
for 6 years. Unfortunately, he has already passed away; but his son
Mike, Jr., a Vietnam veteran, has been pursuing this issue in honor of
his father.
While recognition of their ordeal will not erase the painful reality
of their imprisonment, it will provide a sense of closure for them and
their families and put to rest a long and drawn-out battle to honor
those brave men and women for their suffering.
I know this has bipartisan support, and I thank everybody for that;
and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment so that we
can begin to heal the wounds of the past.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Flake amendment.
In a gesture of interfaith reconciliation, Pope John Paul II recently
undertook the first-ever visit by a Pope to Syria where he visited a
mosque. I commend the Pope for these historic actions that are in
keeping with the finest teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Despite these generous acts, Pope John Paul II was subjected to a
primitive anti- Jewish outburst by Syrian President Bashar Assad.
President Assad attacked the Jews as a people ``who try to kill the
principles of all religions with the same mentality with which they
betrayed Jesus Christ, and in the same way they tried to commit
treachery against the Prophet Muhammad.''
Later, Pope John Paul II was subjected to a second bigoted tirade,
this time by the Syrian Religious Affairs minister, who railed against
``what the enemies of God and malicious Zionism conspire to commit
against Christianity and Islam.'' On the second day of the Pope's visit
to Syria, a front page editorial in the official government newspaper
called Israelis ``the enemies of God and faith.''
These expresses must have been particularly painful to the Pope, in
view of the fact that he has worked so long and hard to further
increase understanding between Christians and Jews and people of all
faiths. The religious bigotry expressed by Syria's president is
contrary to America's values of religious tolerance and undermines the
chance for peace and poisons relations between people of different
faiths.
There have been reports that the Syrian government hopes to improve
its relationship with the United States in order to qualify for
American financial aid. Such anti-Semitic rhetoric is not a positive
step and merely fans the flames of violence.

[[Page H2232]]

The Flake amendment would shed light on the actions and statements of
high-ranking Syrian government officials and emphasizes the concern of
the United States about the negative impact such remarks make on the
prospects for Middle East peace. Congress must speak up and act to
condemn this hatred. Accordingly, I strongly urge all Members to
support this amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, time is running out for Germany to provide a measure of
justice to the survivors of the Holocaust, 10 to 15 percent of whom are
dying every year. I urge passage of
the Slaughter-Waxman-Schakowsky amendment to H.R. 1646 that would
require the Secretary of State to report to Congress twice a year on
the status of the German foundation, Remembrance, Responsibility, and
the Future.
The amendment also expresses the sense of Congress regarding the
urgency of payments to Holocaust slave and forced labor camp survivors,
and encourages the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance
Claims to work with the Secretary of State in gathering the information
required for the report.
Behind this amendment are real faces, faces of survivors from a
variety of concentration and forced labor camps. Thousands suffered
torture, mental abuse, loss of family, destruction of their culture
during the Holocaust; yet they continue to wait on reparations for the
suffering they endured so many years ago. Nearly a year after the
agreement signed by the United States and Germany establishing the
German foundation as the exclusive forum for the resolution of
Holocaust-era restitution claims, not one Deutsche Mark has been paid
out to a Holocaust survivor.
The German foundation is supposed to be an exclusive remedy. We must
make sure it is an effective remedy. This amendment would serve notice
to the German foundation that Congress is concerned about Holocaust
survivor restitution claims and expects the allocations of funds from
the German foundation to go forward without further delay.
During the last Congress, I introduced the Justice for Holocaust
Survivors Act, HR 271, a bill that would have allowed survivors to
pursue reparations from Germany for the unspeakable suffering they
endured during the Holocaust. H.R. 271 garnered the support of 96
bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation served as a major catalyst in
the talks between the U.S. and Germany to reach a compensation
agreement.
On July 17, 2000, the United States and Germany signed an agreement
to establish the German Foundation, as the exclusive forum for the
resolution of all Holocaust-era personal injury, property loss, and
damage claims against German banks, insurers, and companies. In return,
the U.S. Department of Justice has urged the U.S. courts to reject all
existing and future lawsuits against German companies by slave laborers
and other victims of the Nazi era.
However, nearly a year after the agreement's inception, not one
Deutsche mark has been paid by the German Foundation to Holocaust
survivors. There needs to be more oversight and enforcement of the
agreement that was negotiated by the United States. The German
Foundation is supposed to be an exclusive remedy; we must make sure it
is an effective remedy.
Our amendment would achieve this goal by requiring the Secretary of
State to report to Congress on whether the German Foundation is meeting
its responsibilities to claimants; insurance companies joining the
agreement abide by the same baseline set of standards; and slave and
forced labor payments are distributed as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this report would also serve notice to the German
Foundation that Congress is concerned about Holocaust survivor claims
and expects the allocation of funds from the German Foundation to go
forward without further delay.
We must address the current lack of oversight of the German
Foundation. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for this report
to Congress on the status of the German Foundation before it is too
late to grant justice to our aging Holocaust survivors.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for his willingness to fold the
Lampson-Jackson Lee-Chabot amendment regarding international child
abduction into his en bloc amendment. I also want to thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman) for their earlier comments and their hard work on this issue
that affects so many parents and children in the United States of
America.
In the fall of 2000, I wrote to former Secretary of State Albright to
express my strong concern regarding the U.S. State Department's
adherence to the reports required in section 202 of the consolidated
appropriations act of last year. Congress takes this reporting
requirement very seriously, as it is designed to strengthen the
implementation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction.
In the past, the Department of State has submitted reports to
Congress that in my mind have not been meeting the statutory
requirements required by the reports and has not helped the cause of
many parents left behind in the United States.
As H.R. 1646 is currently written, there is no reporting requirement
of the U.S. Department of State on the compliance with the provisions
of the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
done at the Hague in 1980, and this amendment simply extends the
reporting requirement in last year's State Department authorization
bill from the current requirement of 2001 for 2 years, to 2003.
The entire purpose of this report is to educate judges, attorneys,
and the public to promote remedial actions in current cases and to
prevent as many new ones as possible. This depends on full disclosure
by the State Department of information sought by Congress and the sort
of widespread dissemination of the report that was called for in the
last Congress' law.
So again I thank the chairman for accepting this as part of the en
bloc amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me this time; and
I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for including this
amendment in the en bloc amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment, particularly
my amendment regarding the former United States military facility in
the Philippines. Basically, what my amendment does is support the joint
statement by the United States and the Republic of the Philippines on
the Framework for Bilateral Cooperation in the Environmental and Public
Health, signed on July 27, 2000. This would encourage an objective
nongovernmental study which would examine the environmental
contamination and health effects emanating from the former U.S.
facilities in the Philippines following the departure of the U.S.
military forces from the Philippines in 1992.
This is good responsible policy. It cements an ongoing dialogue that
we have with the Philippines on the results of the contamination which
was evident in the military facilities which we left in 1992. This is
particularly important at this particular time as we examine our
ongoing relationships with the Philippines.
The United States and the Philippines have a long and proud history
of friendship and cooperation. We originally acquired the Philippines
under the Treaty of Paris in 1898; and frankly, we were engaged in a
period of imperialism and forcibly took the Philippines. But since that
time, we have helped the Philippines to develop its democratic
foundations and its military, as most Philippine military institutions
are modeled after the United States. We could consider the Philippines
the first pioneer democracy in Asia.

[[Page H2233]]

Now, this is particularly important at this time as we have finalized
a visiting forces agreement with the Philippines. We continue to
understand that in the ongoing environment of Asia we need the
Philippines now more than ever. It is time we take a little
responsibility for the environmental cleanup and take a good strong
look at it. I urge passage of the amendment and again thank the
chairman and the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment regarding
the former United States military facilities in the Philippines to H.R.
1646, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 2002.
My amendment would support the Joint statement by the United states
and the republic of the Philippines on a Framework for Bilateral
Cooperation in the Environmental and Public Health signed on July 27,
2000, which I ask permission to submit for the record; and would
encourage an objective non-governmental study which would examine
environmental contamination and health effects emanating from the
former U.S. military facilities in the Philippines, following departure
of U.S. military forces from the Philippines in 1992.
The United States and the Philippines have a long and proud history
of friendship and cooperation. Spain ceded the islands to the United
States under the terms of the Treaty of Paris signed December 10, 1898,
which ended the Spanish-American War. In turn, the United States helped
the Philippines to develop its democratic foundations and its military,
as most Philippine military institutions were modeled after United
States counterparts. Depending upon ones perception of history and
definition of democracy, the Philippines could be considered the first
pioneer democracy in Asia. In 1906, as a U.S. territory, the
Philippines elected two Resident Commissioners to the U.S. Congress. In
1935, the Philippine Islands became the Commonwealth of the
Philippines. Between 1907-1946, the Philippines elected 13 different
Resident Commissioners to the U.S. Congress. In 1946, the Philippines
became fully independent.
The United States and the Philippines maintained their relationship
as allies during World War II and the postwar period. In 1941, then
President Roosevelt called up members of the Philippine Commonwealth
Army into the service of the United States. Over one hundred thousand
Filipinos fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippine Islands
from Japan. This valiant sacrifice and dedication to our shared values
during their service in World War II is the foundation of the U.S. and
Philippine relationship.
In 1947, the U.S. and the Philippines signed the Military Bases
Agreement, which resulted in Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval
Base. Throughout, U.S.-Philippine relations have been and continue to
be based on shared history and commitment to democratic principles.
During negotiations between the U.S. and the Philippines in 1991, the
Philippine Senate rejected the renewal of the Military Base Agreement.
As a result, in 1992, the U.S. withdrew from Clark Air Force Base and
Subic Bay Naval Base, thereby ending the almost 100 years of American
military presence there. In the haste of our departure, unfortunately
little effort was made to provide any environmental restoration in the
bases, albeit none was required. This was a result of the 1988
Amendments to the Military Base Agreement.

Moreover, the 1998 Defense Authorization Act specifically states that
the armed forces ``should not be deployed outside the U.S. to provide
assistance to another nation in connection with environmental
preservation activities in that nation, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that such activities are necessary for national security
purposes.'' Given this legal and Congressional framework, the U.S. is
not legally obligated to provide any environmental restoration in
regards to the Philippines. However, I would strongly argue that while
both our nations share a profound concern for the quality of the
environment, the U.S. has a moral obligation to the Philippines to
cooperate in ameliorating this environmental degradation.
Nevertheless, according to the General Accounting Office, the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the World Health Organization, at
least eighteen contaminated sites on or surrounding these former
military installations in the Philippines have been identified. High
levels of toxic materials were generated on these sites from over 45
years of intensive military activities, including the production,
cleaning, use, and storage of weapons, ordnance, aircraft, naval
vessels, land vehicles, and electronic equipment. Wastes were dumped
with little regard for the environment as was the norm during the Cold
War. As a result of frequent chemical waste dumping, and inadequate
sewage and treatment facilities, these toxic materials directly
polluted the soil, air, and water.
The urgency of my amendment is shown through the severe illnesses and
increasing number of deaths experienced by the current Filipino
inhabitants near the former bases. Their health concerns include high
rates of urinary tract, reproductive, and nervous system problems, plus
high rates of respiratory disorders in children. Various reports have
suggested possible connection between these health problems and the
drinking water containing heavy metals such as mercury and lead. There
has also been a high occurrence of skin diseases, miscarriages,
stillbirths, birth defects, various cancers, heart and lung ailments,
and leukemia. In only one village where mercury and other contaminants
were found in the water, 68 deaths were reported between 1995 and 1999.
Not only are the lives of numerous families at stake, but our actions
should be considered within the larger scope of U.S.-Philippines
relations. Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Base were
strategically valuable during the Cold War--especially during the
Vietnam and Korean conflicts. The Filipino people have been our loyal
allies throughout this century. Therefore we cannot ignore these
pressing issues as the daily lives of thousands have been adversely
affected from such contamination.
In a positive step forward, in 1999, the U.S. and the Philippines
reached agreements to revive the security relationship, which had
declined following the U.S. withdrawal from military bases in 1992. The
two governments concluded a Visiting Forces Agreement that will allow
U.S. military personnel to enter the Philippines for joint training and
other cooperative activities.
In addition, in July of 2000, the U.S. and the Philippines signed a
Joint Statement that outlines a cooperative partnership that would
include increased sharing of information, best practices and
partnerships through ongoing capacity building programs, among
government and non-government experts. The goal of this Joint Statement
would be to enhance the Philippines' institutional and technical
capacity to address environmental and public health problems throughout
the Philippines and help coordinate military-to-military consultations
to discuss ways to reduce the environmental impacts of peacetime
military activities.

I would like to commend the DOD and the State Department for their
collaborative efforts in working within the legal framework provided,
and cooperating with the Philippines in turning over records and
documents via the U.S. Embassy. Moreover, I would like to point out the
many successful U.S. inter-agency team visits to the Philippines. In
May 2000, officials from DOD, State, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and Department of Energy (DOE) began to discuss the broad
environmental issues facing the Philippines. In October 2000, a DOD
team began a defense-to-defense environmental information exchange
program, and conducted a workshop on hazardous waste management. And,
in December of 2000, yet another inter-agency team consisting of DOD,
State, EPA, the US Agency for International Development, and US
Geological Service conducted more workshops on environmental management
systems. My amendment supports these activities and provides further
constructive steps by encouraging an objective non-governmental study
that would build upon this positive work.
A new study issued May 14th by the Rand organization, entitled ``U.S.
& Asia--Toward a New U.S. Strategy and Force Posture'' reinforces the
importance of U.S.-Philippine relations.
This study argues that the conflict between Taiwan and mainland China
are key to U.S. security posture in the Pacific and recommends the U.S.
engage in new relationships with the Philippines and Guam.
Specifically, the study reports that the U.S. should ``. . . expand
cooperation with the Philippines'' and ``. . . the Philippines may
present an interesting opportunity to enhance Air Force access in the
Western Pacific.'' Moreover, the study suggests that Guam ``should be
developed into a major hub from which the Air Force and Navy could
project power into the South China Sea and elsewhere in Southeast
Asia.''
Given this analysis of the importance of the Philippines, Congress
should seek to encourage better cooperation and increased dialogue
between our two countries, which my amendment intends to do.
Passage of this important amendment will also help raise awareness of
the environmental contamination and health issues at the former
military bases in the Philippines. I urge all Members to support my
amendment.

Joint Statement by the United States of America and the Republic of the
Philippines on Framework for Bilateral Cooperation in the Environment
and Public Health

Whereas the United States of America and the Republic of
the Philippines have a long and proud history of friendship
and cooperation.

[[Page H2234]]

Whereas both nations share a profound concern for the
quality of the natural environment and the impact
environmental quality has on the health and well-being of our
peoples.
Whereas both nations recognize the critical importance that
environmental quality plays in the stability and security of
nations.
Whereas both nations share a strong interest in working to
prevent environmental problems that could threaten public
health or the national security of either nation.
Whereas both nations intend to cooperate to help protect
air, soil, and water resources, marine and coral reefs,
tropical forests, and biological diversity.
And taking note of the joint statement on clean energy and
climate change signed by their Energy Departments, both
nations do hereby express their intent to reduce industrial
and toxic pollution and the emissions of greenhouse gases
that can contribute to global climate change, and to enhance
local capacities for improved environmental and public health
management.
Accordingly, the United States of America and the Republic
of the Philippines announce that they intend to jointly
expose ways in which this cooperation can further enhance
their long tradition of friendship and help ensure the well-
being of their peoples and the planet.
This cooperation is envisioned to include increased sharing
of information, best practices and partnerships through
ongoing capacity building programs, among government and non-
governmental experts, directly and by electronic mans. The
goal of this cooperation would be to enhance the Philippines'
institutional and technical capacity to address environmental
and public health problems throughout the Philippines.
In particular, cooperative efforts should be undertaken to
build capacity for effective regulation of the competitive
electric power industry that will be evolving in the
Philippines in order to facilitate the market deployment of
energy efficient technologies, renewable energy sources, and
less carbon intensive fuels such as natural gas, all of which
can help limit emissions of both carbon dioxide and
conventional air pollutants.
In addition, these exchanges and consultations may also
include cooperation to minimize loss of life and property
damage resulting for natural disasters.
Further, in consideration of the treaty alliance between
the United States of America and the Republic of the
Philippines, and believing strongly in the importance of a
close relationship between our armed forces, as part of our
cooperative effort, we intend to convene defense-to-defense
consultations to discuss ways to reduce the environmental
impacts of peacetime military activities.
Further specific priorities for this enhanced framework for
cooperation on the environment and public health are to be
defined in an ongoing dialogue by interagency teams of both
Governments and should build on current bilateral efforts.
Through this dialogue, the Philippine side will provide the
United States a prioritized list of proposed cooperative
activities with a view to achieving the objectives of this
Joint Statement.
Washington, DC, July 27, 2000
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my
friend, 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 chairman and the
ranking member for allowing this amendment to come to the floor. I
support the en bloc, and I ask for the support of my colleagues for
this amendment that places governments on notice that the United States
pays attention to those nations who use children as soldiers.
The amendment mandates that the Department of State annual Human
Rights Report for each country, where applicable, include a description
of the nature of conscription, and participation of persons under the
age of 18 by governmental forces, government-supported paramilitaries,
or other armed groups.
Do I need to name the countries? Countries in South America, Sierra
Leone in Africa, Sudan, Liberia, and other places where children have
been placed into conflicts not of their own choosing. This is important
documentation that will tell us a great deal about the real human
rights practices that occur when children are absorbed into armed
conflict.
The mere compilation of annual country reports regarding this human
tragedy will be a critical tool in the United States foreign policy. We
must stop children being forced into armed war. An estimated 300,000
children under the age of 18 were engaged in armed military conflicts
in more than 30 countries, and they are currently fighting along with
the adults in these armed conflicts.
I am gratified that the ranking member, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos), is a cosponsor, as is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis). Far too many of these children have been forcibly conscripted
through kidnapping or coercion, and others join because of economic
necessity, to avenge the loss of a family member, or for their own
personal safety. It is horrific to see children with mutilated hands,
but even more so for the children to mutilate those because they are
forced to do so.
Listen to the story of a girl from Uganda who was kidnapped, taken
away from picking tomatoes in the garden. These soldiers surrounded
her, they then took her to her home, killed her mother, and then took
her away, leaving behind her little brother and two little sisters. It
is a tragedy. And these children try to resist.
This is a good amendment and I ask for support. We must stop the
utilization of children for soldiers in armed warfare.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to extend my strong support for the Jackson Lee-
Lewis-Lantos amendment to the underlying bill. It would enhance our
understanding of the treatment of children being used as soldiers.
In short, the amendment would require annual human rights country
reports on children used as soldiers. Nothing in the amendment would
require any change in U.S. policy or prohibit any funding through
multilateral or bilateral assistance given abroad. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment merely places governments on notice that the United States
pays attention to those nations who use children as soldiers.
The amendment mandates that the Department of State annual Human
Rights Report for each country, where applicable, include a description
of the nature of conscription, and participation in of persons under
the age of 18 by governmental forces, government supported
paramilitaries, or other armed groups; their use in combat; and what
steps are being taken by the government of that country to eliminate
such practices. This is important documentation that will tell us a
great deal about the real human rights practices that occur when
children are absorbed into armed conflict. The mere compilation of
annual country reports regarding human rights has been a critical tool
of American foreign policy under Republican and Democratic
Administrations.
An estimated 300,000 children under the age of 18 were engaged in
armed military conflicts in more than 30 countries are currently
fighting in armed conflicts. Sadly, far too many of these wonderful
children are forcibly conscripted through kidnapping or coercion and
others joined because of economic necessity, to avenge the loss of a
family member or for their own personal safety. There are so many
stories of children being abused in this way.
``B.'' [who wishes to remain unidentified], a 14-year-old young girl,
was abducted in Uganda in February 1997: ``I had gone to the garden to
collect tomatoes at around eight or nine in the morning. Suddenly, I
was surrounded by about 50 rebels. They started picking tomatoes and
eating them. They arrested me and beat me terribly. Finally, I walked
them to my home. We went there and collected my clothes. There, they
killed my mother. They made me go, leaving behind my little brother and
two little sisters. . . . I was resisting. Then they started beating me
until I became unconscious.''
War is a daily reality for millions of children. Some have never
known any other life--they have grown up in the midst of civil wars,
guerrilla wars, guerrilla insurgency, or long-term occupation by a
foreign army. For others, the world is suddenly turned upside down when
invasion of forced internal displacement drives them on the road of
refugees or displaced persons, often separated from their families.
The results are devastating. Children injured in armed conflicts
often-innocent bystanders, but some are targeted deliberately by
security forces and armed opposition groups, in retribution or to
provoke outrage in each other's communities. Some, mainly girls are
singled out for sexual abuse. While both boys and girls are used as
fighters, girls are at particular risk of rape.
Casualty rates among child soldiers are generally high, because of
their inexperience, fearlessness and lack of training, and because they
are often used for particularly hazardous assignments, such as
intelligence or planting landmines. Both governments and armed groups
use children because they are easier to condition into fearless killing
and unthinking obedience; child soldiers are sometime provided with
drugs and alcohol to overcome their fear or reluctance to fight.
Last year, the United States government signed two landmark Protocols
that address prostitution, the impact of pornography on children, and
the global practice of child labor. This resolution, in an entirely
complimentary

[[Page H2235]]

way, applauds the decision by the U.S. government to support the
Protocol that condemns the use of children as soldiers by government
and nongovernment forces. Further, the House passed H. Con. Res. 348, a
resolution that condemns the use of children as soldiers. And there is
good reason why we did that. This is a common sense step forward.
It is important that the House accept the Jackson Lee-Lewis-Lantos
amendment so that the U.S. Department of State may include reports on
other countries that use children as soldiers. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.

{time} 1645

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and rise to support an amendment which outlines
a 3- to 5-year trade, aid and security agenda with East Timor which, as
everyone knows, is currently under United Nations control and is
scheduled for full independence later this year.
This legislation contained in the en bloc authorizes bilateral U.S.
assistance to East Timor in order to promote civil society, independent
media, job creation and economic development. It authorizes the
establishment of a Peace Corps program in East Timor, requires that a
developmental plan to establish full diplomatic facilities in East
Timor be accomplished and mandates a series of steps to increase the
involvement of U.S. trade and export agencies in East Timor.
I had the honor of having the chance to travel to East Timor with
Nobel Prize winner Bishop Carlos Belo, and this was just after he
received the Nobel Peace Prize. As my colleagues know, for the last 30
years East Timor has been fighting for its independence. Finally it won
it.
Mr. Chairman, now we need to make sure that independence sticks and
stability takes hold. In this Congress and many other places, we
prepare for war. And when we prepare for war, we make sure that we make
an investment in order to win war once we have prepared for it. Now we
need to win the peace. We need to make sure that peace takes hold in
East Timor. So we also need to make sure that peace takes hold, and
this legislation within the en bloc will make that take place.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this
very important amendment which will help our relationship with East
Timor and help it get underway.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support for two
amendments that we have offered as part of the en bloc proposal today.
The first deals with fugitives who continue to flee America and
American justice. The world has gotten smaller and the number of
criminals fleeing America continues to grow. With this amendment,
Congress takes another step towards the days when there is nowhere in
the world for fugitives to hide.
According to the Department of Justice, more than 3,000 indicted
criminals have fled and remain out of our American reach. Their crimes
include murder, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, child
abduction, financial fraud, and cyber crime. Our extradition agreements
are terribly outdated. Half of them predate World War II, and we do not
have agreements with over 40 percent of the world, so there are safe
havens throughout the globe.
Mr. Chairman, our goal with this amendment is to ensure that the
State Department creates a process for updating our outdated
extradition agreements and starting a process to incur new agreements
to return these criminals to face American justice and to work with the
Department of Justice in doing so.
The second amendment is designed to express a sense of our Congress
which is absolutely committed to ensuring the truth of the murder of a
Texan American, John Elvis, who was brutally murdered last November in
Baku, Azerbaijan. He was finishing a 4-year commitment to the
International Republican Institute for Fair and Free Elections, and had
only 2 weeks left before he returned home to Texas and his family.
We appreciate the support the government of Azerbaijan has provided
us, the FBI, and our Ambassador onsite to attempt to solve this murder.
This young man was a friend, a colleague and a true freedom fighter for
America. President Bush and others continue to urge Azerbaijan to
cooperate with us to ultimately find this murderer or murderers, and
bring them to justice.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Slaughter-Waxman-Schakowsky amendment and thank my co-authors for their
hard work on this important subject, and I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished chairman and ranking
Democratic member of the Committee on International Relations.
My district, the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, includes
Skokie and is home to one of the largest Holocaust survivor populations
in this country. With passage, this body will make it clear to
Holocaust survivors in my district and throughout the world that the
United States places the utmost importance on providing some measure of
justice, albeit long overdue, to those who suffered the worst atrocity
of the last century.
This amendment also puts it clearly on record in underscoring the
critical timing of this issue for the aging Holocaust survivor
population, and urges the German Bundestag to provide the funds for
disbursement by the German foundation to Holocaust survivors as soon as
possible. Holocaust survivors have been waiting more than 50 years.
This amendment will help assure that their pain and patience is
acknowledged in some small way.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I join Representative Slaughter and
Representative Schakowsky today in offering an important amendment to
the State Department Authorization Bill, which will enhance U.S.
Government oversight of the major Holocaust restitution settlement that
created the German Foundation ``Rememberance, Responsibility, and the
Future.''
Nearly a year ago, on July 17, 2000, the German Foundation was
established to expedite payments to Holocaust survivors who were
tortured as slave and forced laborers, and settle claims for banking
and insurance policies stolen by the Nazis. Unfortunately, its
implementation has fallen far below expectations.
Thousands of aging survivors who suffered through the horrors of
concentration camps continue waiting for the distribution of payments
months after all of the class action slave and forced labor cases were
dismissed or withdrawn from U.S. courts. In the matter of insurance,
merely 496 claims out of the 70,000 filed with the International
Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC) have been
settled. The rest have been idled or rejected because the companies
have largely ignored many of ICHEIC's standards for approving claims
and publishing policyholder names.
During the ceremony preceding the announcement of the German
Foundation, U.S. Holocaust Envoy Stuart Eizenstat said, ``It is
critically important that all German insurance companies cooperate with
the process established by the International Commission on Holocaust
Era Insurance Claims, or ICHEIC. This includes publishing lists of
unpaid insurance policies and subjecting themselves to audit. Unless
German insurance companies make these lists available through ICHEIC,
potential claimants cannot know their eligibility, and the insurance
companies will have failed to assume their moral responsibility.''
We must vigilantly pursue resolution of these issues. The amendment
asks the State Department for a status report on the progress of the
German Foundation, including verification that all participating
insurance companies abide by the same baseline set of claims handling
procedures and standards for publishing policyholder names. It is
troubling enough that barely half of the modest DM 10 billion
designated for the German Foundation has been contributed, but no
amount of money is worthwhile unless survivors have meaningful access
to the funds.
Congress played a vital role in fostering and facilitating the
creation of the German Foundation, and we must be equally devoted to
overseeing its proper implementation. We should continue holding
congressional hearings on this issue, and briefings to help Members of
Congress assist constituents in filing claims as deadlines rapidly
approach. The deadline to qualify for slave and forced labor payments
is August 11, 2001, and the deadline to file for insurance claims is
January 31, 2002.

[[Page H2236]]

We must do as much as possible to make sure that the German
Foundation offers not just an ``exclusive remedy,'' but the fair and
just process that was envisioned.
Mr. SCHROCK, Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Manzullo's
Amendment and in support for a constituent in Virginia's 2nd district
who will be directly affected by this amendment.
Ms. Chantal Ganthier was the wife of one of the service men taken
hostage on the hijacked TWA flight 847 in 1985. I support Ms. Ganthier
becoming eligible for compensation due to the traumatic suffering she
and her family has endured since her husband was brutally taken as a
hostage in 1985.
I encourage my colleagues to vote yea for the Manzullo amendment.
It's time was recognize the legal right of these families, these
victims of a terrible hijacking, to become eligible for compensation.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that there was
not an amendment addressing the Kyoto Protocol language in the State
Department reauthorization bill. This language that calls for
implementary the protocol will potentially have far-reaching
ramifications. An issue of such importance should have been debated
before the House.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, by 2008 to 2012 the U.S. would be required
to slash emissions of greenhouse gases to seven percent below the 1990
level--a level last achieved in 1979. Based on projections of the
future growth in U.S. energy use, this would require a real cut in
emissions of over 30 percent. In the meantime, major greenhouse-gas
emitters, such as China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, would be able to
continue business as usual.
But while the Protocol sets stringent targets and timetables for
developed countries, it left the important details of implementation
for later negotiations. After three years, these negotiations have gone
nowhere, the developing countries have repeatedly refused to even
discuss the possibility that targets and timetables might apply to
them, as well.
Furthermore, in the recent round of discussions that I attended at
The Hague last November, the European Union obstructed any effort to
establish a system to account for carbon sinks that take carbon gases
out of the air. Some estimates suggest that U.S. carbon sinks--mainly
forests and agricultural crop land--offset all of our carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. As U.S. farmers know, corn, sorghum, wood lots,
and other crops take up vast amounts of carbon dioxide. But instead of
negotiating in good faith on this and other issues, European
governments seemed more intent on using the treaty to weaken America's
competitiveness.
The United States Senate has already voted against the treaty. With
no realistic hope that the treaty could be salvaged and eventually
ratified by the Senate, the Bush Administration did the right thing and
rejected the treaty. Although many European governments have expressed
bitter disappointment about the U.S. decision, it should be pointed out
that Romania is the only developed country to ratify the treaty so far.
We need to reduce emissions of green house gases, and we are doing
that but the simple fact is that for the U.S. to achieve the unfair
U.S. responsibility set out in the Kyoto treaty, energy costs would
have to rise sharply.
Today's high cost of energy provides just a hint of the kinds of
price increases we could expect if we agree to the Kyoto treaty. The
Energy Information Administration projects that under Kyoto, by 2010
the average cost of a gallon of gasoline, in current dollars, would
rise 32 cents. Diesel fuel prices to would rise to an average of $2.18
compared to $1.47 today. Home heating oil also would be expected to
rise to $2.10 per gallon, well above last winter's price.
Such price increases would have a devastating impact on the U.S.
economy. Good-paying, high-skilled manufacturing jobs in many
industries would be lost at investment in American plants dries up and
industries relocate to developing countries not subject to the treaty's
requirements. The losses suffered in these industries will be felt
throughout the economy in lower incomes and fewer jobs.
A study by the well-respected econometrics firm WEFA Inc. estimates
that the treaty would lead to a drop in average household income of
$2,700 per year. Further, an additional 2.4 million U.S. manufacturing
jobs could be expected to move to developing countries where companies
could take advantage of cheaper energy. Once these countries became
sanctuaries for energy-intensive industries, they would be even less
likely to agree to emissions limits in the future.
The treaty also lacks a firm scientific basis. While there is not
scientific disagreement that more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are in our atmosphere than before the Industrial Revolution,
scientists disagree about the extent man-made gases contribute to
global warming, the amount of warming, or even if the planet is warming
at all. Some research indicates even warmer global temperatures in the
past then what we are experiencing today.
Current computer models predicting warming over the next century may
prove to be no more reliable than the five-day weather forecast. But
even assuming that these models are right, achieving the emission goals
in the treaty would reduce project warming by about two-tenths of a
degree by 2050. But that does not mean we should ignore this potential
problem.
There are many things about the climate system we still do not
understand. That is why I support continued research to increase our
understanding of climate variability and the potential human impact of
greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of Kyoto's command and control
approach, the Administration and Congress must work to develop new
technologies, market-based incentives, and other approaches to increase
energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions. I fully support
these approaches and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders-Morella
amendment. Last year, Congress passed the landmark Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000, authorizing funds through FY 2002. Our
amendment authorizes an increase in funds for FY 2003 and makes some
technical amendments to the Act's foreign assistance provisions.
The international trafficking of human beings for slavery, forced
labor, or prostitution is a growing global problem that affects poor
and rich countries alike. The Congressional Research Service estimates
that every year two million people are trafficked against their will to
work in some form of servitude. The majority of trafficking victims are
under the age of 18 and annually, about 50,000 women and girls are
trafficked into the United States alone. The International Organization
for Migration (IOM) estimates that trafficking in human beings is a $5
to $7 billion industry worldwide.
Women, children, and men are trafficked to work in a variety of
settings beyond forced prostitution and pornography. These areas
include domestic work, illegal labor in manufacturing, service
industries, or farms, bonded labor, servile marriage, false adoption,
and street begging to profit traffickers. Women and girls may be
initially trafficked to work as sweatshop laborers and then be
transferred into prostitution or domestic servitude.
The states of the former Soviet Union and Southeast Asia are
principal sources of trafficked women and girls, but women are
trafficked from many developing countries. In Southeast Asia,
trafficking is responsible for approximately 10% of the region's gross
domestic product (GDP).
Ending the global trade in human beings will require a multi-
dimensional approach that addresses the causes of trafficking, protects
and supports victims, and prosecutes traffickers. Most importantly,
women's vulnerability to trafficking is rooted in poverty and their low
social status in many nations. Increased education, work skills,
business development, and economic opportunity for women and girls will
cut trafficking off at its roots. Additionally, training for law
enforcement, customs and immigration officials, and courts in source
and destination countries can help deter traffickers. International
attention is necessary, not only because the United States imports
thousands of women and girls but also because, in many cases, police,
judges, and elected officials at all levels of government collude with
traffickers--making a law enforcement approach alone ineffective.
The United States has and should continue to be active in combating
the growing problem of trafficking in humans. I want to thank Chairman
Hyde and Congressman Smith for their dedication to this issue and
encourage members to support the Sanders-Morella amendment.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Manzullo
amendment. Last year, in enacting the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act, Congress provided relief to Americans
victimized in five terrorist incidents sponsored by nation states. One
of these incidents involved seven Americans who were taken hostage when
TWA flight 847 was hijacked by terrorists allegedly sponsored by Iran.
Through an unfortunate error, Congress did not provide compensation to
six of the Americans who filed suit against Iran in March 2000. Former
Navy diver Ken Bowen, a constituent of mine from Lake City, Florida, is
one of those Americans. He and the other military personnel were taken
to Lebanon where they were beaten and subjected to mock executions over
17 days before their release. Equity demands that we correct this grave
error. As we work toward the Memorial Day recess and the June 14
anniversary of the hijacking, I ask you to please join me in supporting
the Manzullo amendment so that Mr. Bowen and the other American victims
can receive the compensation they so justly deserve.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to address an issue of
great importance to the

[[Page H2237]]

Peace Corps and its many fine Volunteers serving around the world--the
potential application of the Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act to require Peace Corps to ``collocate'' its
offices with embassies abroad.
More than 7,000 Peace Corps Volunteers are currently serving in
developing countries around the world. Volunteers give two years of
their lives to provide assistance to, and learn from, the people of
some of the poorest countries in the world.
Living and working with ordinary people, volunteers contribute in a
variety of capacities to improving the lives of those they serve. They
also seek to share their understanding of other countries with
Americans back home.
For 40 years, Peace Corps offices have existed separately from U.S.
embassies in their host country. Volunteers generally reside outside
capital cities, often in remote villages at the same economic level as
the people to whom they lend their energy, skills, and friendship.
There is a critical security aspect to this arrangement. When
Volunteers are recognized as development workers serving a community's
needs, they are embraced, supported and protected by the community.
If, on the other hand, a perception arises that Volunteers are
serving U.S. political objectives or are possibly connected with
intelligence activity, the protection the Peace Corps has traditionally
relied upon will erode.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that
the Secretary of State should give favorable consideration to requests
by the Peace Corps and exercise his waiver authority in order to permit
the Peace Corps to maintain offices separate from U.S. embassies
abroad.
I offer this amendment because I know first-had that Volunteers are
able to meet their goals only to the extent they are accepted into and
trusted by their communities. Significantly increased reliance upon,
and contact between, Peace Corps Volunteers and the embassy--an
inevitable result of collocation--would compromise that trust.
I would like to thank Chairman Hyde and his staff for their
assistance in drafting this amendment and urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my amendment
to the State Department authorization bill. My amendment is a simple,
technical correction to legislation Congress passed and the president
signed last fall: H.R. 3244, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000.
In its closing weeks, the 106th Congress passed H.R. 3244 to provide
relief to Americans victimized in five terrorist incidents sponsored by
nation states. H.R. 3244 permits the payment of anti-terrorism
judgments with the frozen assets of countries that sponsor terrorism,
such as Iran.
One of the five incidents involved seven Americans, retired and
active duty members of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army, who were taken
hostage by terrorists allegedly sponsored by the nation state of Iran
when TWA flight 847 was hijacked from Athens, Greece to Beirut, Lebanon
airport in 1985. The American were tortured and held hostage for 17
days. Of the seven American TWA victims, Robert Stethem was murdered.
The remaining six Americans, survived. One of them is my constituent.
Stethem's family members filed suit against Iran in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia on March 15, 2000, pursuant to the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The remaining six American TWA
victims filed a separate but similar suit against Iran in the same
court on June 6, 2000. Through inadvertent error, Congress listed only
Stethem's suit, not that of the other six American TWA victims, when it
provided relief in H.R. 3244 in the closing weeks of the 106th
Congress. The two American TWA victim cases are now consolidated and
await a joint trial during the summer of 2001.
My amendment would render the six American TWA victims eligible for
compensation on the same basis as are complainants associated with the
five other complaints listed in H.R. 3244.
This is a matter of fairness. I ask my colleagues for their strong
support.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee
that would outline and authorize over three-to-five years a recovery
and transition to independence strategy for U.S. aid for East Timor.
I was proud to introduce this legislation as H.R. 675 with my
colleagues, Representatives Lantos (CA) and Kennedy (RI) in February. I
want to express my appreciation for their leadership in designing a
bill that looks towards establishing permanent and productive relations
with a soon-to-be independent East Timor.
This amendment calls upon the Administration to continue to
facilitate East Timor's transition to independence, to support
democracy and economic recovery, and to strengthen the security of East
Timor. Today, the situation on the border between East and West Timor
remains tense and combative. Over 100,000 East Timorese remain trapped
in squalid refugee camps just inside the Indonesian territory of West
Timor. Indonesian-supported militia groups during the violence of 1999
forcibly removed most of these people from their homes in East Timor.
International humanitarian and refugee organizations are limited or
unable to provide these refugees with assistance because of the
threatening climate created by Indonesia.
We should recall that three United Nations humanitarian workers were
brutally and publicly murdered--stabbed to death--by these militias
while Indonesian police and authorities stood by. The individuals who
carried out the murders were tried and sentenced to the lightest of
sentences, giving official sanction to similar violent acts.
While some areas of reconstruction and recovery have moved ahead in
East Timor, a great deal more needs to be done to rebuild this tiny
nation which has suffered so much in order to gain its freedom. Current
reconstruction and longer-term economic aid should focus on creating
employment economic security for the majority of East Timorese. It
should include the participation of local communities in the planning
and design of projects and help preserve, strengthen and expand local
leadership. The people of East Timor are eager and more than capable of
rebuilding their homes, businesses and communities. International aid
targeted at these tasks should hire and compensate the East Timorese
for their productive labor, rather than flowing into the pockets of
high-salary consultants and officers of multilateral and other foreign
organizations.
This amendment looks ahead to the future of an independent East
Timor. It sets forth requirements for the provision of bilateral
assistance, multilateral aid, Peace Corps assistance, scholarships for
East Timorese students, security assistance, and trade and investment
aid.
I can see that future, and I commend the gentleman from California in
moving this amendment forward so that it can become a reality.

[From the Boston Sunday Globe, May 5, 2001]

Born Amid Violence, and Yet Looking to the Future

(By Arnold Kohen)

Dili, East Timor.--Jose Maria Barreto Lobato Goncalves
typifies the youth of this country. But his own life is
anything but typical.
When he was a toddler, Jose was snatched from the arms of
his mother, Isabel, as she faced execution on that day in
December 1975 when Indonesian forces invaded this island
nation.
The boy--son of Nicolau Lobato, a legendary symbol of
resistance--was himself nearly put to death, but at the last
moment, the Indonesian commander was persuaded to spare him.
Adopted by his aunt, Olimpia, and her husband, the late
Jose Goncalves, the boy was taken to live in the Indonesian
capital of Jakarta. Kept unaware of his true parentage (and
of his father's death in 1978 in an Indonesian ambush), he
was educated in Indonesia's best Jesuit school, later
studying computers and management.
Now, at 28, he is back in his homeland, which was freed in
late 1999 by international peacekeepers after nearly a
quarter-century of harsh Indonesian military control.
Today, Lobato is an assistant to the chief executive at a
local relief organization. He displays all the good humor and
intellectual nimbleness of the best of his contemporaries
anywhere, combined with a spirit of reconciliation that is
all the more impressive in light of his family's suffering.
In this way, he is said to take after his father. ``He was
a nationalist, a man of rectitude, just and humane,'' says
Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo, the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize co-
laureate.
Indeed, Lobato's father was a man who refused to seek
revenge against Indonesian prisoners or Timorese accused of
working for Indonesia, even after nearly all his family
members were murdered.
The bishop, a priest in the Salesian Order, noted for its
ministry to the young, knows that people like Jose Lobato
must be groomed for the task of eventually running this new
nation, on a tropical island off northern Australia whose
beauty and perfume-scented air belie its tragic history.
It has been estimated that one-third of East Timor's
original population of 700,000 perished during the nearly 25-
year Indonesian military occupation. On April 2 an East Timor
Genocide Documentation Project was launched by Yale
University's Genocide Studies Program, adding to existing
Yale efforts on Cambodia and Rwanda.
The country, still reeling from its violent past, is
struggling to rebuild.
For almost two years, it has been administered by the
United Nations, yet border attacks from Indonesian territory
continue. Street children are common now, after never before
having been a problem in East Timor. Essential systems, such
as water and electrical, have been hampered after Indonesian

[[Page H2238]]

military elements bent on vengeance destroyed the manuals
needed to operate them.
The East Timorese are receiving help from the United
States. There is a small U.S. military contingent based
offshore, called USGET, the U.S. Support Group East Timor,
which is by U.S. law operating independently of the United
Nations peacekeepers. The USGET presence is an important
signal of American backing for the transition to
independence. (East Timor had, before its annexation by
Indonesia, been a Portuguese colony.) USGET receives periodic
help from the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy in its work
in East Timor, renewing schools, community centers, and
repairing power and water lines.
Last month, hundreds of tons of U.S. relief aid were
distributed, some of these donations with the help of Jose
Lobato and his organization.
Although young Lobato is far too diplomatic to even hint at
this, the stability created by sustained American help is
seen privately as the least the United States can provide,
given the billions of dollars in economic and military aid
spent to support Indonesia's military occupation of East
Timor. More reconstruction would be possible if Congress
increased the modest $25 million if appropriated last year
for East Timor.
Many concerned about East Timor's future--Bishop Belo
certainly among them--see a continuing international presence
as vital. Dire outcomes can be averted with timely
initiatives. Like many other things, it is simply a matter of
political will.
For his part, Lobato knows he has been blessed with an
excellent education, and is eager to advance the prospects of
others less privileged. Young leaders like him give strong
reason for hope for East Timor's future. The question is
whether they will receive the international help they need.
____

[From the Tablet, Apr. 21, 2001]

High Hopes of a New Nation

(By Arnold Kohen)

Easter is an especially verdant time of the year in East
Timor, a tropical island off northern Australia whose beauty
belies its tragic history. Regeneration, both within East
Timor and of the international networks vital to the
sustenance of this martyred land, is urgently needed.
Administered by the United Nations since an international
peace-keeping force entered the former Portuguese colony in
September 1999, East Timor is still reeling from its ordeal.
Border attacks from Indonesian territory continue.
Two years ago, the people of East Timor suffered a mounting
series of assaults by Indonesian army and local militias,
some carried out in and around churches in this predominantly
Roman Catholic island nation. After nearly 80 percent of
eligible voters opted for independence from Indonesia in a
referendum, the territory was subjected to an orgy of
violence and destruction spearheaded by these same Indonesian
forces. Now, 18 months later, renewal is under way.
The task is immense. Much if not most of the infrastructure
was left in ruins. Electrical and water facilities were
severely damaged, and even the manuals needed to operate
these systems were destroyed by Indonesian military elements
bent on vengeance. Many homes and public facilities have yet
to be rebuilt. Though the UN presence has created jobs, an
estimated 70 percent of East Timor's people are unemployed.
Paradoxically, many of those without work at present were
among the most committed members of the resistance to the 24-
year Indonesian occupation: often they did not pursue their
studies or were expelled for their political activities.
Their plight must be redressed urgently.
UN-sponsored elections are due on 30 August this year. In
these crucial transitional months leading up to the poll, the
people of East Timor are under great stress. Yale University
medical specialists report that a majority of them are
suffering from the after-effects of the traumatic events
surrounding the referendum of 1999. With only minor
exceptions, justice has not been forthcoming and will take
time to achieve--indeed, is impossible under current
conditions, for the Indonesian military is refusing to
cooperate with prosecution of those in its ranks seen as the
guilty parties. An international tribunal should be
established.
Massive reconstruction remains to be done, and many areas
need the most fundamental attention such as the cleaning up
of garbage and debris. Reforestation, planting of gardens,
building or rebuilding of parks and gardens could all be
increased to improve the environment and serve as an
important psychological boost to a long-suffering population.
Beyond such emergency jobs, Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo, the
Nobel peace laureate, has issued a call to all nations to
work to create sustainable enterprises to tackle
unemployment.
The East Timorese are demonstrating enormous pride and
resilience. Bishop Belo has told the young people that this
Easter they should become joyful and happy about
opportunities now open to them that never before existed. In
fact, a vibrant civil society is developing resourceful non-
governmental organisations devoted to human rights, women's
concerns, the environment, relief and reconstruction and the
rest. Most of these groups are led by people under 35, which
gives strong reason for hope in the future. Can the world
community fulfill its obligation to provide stability and
sustained support--especially those nations that spent
decades and billions of dollars of economic and military aid
effectively supporting Indonesia's military occupation of the
former Portuguese colony? For a start, the UN staff and
peacekeeping troops are a force for stability and a bulwark
against reinvasion: they should stay for several years.
International financial authorities, the real economic
overlords in the territory, have argued that in three or four
years East Timor will be simply another poor Pacific island
nation and have no special status. But they miss a crucial
point: something terrible has happened in East Timor over the
past quarter-century that the world must not be allowed to
forget. A small but significant step was taken on 2 April
in the United States when the East Timor genocide
documentation project was launched by Yale University's
genocide studies programme, adding to existing Yale
efforts on Cambodia and Rwanda.
About a third of East Timor's original population of
700,000 perished from the combined effects of the Indonesian
military occupation. As the East Timor resistance leader
Xanana Gusmao recently asked two priests who schooled him as
a young man, who is going to dry the tears of the widows of
the freedom fighters? Who will feed those who struggled for
more than two decades? In the light of the special
relationship of the Catholic Church with the people of East
Timor, it would seem appropriate to request backing from
international church authorities so that they may press
governments for long-term support for East Timor, in terms of
troops, qualified aid workers and finance. Local and foreign
church agencies (and private development organizations such
as Oxfam) that support East Timor have limited means to
address employment or larger economic and political matters,
but they have knowledge that should be transmitted to
interested parties.
For example, Maryknoll Sisters have medical and
psychological expertise, and are specialists on women's
health. Agencies associated with Caritas such as Cafod and
Trocaire can use their influence in Europe to gather support
for East Timor: Cafod staff have travelled widely in hard-hit
areas near the border with Indonesia. For its part the Jesuit
Refugee Service, led by Fr Frank Brennan, is doing
indispensable work assisting East Timorese refugees who
remain in West Timor.
The United States bishops can work in Washington, where
lawyers for East Timorese victims of the carnage of 1999
recently brought a case against an Indonesian general who was
in the chain of command during those events. The testimonies
of the Timorese, whose identities were not revealed for their
own protection, provided a searing microcosm of what their
nation underwent: lives and limbs lost, property and meagre
possessions totally destroyed; in some instances families
nearly wiped out.
International headlines featuring East Timor these days
focus on who will be the first president of this nascent
nation, which is expected to become independent next year.
But the politics of the moment are far less important than
long-term international programmes to help in the country's
resurrection. A major danger is that discontent fuelled by
East Timorese unemployment will provide fertile ground for
subversive forces, some of them linked to Indonesian military
elements that were responsible for the tragic events of 1999.
Left unchecked, the situation could lead to riots and social
breakdown which could sabotage the international peacekeeping
mission and UN efforts. But such dire outcomes can be averted
with timely initiatives and patience. Like many other things,
it is simply a matter of political will.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I first became involved in
extradition reform in 1997 when there was a horrible crime in my
district in Sarasota, Florida. Sheila Bellush, a mother of six, was
brutally murdered in her home while her 2-year-old quadruplets watched.
The murderer, Jose Luis Del Toro, immediately fled to Mexico where he
managed to avoid extradition for almost 2 years. The Mexican government
demanded that we waive the death penalty in order to have him returned
to the U.S. Despite our cooperation, they still held up his extradition
for over a year. This kind of policy is not acceptable. We are dealing
with cases of Americans, killing other Americans, on American soil. No
foreign country has the right to interfere in the just prosecution of
these criminals!
Unfortunately, the Del Toro case is not an isolated one. In 1977 in
Philadelphia, Ira Einhorn brutally murdered Holly Maddux. He bludgeoned
her to death and then shoved her body in a steam chest where she
remained in his closet for 18 months. While waiting to stand trial for
this heinous crime, Einhorn fled overseas. He is now in France,
successfully avoiding extradition by continuously hiding behind false
claims regarding his case. In 1977, the death penalty was not legal in
Philadelphia, therefore it was never an option in the Einhorn case.
Yet, the French use Einhorn as a poster child for their crusade against
capitol punishment and are still pursuing all options possible in
holding up his extradition to the United States. The French Prime
Minister, Lionel Jospin, has signed Einhorn's extradition order, but
the appeals process can take an unspecified amount of time and there is
no indication that they are interested in expediting

[[Page H2239]]

the matter. In the meantime, the family of Holly Maddux is in its 24th
year of watching and waiting to see if justice will be served.
The more involved I have become in this issue, the more I realize
that while the United States may not be to blame for the lack of
cooperation from these countries, we certainly have not done our part
in formulating a solution. To date, the Department of State has no
tracking system for extradition cases. It is absolutely
incomprehensible to me that there is no place for anyone, whether a
Member of Congress or a family member of a victim, to find simple
answers on which countries are extraditing criminals and which ones are
not. How can the State Department work effectively with the government
of France in getting Einhorn returned, if they have no idea how many
similar cases are pending in France. We need to have these answers. If
Mexico has 35 outstanding extradition requests from the United States,
and 10 have been denied--we need to know that! And we also need to know
why!

My amendment will require that the State Department compile this
information and submit it to Congress. It will provide a country by
country report of the number of Americans being held by foreign
governments, the number of extradition requests that the United States
has made to such governments, the number of those requests denied, and
any reasons for delays. This is not a controversial amendment. It is a
matter of ensuring that justice is served. When foreign governments
blatantly disregard reasonable and legitimate requests by the United
States, our authority is undermined. My amendment would take us one
step closer to ending this practice. My thoughts and prayers go out to
the Maddux family and any others who have lost a loved one in a tragic
murder where the killer remains free in a foreign land. I sincerely
hope that you will all see justice served in the near future.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc
amendment to H.R. 1646 and my amendment which is contained therein.
The amendment I offered is a Sense of Congress provision that
recognizes the extraordinary importance of the national elections this
year in Fiji, East Timor and Peru, and urges the Secretary of State to
support the holding of free and fair elections in these nations.
Mr. Chairman, each of these countries has recently undergone
significant political instability and turmoil.
In Fiji, the government of former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudry, an
Indo-Fijian, was deposed by an attempted coup in May of last year. Fiji
has long suffered from political and economic tensions between its
indigenous Fijian population and the Indo-Fijian community, which is
comprised of individuals of Indian descent. I believe much of Fiji's
problems today are a tragic result of Great Britain's bitter legacy of
colonialism. For a century, Fiji was controlled and ruled by England as
a colony. During that period, from 1879 to 1916, the British brought
waves of indentured servants and laborers from Indian, another English
colony, to work the sugar plantations of Fiji. The colonial policies of
transmigration have resulted in a dilemma today for native Fijians who
fear they may lose control of their government as well as their
homeland.
This August 25th, Fiji's caretaker administration will hold national
elections intended to return Fiji to parliamentary government. Both New
Zealand and Australia have pledged to assist with Fiji's elections, and
the United States should join that effort by providing election
monitors to ensure free, fair and democratic elections.
As our colleagues know, when East Timor voted to break away from
Indonesia in the August 1999 referendum, it triggered a campaign of
killings and destruction by pro-Indonesia militias that devastated the
territory. Five hundred thousand East Timorese were made refugees and
upwards of 2,000 were murdered.
Under the guidance of the United Nations Transitional Administration,
East Timor is slowly recovering stability and progressing towards
democracy. A crucial part of that process will take place on August
30th, when East Timor holds its first national election to select the
88-member Constituent Assembly. Once seated, the new parliament will
draft a Constitution for an independent and democratic East Timor.
The recent resignations from the National Council, the interim
government, by President Xanana Gusmao and Nobel laureate Jose Ramos-
Horta is not a good sign, indicating that problems may surface in the
lead up to the elections. The United States should support East Timor
and U.N. authorities to ensure that the first national elections are
successful in consolidating democratic government for the people of
East Timor.
Mr. Chairman, Peru is overcoming 10 years of authoritarian rule under
former President Alberto Fujimori, whose administration has
increasingly been revealed as crime-ridden, with high-level corruption
spanning from top politicians to Supreme Court Justices to military
generals. Fujimori's intelligence chief, Vladimiros Montesinos,
orchestrated the rigging of elections, bribing of high officials, and
plotting against opponents. This culminated last year with Fujimori's
fraudulent attempt to win a third term, the collapse of his
administration, and the former president fleeing the country in
November.
This past month, the interim government of Peru held open and fair
presidential elections which I was privileged to witness as an election
monitor with a delegation led by former President Jimmy Carter. On June
10th, a runoff election will be held between the two top presidential
candidates, Alejandro Toledo and Alex Garcia.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the Peruvian electoral officials for the open
and impartial elections held in April and urge that our nation continue
to support Peru, as well as Fiji and East Timor, to ensure that the
upcoming crucial elections are conducted under free and fair conditions
necessary for democracy to flourish.
I thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their support of
this provision and urge our colleagues to adopt the en bloc amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde).
The amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 8 printed in House Report 107-62.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in
order by the rule.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland:
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 General Accounting Office Report on United States
Contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.--
(1) 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 date on which the General
Accounting Office submits a report to Congress under
paragraph (2) or September 30, 2001, whichever occurs first.
(2) Not later than September 30, 2001, the General
Accounting Office, in consultation with the Department of
Defense, shall submit to the Congress a detailed accounting
of United States contributions to United Nations peacekeeping
operations during the period 1990 through 2001, including a
review of any reimbursement by the United Nations for such
contributions.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I will include in the Record a brief report from
GAO called ``U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, Former Yugoslavia,
Somalia, and Rwanda'' for the years 1992 through 1996.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. These documents which
will be included in the Record indicate that the United States has
spent about $18 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities.
There are reports from CRS, from GAO, and from Department of Defense
itself, all corroborating that we have spent about $18 billion on
legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. Through the years 1992 through
1996, we have been credited for $1.8 billion of that against dues.
There has been no other accounting and no other credit with the U.N.
for the moneys which we have spent on U.N. peacekeeping activities.
Before these funds are released, our amendment says that the Congress
needs to know the cost of peacekeeping activities for which we have not
been given credit by the U.N. This report is to be issued on or before
September 30, 2001. The funds will be withheld until

[[Page H2240]]

that date. If the report is issued before that, then the funds can be
released before that.
Mr. Chairman, I would note that this sequestering of this payment to
the U.N. is a much shorter period of time than the sequestering which
has already been accomplished by a prior amendment. Again, this is a
very simple amendment which simply intends to inform the Congress and
the people of the United States, through a report of the GAO, of all of
the moneys that we have spent on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping
activities.
My hope is when this report comes to the Congress, that the people of
the United States seeing the report of the GAO, and the Congress seeing
this report will ask for an accounting; but our amendment does not
withhold the payment beyond the issuing of this report or beyond
September 30, 2001, whichever occurs first.
The American people need to know the amounts of money that we have
spent and not been given credit for. Congress needs to know that the
reality is with all of these moneys that we have spent on legitimate
U.N. peacekeeping activities, we have paid our dues several times over.
But notwithstanding that, this amendment does not prevent the release
of this last payment of the dues, it simply withholds it until the
report is issued and the Congress and the American people have a chance
to look at the report, or September 30, 2001, whichever occurs first.
The report previously referred to is as follows:

[U.S. GAO Report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, March 1996]

Peace Operations: U.S. Costs in Support of Haiti, Former Yugoslavia,
Somalia, and Rwanda

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and
International Affairs Division,
Washington, DC, March 6, 1996.
Hon. Robert Dole,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Dole: As requested, we are providing you
information on U.S. agencies' estimated costs for their
support of U.N. peace operations in Haiti, the former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Somalia for fiscal years 1992 through
1995. For this report, we define peace operations as actions
taken in support of U.N. resolutions designed to further
peace and security, including observers; monitors;
traditional peacekeeping; preventive deployment; peace
enforcement; security assistance; the imposition of
sanctions; and the provision, protection, and delivery of
humanitarian relief.

background

U.S. agencies' costs in support of peace operations are
paid from their congressional appropriations. These costs
include expenditures for (1) direct participation of U.S.
military forces, (2) the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping
assessments, and (3) humanitarian and related assistance. The
Departments of Defense (DOD) and State are the two lead
agencies responsible for planning and implementing U.S.
participation in peace operations. The U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) is the primary agency
responsible for providing humanitarian assistance, including
food donated by the Department of Agriculture, USAID provides
humanitarian assistance through the United Nations and
private organizations. The Departments of Justice, Commerce,
Treasury, Transportation, and Health and Human Services are
also involved in activities in support of peace operations.
The agencies' specific actions related to the four peace
operations are presented in appendix I.

Results in Brief

From fiscal years 1992 through 1995, the incremental cost
reported by U.S. government agencies for support of U.N.
peace operations in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and
Somalia was over $6.6 billion (see table 1). The United
Nations has reimbursed the United States $79.4 million for
some of these costs.

TABLE 1.--REPORTED U.S. COSTS FOR SUPPORT OF SELECTED U.N. PEACE OPERATIONS
[Fiscal years 1992-95, dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Country --------------------------------------------------
1992 1993 1994 1995 1992-95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haiti........................................................ $79.7 $130.4 $530.8 $875.8 $1,616.7
Former Yugoslavia............................................ 126.7 408.7 959.0 692.5 2,186.9
Rwanda....................................................... 22.1 24.8 261.4 265.4 573.7
Somalia...................................................... 92.9 1,124.8 913.3 92.1 2,223.1
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 321.4 1,688.7 2,664.5 1,925.8 6,500.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: As of August 1995, the United Nations had reimbursed the United States $79.4 million for its participation
in these operations.

From fiscal years 1992 through 1995, DOD's incremental
costs to support the four operations were about $3.4 billion,
the State Department's were about $1.8 billion, and USAID's
were about $1.3 billion (including $556 million for
commodities and transportation). The Departments of Justice,
Commerce, Treasury, Transportation, and Health and Human
Services reported incremental costs of which totaled about
$91 million. Figure 1 shows the percentage distribution of
agency costs from fiscal years 1992 through 1995.

FIGURE 1.--DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. AGENCY COSTS IN SUPPORT OF SELECTED
PEACE OPERATIONS
[Fiscal years 1992-95]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD.......................................................... 51.5
State........................................................ 27.8
USAID........................................................ 19.3
Other agencies............................................... 1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Comments

The Department of State, DOD, and USAID generally agreed
with this report, but each offered some technical and
editorial suggestions, which we have incorporated where
appropriate. DOD's written comments are reprinted in appendix
II; State and USAID provided oral comments.

Scope and Methodology

We met with officials from DOD, the Departments of State,
Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Transportation, and Health
and Human Services, USAID; and the U.S. Mission to the United
Nations to obtain information on the costs in support of the
four peace operations. We obtained DOD's reported incremental
costs for the four operations from fiscal years 1992 through
1995. We also reviewed data supporting DOD's request for
supplemental appropriations. For the other agencies and
departments, we used a data collection instrument to obtain
the cost information, including funds obligated and
transferred through lead agencies. We also obtained budget
reports and documents from State Department officials and
from finance officials at the U.N. Controller's Office and
the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
At all the agencies, we discussed with officials how they
budgeted and accounted for peace operations' costs. In
addition, we reviewed other GAO reports that previously
reported cost data for peace operations. In some cases, the
cost data we obtained from participating agencies changed
from amounts previously reported because agencies update
their costs as more information becomes available. We did not
verify the accuracy of the costs reported; however, a
forthcoming report will address issues concerning the
consistency, accuracy, and reliability of DOD's incremental
costs related to contingency operations.
We did our review from February to November 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate
congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, State,
Agriculture, Treasury, Transportation, Justice, Commerce, and
Health and Human Services; the Administrator, U.S. Agency for
International Development, the Director, Office of Management
and Budget; and the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff
have any questions concerning this report. The major
contributions to this report were Tetsuo Miyabara, Joseph C.
Brown, and Elizabeth Nyang.
Sincerely yours,

Harold J. Johnson,

Associate Director,
International Relations and Trade Issues.
____

Report to the Congress for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 1996 in
Compliance With Section 8113, Defense Appropriations Act of 1996

The Defense Appropriations Act for 1996 (Act) requires the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report at the end of each
quarter indicating ``all costs (including incremental costs)
incurred by the Department of Defense (DoD) during the
preceding quarter in implementing or supporting resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council.'' The data included
herein are provided in response to section 8113.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) compiles
incremental costs associated with United States military
operations based on data provided by the military departments
and defense agencies. These data were modified, as necessary,
to properly reflect transfer actions and unreported costs
applicable to contingency operations. Data are presented
below in both quarterly and cumulative (for the fiscal year)
format. It is important to note that DFAS cost reports
include information received during a particular quarter of
the fiscal year: comprehensive cost data are not available in
the immediately succeeding quarter. The Department collects
only incremental costs, which are defined as additional costs
to the DoD component appropriations that would not have been
incurred if a contingency operation had not been supported.
All other costs are available by reference to annual
appropriations information. All incremental costs included
below are current as of 30 September 1996, and are aggregated
for FY96, with the exception of reimbursements received for
troop contributions (section 2), which are presented
individually.

(In thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported Cumulative
Operation/region for 4Q, for FY 96
FY96 through 4Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Yugoslavia Operations:
Able Sentry (FYROM)........................... $16,864 $30,929
Deny Flight/Decisive edge..................... 37,516 225,949

[[Page H2241]]

Provide Promise............................... 2,005 21,756
Sharp Guard................................... 735 9,275
IFOR Preparation.............................. 147 158,437
IFOR Operations............................... 789,564 2,073,052
UNCRO......................................... 12 469
Southern Watch (Iraq)......................... 257,943 576,248
Provide Comfort (Iraq)........................ 13,538 88,901
UNMIH (Haiti)................................. 17,821 86,838
Sea Signal (Haitian migrants)................. 1,894 24,789
-----------------------
Total..................................... 1,138,039 3,296,643
------------------------------------------------------------------------

____
Report to the Congress for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 1997 in
Compliance With Section 8091, Defense Appropriations Act of 1997

The DoD Appropriations Act for 1997 (Act) requires the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report at the end of each
quarter indicating ``all costs (including incremental costs)
incurred by the Department of Defense (DoD) during the
preceding quarter in implementing or supporting resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council.'' The data included
herein are provided in response to section 8091.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) compiles
incremental costs associated with United States military
operations based on data provided by the military departments
and defense agencies. These data were modified, as necessary,
to properly reflect transfer actions and unreported costs
applicable to support to UN operations. Data are presented
below in both quarterly and cumulative (for the fiscal year)
format. It is important to note that DFAS cost reports
include information received during a particular quarter of
the fiscal year: comprehensive cost data are not available in
the immediately succeeding quarter. The Department collects
only incremental costs, which are defined as additional costs
to the DoD component appropriations that would not have been
incurred if a contingency operation had not been supported.
All incremental costs included below are current as of 30
September 1997, and are aggregated for FY97, and exclude
reimbursements received for troop contributions (section 2),
which are presented individually.

[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported Cumulative
Operation/Region for 4Q, for FY97
FY97 through 4Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Yugoslavia Operations:
Able Sentry (FYROM)........................... $2,950 $11,727
Deny Flight/Decisive Edge..................... 30,101 183,266
IFOR/SFOR Operations.......................... 779,316 2,087,518
Southern Watch/Vigilant Sentinel (Iraq)....... 185,499 597,312
Provide Comfort/Northern Watch (Iraq)......... 20,627 93,115
-----------------------
Total..................................... 1,018,493 2,972,938
------------------------------------------------------------------------

____
Report to the Congress for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 1998 in
Compliance With Section 8079, Defense Appropriations Act of 1998

The DoD Appropriations Act for 1998 (Act) requires the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report at the end of each
quarter indicating ``all costs (including incremental costs)
incurred by the Department of Defense (DoD) during the
preceding quarter in implementing or supporting resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council.'' The data included
herein are provided in response to section 8079.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) compiles
incremental costs associated with United States military
operations based on data provided by the military departments
and defense agencies. These data were modified, as necessary,
to properly reflect transfer actions and unreported costs
applicable to support to UN operations. Data are presented
below in both quarterly and cumulative (for the fiscal year)
format. It is important to note that DFAS cost reports
include information received during a particular quarter of
the fiscal year, but comprehensive cost data are not normally
available in the immediately succeeding quarter. This report
is prepared as soon as data are compiled. Also, the
Department collects only incremental costs, which are defined
as additional costs to the DoD component appropriations that
would not have been incurred if a contingency operation had
not been supported. All incremental costs included below are
current as of 30 September 1998, and exclude reimbursements
received for troop contributions (section 2), which are
presented individually.

[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported Cumulative
Operation/Region for 4Q, for FY98
FY98 through 4Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Yugoslavia Operations:
Able Sentry (FYROM)........................... (979) 10,466
Deny Flight/Decisive Edge..................... 33,144 159,269
IFOR/SFOR Operations.......................... 548,739 1,792,861
Southern Watch (Iraq)......................... 469,874 1,497,242
Northern Watch (Iraq)......................... 31,771 135,976
-----------------------
Total..................................... 1,082,549 3,595,814
------------------------------------------------------------------------

____
Report to the Congress for the First Quarter, Fiscal Year 1999 in
Compliance With Section 8073, Defense Appropriations Act of 1999

The DoD Appropriations Act for 1999 (Act) requires the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report at the end of each
quarter indicating ``all costs (including incremental costs)
incurred by the Department of Defense (DoD) during the
preceding quarter in implementing or supporting resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council.'' The data included
herein are provided in response to section 8073.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) compiles
incremental costs associated with United States military
operations based on data provided by the military departments
and defense agencies. These data were modified, as necessary,
to properly reflect transfer actions and unreported costs
applicable to support to UN operations. Data are presented
below in both quarterly and cumulative (for the fiscal year)
format. It is important to note that DFAS cost reports
include information received during a particular quarter of
the fiscal year, but comprehensive cost data are not normally
available in the immediately succeeding quarter. This report
is prepared as soon as data are compiled. Also, the
Department collects only incremental costs, which are defined
as additional costs to the DoD component appropriations that
would not have been incurred if a contingency operation had
not been supported. All incremental costs included below are
current as of 31 December 1998, and exclude reimbursements
received for troop contributions (section 2), which are
presented individually.

[In thousand of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported Cumulative
Operation/Region for 1Q, for FY99
FY99 through 1Q
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Yugoslavia Operations:
Able Sentry (FYROM)............................ $2,091 $2,091
Deliberate Forge............................... 40,234 40,234
Joint Forge (SFOR)............................. 264,351 264,351
Southern Watch (Iraq).......................... 230,244 230,244
Northern Watch (Iraq).......................... 28,218 28,218
----------------------
Total...................................... 565,138 565,138
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who claims time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, we are not opposed to the amendment. We
deem the amendment redundant and unnecessary, but it will have no
practical effect and we are not opposing it.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bartlett
Amendment to withhold the final payment of $244 million in UN
arrearages until the GAO completes a report to Congress relating to the
U.S. voluntary contributions to the UN for peacekeeping operations from
1990 to 2001.
I have long been suspicious of the United Nations. In fact, I have
long hoped that we would end our membership in the United Nations.
Given the recent slaps in the face that the United States has
suffered--being voted off the secret ballot from the UN Human Rights
Commission and being kicked off the UN International Narcotics Control
Board--I am now more convinced than ever that the U.S. should remove
itself from the UN and pursue an international agenda dictated by the
American people.
The Bartlett Amendment is a common sense addition to this bill that
will allow Congress to carefully review and make an informed decision
on whether to release these funds to UN. It is important to note that
this is only a delay in the funding and should not impact the deal that
finally reduces the disproportionate share that the U.S. pays in UN
dues. I urge all Members to support this amendment and vote to allow
the Congress to see exactly how many millions of dollars for
peacekeeping that the U.S. has given voluntarily compared to what the
UN says we owe.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 18 printed in House Report 107-62.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Lantos

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner), I offer an amendment on his behalf. He will arrive
momentarily.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Lantos:
Page 122, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 747. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO STATE DEPARTMENT
TRAVEL WARNINGS FOR ISRAEL, THE WEST BANK AND
GAZA.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the Secretary of State should, in an effort to provide
better and more accurate information to American citizens
traveling abroad, review the current travel warning in place
for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, to determine which areas
present the highest threat to American citizens in the region
and which areas may be visited safely; and
(2) the Secretary of State should revise the travel warning
for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza as appropriate based on
the above determinations.

[[Page H2242]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are discussing was introduced by our
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), calling for a
State Department travel warning to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. I
commend him for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. If
the gentleman wishes, we gladly accept it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
by my colleague and neighbor Representative Anthony Weiner.
In January of this year I had the opportunity to travel to Israel on
my third trip to that amazing country with my colleagues Anthony Weiner
and Jerry Nadler.
While American media has focused on the West Bank and Gaza and
attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli military
and civilian targets, the media and our own government misses the other
part of the story.
Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem is not Hebron. Dizengoff Square in Tel
Aviv is not the Gaza Strip.
Warnings from the State Department which lump trouble in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip into blanket warnings for the entire State of
Israel miss the larger picture.
For the majority of Israelis who live inside the 1948 borders of
Israel what is known as the Greenline, they live their life every day
without disruption.
For visitors to Jerusalem the eternal Capital, to vibrant Tel Aviv
and to the Holy Galilee, by exercising common sense, they will have a
wonderful, fulfilling visit.
At a time when the U.S. people should be standing with Israel, we do
not need alarmist bureaucrats dissuading Americans from visiting the
Holy Land.
It is time for the State Department to separate myth from reality.
For American visitors travel to the major tourist sites and cities in
Israel is safe.
I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner Amendment and to support
the State of Israel.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's offer, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner) have 2 minutes to explain his amendment we
just adopted.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner) may be recognized for 2 minutes, and a Member opposed
may be recognized for 2 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, you will forgive me for being short of
breath. I was off the floor at the time my amendment was called.
Mr. Chairman, the State Department has said in a rather comprehensive
fashion that it is unsafe to travel to Israel. It is unsafe to visit
there. It is unsafe for our personnel that are stationed there.
This has had a broad and draconian effect on the economy of the State
of Israel. Make no mistake, Israel is under almost constant state of
siege from terrorists. The terrorists are the Palestinians. They take
sniper attacks at small children. They blow up buses. Simply put, they
are in a state of war, and terrorism is their tool.
However, as we have often said in this Chamber, the way that you
fight terrorism is to be wary, is to be vigilant, but you do not
capitulate.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment says to the State Department, let us have
a sophisticated way for travelers to know where it is safe and where it
is not; but we will not capitulate to terrorists by saying to school
groups you should not visit there; saying to businessmen, if you travel
there, your travel insurance will not be valid; to simply deal with the
true effects of the status that Israel has.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that Israel is not a
victim and that they are not cowering to the terrorism. It is a
thriving country. It is the birthplace of the major religions of the
world. It is a place that is joyous and historic to visit. This
amendment asks the State Department to return to the drawing board and
give us a comprehensive but fair assessment of where it is safe to
travel in Israel and where it might not be.

{time} 1700

While we consider this, let us remember that this state of terrorism
that exists in Israel should also be addressed by the State Department
of why it is the Palestinians do not appear on the terrorism watch list
and why it is we continue to believe that terrorism is a state of being
rather than something perpetuated on the people of the State of Israel.
I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member for their
consideration of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 23 printed in House Report 107-62.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Lantos

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Lantos:
Page 153, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 863. ASSISTANCE TO LEBANON.

(a) Military Assistance.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President shall not provide assistance
under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.; relating to international
military education and training) to the armed forces of the
Government of Lebanon unless the President certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees that--
(1) the armed forces of Lebanon have been deployed to the
internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel;
and
(2) the Government of Lebanon is effectively asserting its
authority in the area in which such forces have been
deployed.
(b) Economic Assistance.--If the President has not made the
certification described in subsection (a) within 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall provide to the appropriate congressional committees a
plan to terminate assistance to Lebanon provided under
chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.; relating to the economic support
fund).

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time
allotted for the discussion of this amendment be extended by an
additional 10 minutes equally divided between the proponents and the
opponents. I have discussed it with the distinguished chairman who had
no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wonder if
the gentleman would allow just an additional 10 minutes on top. There
are a number of Members that would like to speak on this amendment and
I know that the gentleman did that earlier on with the amendment of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). If the gentleman could extend it by
an additional 10 minutes in addition to what he has, we would be
grateful to him for that.
Mr. LANTOS. If the gentleman will yield, let me be sure that I
understand my friend. I am asking for an additional 10 minutes equally
divided between the proponents and the opponents, which I believe is
fair.
Mr. LaHOOD. So the total time would be?
Mr. LANTOS. Twenty minutes. Each side would have 10 minutes.
Mr. LaHOOD. So I am asking the ranking member if he would do an
additional 5 minutes on each side. I have many Members. It is obviously
strictly up to the gentleman from California, but I know for the Hyde
amendment, when he had many Members over there, he extended it. I do
not think that I am asking for too much.
Mr. LANTOS. I think doubling the original amount is reasonable.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. LaHood) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

[[Page H2243]]

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a very simple but a very important amendment.
The amendment, Mr. Chairman, has two aspects. The first aspect is by
far the most important, and I offered my colleagues on the other side
to drop the second aspect because that is not the thrust of the
amendment. So let me deal with the first aspect which is critical for
preserving peace and stability along the Israeli-Lebanese border. The
amendment does not intend to take one thin dime in economic aid going
to Lebanon as long as it does not go to the Hezbollah terrorists.
Last summer, Israel withdrew all of its forces from the territory of
Lebanon. Lebanon was obligated under U.N. Resolution 425 to deploy its
robust army of some 60,000 people on the Lebanese-Israeli border to
prevent the recurrence of another war in the area.
As Members will recall, Mr. Chairman, in 1982, terrorists controlled
that border, a war ensued, and 17,000 innocent people were killed. A
portion of the Lebanese-Israeli border today is controlled by Hezbollah
terrorists. This is a well-known fact and the Lebanese Ambassador a few
days ago confirmed it to me personally. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations, Kofi Annan, made the following statement concerning
Lebanon's responsibilities with respect to the deployment of their
forces on the border:
``I believe that the time has come to establish the state of affairs
envisaged in Resolution 425. This requires first and foremost that the
government of Lebanon take effective control of the whole area vacated
by Israel last spring and assume its full international
responsibilities, including putting an end to the dangerous
provocations that have continued across the line.''
Our own Secretary of State last summer made the following statement:
``Those with authority in Lebanon now have a clear responsibility to
ensure that the area bordering Israel is not used to launch attacks.''
Attacks, Mr. Chairman, are being launched daily, most recently
yesterday. And attacks invite retaliation. The most recent Israeli
retaliation resulted in the death of three Syrian soldiers, which
indicates the direction in which we are going. There will be more
terrorist attacks by Hezbollah, there will be stronger retaliation, and
we may be on the verge of yet another military confrontation, a
bloodbath in the Middle East, which is the last thing U.S. national
interests would call for.
Let me spend a minute or two, Mr. Chairman, on the question of the
nature of Hezbollah, the terrorist group which clearly controls a
portion of an international border because the Lebanese Army is not
deployed there. It is this group, in conjunction with similar terrorist
groups, which in recent years was responsible for the murder of 241
American Marines at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 of our military
at Khobar Towers, and 17 in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, 277 military
who have been forced to give up their lives because of this
interlocking, complex web of extremist terrorism. We are now allowing
them, unless we pass this amendment, to control a portion of an
international border.
Now, no people have suffered more in the last few decades than the
Lebanese people as a result of war being waged on their territory. My
resolution would secure that border, would eliminate the terrorist
presence from that border, and would see to it that just as the
Egyptian-Israeli border is now secure, the Jordanian-Israeli border is
now secure, even the Syrian-Israeli border is secure, the final border
between Lebanon and Israel would be secured on the one side by the
Israeli military and on the other side by Lebanon's 60,000-strong
military.
It is difficult to fathom who would benefit from allowing a border,
an international border in a volatile and fragile and explosive area,
being controlled by terrorists who openly and clearly desire no return
to the peace process. They want the bloodbath to continue. They would
like nothing more but yet another explosion of military hostilities.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California's intent
here. I listened very closely to his remarks. Each one of the incidents
of terror and loss of American life which he so adequately described is
horrendous, and I join him in condemning every one of those attacks.
Any loss of innocent civilian lives is to be highly condemned no matter
who the perpetrators.
But I ask my distinguished colleague, Lebanon was not responsible for
these acts of terror. As the gentleman has said, the Lebanese
themselves have suffered over the last couple of decades. The Lebanese
are the victims. Let us face it, the Lebanese are the victims here.
Now, if we cannot take direct aim at Syria itself and, let us face
it, Syria is very much a controlling influence in Lebanon, then why
should we take aim at the innocent Lebanese government? This amendment
attempts to send a message to Syria. It is clear and simple what its
intent is concerning the cross-border attacks against Israel, which I
condemn as well. But this amendment would not accomplish the intent of
securing that border. All it accomplishes is to do more harm to the
Lebanese.
Lebanon cannot comply with this amendment that it deploy all of its
troops to the southern border between Israel and Lebanon, because Syria
will not allow it. I believe that the sponsor of the amendment is fully
aware of that.
The administration is against this amendment. Secretary Powell has
sent a very strong letter stating what a destabilizing situation would
occur in the south if U.S. assistance and its training, both military
and economic, were to be cut off. USAID helps send Lebanese children to
school through scholarship programs. That is the economic part of it.
The IMET training helps train the Lebanese Army so that they can go
down into the south and secure the border when given the political go-
ahead to do it. I think Secretary Powell and this administration knows
well that this amendment would seriously impede the long-term massive
effort that has gone into pursuing critical U.S. policy in this area.
That is what we should be most concerned with here, U.S. best interests
in this region. This amendment does not further the United States' best
interests.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the Democratic leader of the
Committee on International Relations, and I commend him for his
leadership.
I rise as someone who has consistently supported U.S. assistance to
Lebanon, but I now believe that the Lantos amendment is necessary and I
believe it has been carefully crafted to advance key U.S. foreign
policy objectives. The Lantos amendment strikes a careful balance
between promoting U.S. interests in Lebanon's recovery and development
and the need to provide incentives to the government of Lebanon to
address a security problem which, if left unattended, could lead to a
regional war.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that Israel has fulfilled its
obligations to the Security Council under Resolution 425 and it has
fully withdrawn its forces from Lebanese territory. The U.N. Secretary-
General has said so and the U.S. has confirmed it. The question is
whether Lebanon has fulfilled its obligations under Resolution 425 to
resume effective authority in the area bordering the State of Israel.
Unfortunately, the government of Lebanon has not lived up to its
requirements, as demonstrated by the ongoing and unimpeded attacks by
the Hezbollah from Lebanon's southern border against the State of
Israel. The continued absence of the Lebanese Army from the south of
Israel is obvious and indicative of the fact that Lebanon is not even
trying to keep its own border secured.
Some might argue that providing security to Israel is not a Lebanese
obligation. Not only is this assertion wrong, it overlooks a
fundamental truth and all nations are responsible

[[Page H2244]]

for securing their own borders. A secure border with Israel is
overwhelmingly in the interest of Lebanon itself.
Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri campaigned and won on a plan for the
reconstruction of Lebanon predicated on the active engagement,
assistance, and support of the international community. There is no
question that Lebanon badly needs foreign assistance to rebuild and
recover from decades of strife. But the determining factor in whether
or not Lebanon will be able to elicit the outside resources it needs,
is whether or not there is peace and stability on the Lebanese-Israeli
border.
So far the Lebanese government appears unprepared to take decisive
steps to maintain a peaceful and stable border with Israel, as is its
responsibility, and thus ensure that the region will not again be
pushed into conflict due to cross-border attacks.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my friend the gentleman from California for
offering this amendment. I strongly support the Lantos amendment and
ask my colleagues as well to give it their strong support.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 40 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, what does this amendment do? It eliminates
two items of assistance. The first is $600,000 for the Lebanese Army.
The second is $35 million to USAID for humanitarian concern and aid to
U.S. educational institutions in Lebanon.
What my good friend, and I express great affection and respect for
him, does is he aims at Hezbollah but he lands a haymaker on the person
of the innocent Lebanese, USAID and U.S. educational institutions. That
is what the amendment does.
If you are for peace in the Middle East, you do not want to hurt
those undertakings.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

{time} 1715

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Dingell

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dingell moves that the Committee do now rise and report
the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will not insist on the motion, but I
want my colleagues to understand what this does, and I cannot believe
that my good friend from California really wants the result of what he
is going to get.
Now, he has quoted a lot of sources, but I want to read what Colin
Powell, the Secretary of State, had to say about this matter. He says,
``The Department opposes the amendment proposed by Representative
Lantos to H.R. 1646. If enacted, this amendment would severely impede
our ability to pursue the critical U.S. policy objectives in Lebanon
and the region, including stabilizing the south and providing a
counterweight to the extremist forces.''
If you want to drive the Lebanese into the arms of extremists, the
Lantos amendment is the mechanism for doing so.
Now, Kofi Annan has been quoted. What did he have to say? He had this
to say about what the Lebanese are doing. ``At present, Lebanese
administrators, police, security, and army personnel function
throughout the area, southern Lebanon, and their presence and
activities continue to grow. They are reestablishing local
administration in the villages and have made progress in reintegrating
the communications infrastructure, health, and welfare systems with the
rest of the country.''
That is what this amendment would bring to a halt. He goes on to say,
``The deployment of both UNIFIL and the Lebanese Joint Security Forces
proceeded smoothly, and the return to the Lebanese administration is
ongoing. I appeal to donors to help Lebanon meet urgent needs for
relief and economic revival in the south, pending the holding of a
full-fledged donor conference.''
He has gone on to point out that we should help, not hurt, the
Lebanese in these undertakings.
Let us take a look at a little bit more here.
Look at the resolution. I may not have time to put the whole of it
in, but it does not call upon the Lebanese to do the kind of thing that
the gentleman from California would have them do under penalty of loss
of assistance.
I call on my colleagues to remember, this is a haymaker at U.S.
policy in the area. It hurts American universities, it hurts
humanitarian aid, and it drives the Lebanese into the arms of the
extremists and the terrorists. Is that what we want? No.
What we want is peace. American interests in this area are vital to
this country and they are vital to us in terms of assuring world peace
and to assuring the Arabs that this country wants to be an honest
broker in terms of seeing to it that we can sell peace and that we can
work together with both sides, with the Israelis and with the Lebanese
and with the other Arabs and Muslims and other people in that area.
The amendment, I know the gentleman offers in the best of good faith;
but, remember, it is a haymaker at innocent Lebanese, it is a haymaker
at American educational institutions, and it drives the Lebanese into
the arms of the terrorists. If that is what you want, vote for the
Lantos amendment, and that is what you will get. You will have more
trouble in South Lebanon that will affect the Israelis adversely and
that will fill that area with more enemies of Israel and more
terrorists receiving more support from the people in the area.
If you want to restore peace in the area, the small amount of money,
which is supported by this administration and which is supported by the
U.N., is the way to do it. The Lantos amendment is the way to kill
this.
I urge this body to reject what is clearly on its face an amendment
which does not look to the U.S. policy or understand what that
amendment, in fact, does.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is unwise, it is
irresponsible, it is destructive of American interests, it is
destructive of the interests of the people of Lebanon, and it is
destructive not only of these, but also the best interests of the
people of Israel and the people of the whole area over there.
If you want peace, if you want this country to work for and be able
to effectively lead the people in that area towards peace, if you want
to strike a blow at Hezbollah and the others who are causing trouble in
that area, reject this amendment. Show the Lebanese people that you are
in support of their desire to redevelop a peaceful land. And do
something else: Let us show the people in the area that this is a
country that wants to be a friend to all parties. I note we have
established this for the benefit of our friends in Israel. There is
about $5 billion in here for Israel. The amendment offered by my good
friend from California would take out $35 million which would go to
help the Lebanese.
I urge Members to reject the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member claim time in opposition to
the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell)?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, first let me say my amendment has the
intent of not withdrawing one single dime of economic and technical
assistance to Lebanon. As a matter of fact, I earlier offered to
cosponsor with some of the opponents a measure that would increase
economic and technical assistance to Lebanon.
My amendment is designed to stop the aid to Hezbollah-controlled
communities. It is absurd that American taxpayer funds are used to
support Hezbollah activities, which is, in fact, what is taking place
as of today. If American taxpayers would know that their funds are used
to enhance Hezbollah goals, they would be in revolt against that.
Every dime currently appropriated for economic and technical
assistance

[[Page H2245]]

to Lebanon, I support; and I am ready to increase that amount. But I
want to be sure that those funds go to communities, organizations and
institutions that are not under the control of Hezbollah.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding to me, and I rise in reluctant opposition to
the dean of the House.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is funded on the principle that peace in
the Middle East is based on security and that long-lasting peace in the
Middle East cannot be based on Israel's insecurity. As America has
subsidized Lebanon, we have a growing insecurity on Israel's northern
border, and that does not help the peace process.
This sends a message that Lebanon must control her own border. And
let us remove all artifice. There is no such thing has Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of the MOIS, the Iranian
Intelligence Service. Is time that Iran's control of Lebanon's southern
border with Israel ends, and this amendment sends that message.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in firm support of the amendment
introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). One year ago,
the Israeli government put its own security at risk in the name of
cooperation and reconciliation. Israel unilaterally withdrew its armed
forces from the security zone on the Lebanese-Israeli border. The hope
for a reciprocal response from Beirut never occurred.
In conjunction with the Israeli withdrawal, the Lebanese Army was
responsible for filling the vacuum left by the Israeli troops. In a
location where law and order was meant to prevail under the watchful
eye of the Lebanese Army, now exists chaos, disorder and lawlessness.
The northern border zone is now occupied by Hezbollah troops, who
filled the void when the Lebanese refused to take the action required
by U.N. Security Council Resolution 425.
Two weeks ago, I stood alongside families of three Israeli soldiers
abducted by Hezbollah along the Lebanese-Israeli border. It is the
Lebanese inaction that allowed that to take place.
The State of Israel will continue to be at risk until Lebanon
fulfills its obligation to the international community. I believe that
this amendment is a proportional response to the current stance taken
by the Lebanese government.
It is an honor to train with American troops. That privilege should
continue to be extended to those who play by the rules. That is a
message this amendment will convey, and I encourage my colleagues to
join me in supporting it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment prohibiting the
IMET funding for the Lebanese Armed Forces in response to Lebanon's
failure to keep its border with Israel free of Hezbollah terrorists.
One year ago, Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan certified Israel's complete
withdrawal from Lebanon and its full compliance with U.N. Security
Council Resolution 425. This is the same resolution that commits
Lebanon to deploy its security forces in order to secure its border
with Israel.
However, Lebanon has not lived up to its obligation. Israel continues
to face attacks, kidnappings and the prospect of rocket attacks from
the north. Today, hundreds of thousands of Israelis live within range
of Hezbollah Katusha rockets.
This amendment sends a very important message. If we are to treat
Lebanon as a sovereign nation, it must fulfill its obligations. Lebanon
must deploy its army to the Israeli border and fill the vacuum that is
currently being filled by Hezbollah terrorists. The Lebanese-Israeli
border should be more stable, not less stable, since Israel's
withdrawal. Hezbollah terrorists continue to operate in southern
Lebanon because the government of Lebanon refuses to assert its
effective authority in the area.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on the preferential
motion has expired.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my preferential motion.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the preferential motion
is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood)
has 7\1/3\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, it is with profound regret that I read to
my good friend from California the language of his amendment, which
concludes with saying that the President shall commit to the
Congressional committees a plan to terminate assistance to Lebanon
provided under chapter 24, part 2, of the Foreign Assistance Act, et
cetera.
What the gentleman does is terminates all assistance, military and
economic and humanitarian. I think with a more careful reading, perhaps
the good author of the amendment would join me in opposition to it.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California, not because I oppose the goal of extending Lebanese
government control to south Lebanon, but because I believe this
amendment would be counterproductive to that goal.
I agree that the Lebanese Army needs to secure its border with Israel
to prevent attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, but the key
to achieving this is to extract more cooperation from the Syrians. We
should not be punishing Lebanon for the sins of Syria and the
Hezbollah.
I also think that threatening to eliminate our foreign assistance
program for Lebanon is the wrong way to go about this. All of the $35
million that we allocate to Lebanon in fiscal year 2001 is provided to
none-governmental organizations, private, voluntary organizations,
contractors. They implement our assistance program for Lebanon.
Not a penny of it goes to the government, and $3 million to the
American University of Beirut and the Lebanese-American University to
help with education. The largest program is the Rural Development
Clusters program, which helps rural villages in Lebanon. It has been
focused on the south in an effort to provide an alternative to the
economic and social development activities of the Hezbollah.
Punishing the villagers of south Lebanon by withdrawing this program
is not going to do anything to assist in the effort to persuade the
Lebanese government to remove its security forces.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is not in the
interests of Lebanon, Israel, or the United States.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have a deep respect for the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and how he has handled this
bill, but I do rise in opposition to his amendment.
Next week marks one year since the withdrawal of Israeli troops from
southern Lebanon. The Lantos amendment on the face of it cuts funding
for the Lebanese military, education and training, but as the dean of
the House has just told us, if you look a little closer at the
amendment, it sets in motion to cut all aid to Lebanon in 6 months
after the passage.

{time} 1730

Discontent in the Middle East has taken a tremendous toll on Lebanese

[[Page H2246]]

infrastructure, and this is not the time to remove our efforts toward
stability in the region. Our aid package is funneled through USAID,
American NGOs, and not through the government; and it is directed at,
as we have heard several times from the floor from the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), it is directed toward building civilian infrastructure.
Secretary Powell has said that he opposes this amendment. He has also
said we are hurting the ability of those nongovernmental organizations
to provide the service that the people need. That sentiment has been
echoed on this floor. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose the Lantos
amendment, which represents a major step backward in Lebanese-American
relations.
The aid which we provide Lebanon is an investment in a future
stability of Lebanon and the well-being of a people who only wish peace
in the Middle East.
I share with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) the feeling
of frustration that the south of Lebanon is today not secure and that,
in fact, the south of Lebanon is being operated often by terrorists;
but I must remind the gentleman from California that for over 20 years,
the best trained and best equipped army in the Middle East, the Israeli
Army, with billions of dollars of resources, was unable to completely
quiet that aggression originating out of Iran. How would we expect an
army that we fund at $600,000 to do so?
After the defeat of this amendment, I strongly hope the gentleman
from California and I can work together to develop a funding package
for Lebanon that would enable it to make some real dent in enforcing
its borders.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. LaHood) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) close on this amendment?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California has the right
to close.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is far from a simple amendment. The idea that this is a simple
amendment is simply not true. This is a slap at the face of the people
of Lebanon, the Government of Lebanon. The gentleman met with the prime
minister when he was here, and the gentleman heard him say that they
are trying to forge a peace in Lebanon. The prime minister met with the
President of the United States; the Vice President; the Secretary of
State; Condoleeza Rice, the National Security Advisor; the Secretary of
Defense. This is no way to treat Lebanon, and I guarantee my
colleagues, this House would never pass an amendment like this against
Israel, against Palestine, against Jordan, against any of the countries
in the Middle East. We would not do this.
This is a slap in the face to not only the peace process, but a small
country who is trying to get its act together, and they are trying to
get their act together economically, they are trying to get their act
together as a democracy. They work very hard at it.
When the prime minister was here, he said they are working very hard
to get their act together. Is it perfect? Of course not. It is an
intolerable situation in the region with many people getting killed.
This amendment does not help anyone. It does not send the signal that
the gentleman wants it to send. It really hurts the process. It really
hurts our government's ability to be in that region and get the people
to work together.
Now, this amendment is opposed by the administration. The Secretary
of State spoke out against it at the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations; and the chairman of this committee, the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), is also opposed to this amendment,
as well as the Dean of the House.
The gentleman is not accomplishing what he wants to do here; and I
wish, and this in no way diminishes my respect for the gentleman, the
gentleman knows that I respect him. And I know the gentleman visited
the region, and I know the gentleman has been to Lebanon. This hurts
the country that the gentleman is trying to send a message to. I ask
the gentleman, really, the gentleman still has time here to ask
unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment, because the gentleman is
sending the wrong message, not only to our government, but all over
this region. This simply is wrong. It is wrong-headed, and it does not
help.
The money that we are allocating here is walking-around change in
this House, compared to what we give to so many other countries in that
region, including Egypt and Jordan and so many other countries in that
region. This helps people get an education. It helps rebuild the
country. Gosh darn it, it is about time we help a country like this.
This is our way of doing it. This is our way of encouraging peace. I
would encourage the gentleman, to ask to withdraw the amendment,
because it is hurtful and it does not help the process.
All this talk around here about Hezbollah and trying to create some
kind of a one-headed monster out of Lebanon is wrong; it is nonsense.
We should not be doing that. We should not be doing it to a country
like Lebanon. It just does not make any sense to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of the House who has people of
Lebanese descent in their districts, and I know there are people
watching this on C-SPAN, and I know there are staff people; this is an
amendment that hurts the process. If my colleagues have people that
they are representing of Lebanese descent and of Arab descent, vote
against this amendment and send a message that the United States is for
peace. We are for bringing people together. We do not want to hurt the
country of Lebanon. We want to bring the process together. This
pittance amount of money absolutely is a drop in the bucket compared to
all of the other resources that we are spending there. But it is the
message that is being sent.
So I urge Members to look carefully at this. This is not about
Israel. This is about what we can do for Lebanon and the peace process.
So I urge the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to give
consideration to withdrawing this amendment. The gentleman will send a
message that he is for peace; he will send a message that he cares
about Lebanon. If the gentleman cannot do that, then I ask all Members
to defeat this amendment and send a message that we are for peace, true
peace, and that Lebanon is a country that we can count on.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I rise in support of his amendment.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 520 expresses strong support for
Lebanese sovereignty ``under the sole and exclusive authority of the
Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon.''
It is time that the Lebanese Government abides by the call of the
Security Council and deploys its military throughout the country.
It is inexcusable that in the wake of the complete Israeli
withdrawal, southern Lebanon remains under the control of the terrorist
organization called Hezbollah. I will not stand idly by while the
United States provides military support to a government which refuses
to halt acts of terror on a neighbor.
I still favor humanitarian and educational assistance to Lebanon. I
hope in conference we can continue economic assistance to Lebanon. But
such assistance is put in jeopardy by the inaction of the Lebanese
Government to control Hezbollah.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Lebanon. The Lebanese people have
suffered enough. Syria, Hezbollah and all terrorist organizations need
to get out of Lebanon now. It is not enough for the Government of
Lebanon to wring their hands and claim that they have no
maneuverability. They need to attempt at least to take strong actions
now.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

[[Page H2247]]

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
before yielding to our closing speaker, to just say, if my colleagues
wish to see the terrorist organization Hezbollah control an
international border and provide the opportunity for further bloodshed
in the region, vote against this amendment. If my colleagues want peace
in the Middle East and a stable border, vote for my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
American domestic policy is built on the twin foundations of
opportunity and responsibility. Our foreign policy should be built on
no less of a strong foundation.
The opposition objects that Lebanon is not responsible, and this is
precisely the problem. Lebanon has not taken responsibility for its own
borders, and we ought to use whatever leverage device we have to
require them to take control of their own borders.
The objection has been made that we will give greater rein to
Hezbollah and terrorism, and yet Hezbollah already has a free run on
the border. What greater rein could be given to the Hezbollah?
Finally, the opposition argues that this will not accomplish what it
has set out to do, and yet the opposition has no alternative to
recommend, no alternative. If we cannot use the power of our purse and
our financial support to force the Lebanese Government to exercise its
own sovereignty, what else will work? Nothing. I urge Members' support.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lantos
amendment which has the potential to cut off all economic aid to
Lebanon. While I share Representative Lantos' goal for stability on the
Israel/Lebanon border and end to Hezbullah terrorist attacks on Israel,
I do not believe this amendment is the best approach. This amendment
would hurt the peace process between Israel/Lebanon, would strain the
U.S. bilateral relationship with Lebanon, and would cut humanitarian
assistance to those in need.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has made it clear that the
Administration opposes this amendment. He stated,

We don't support that particular amendment. And a lot of
the aid that being spoken of its distributed to non-
governmental organizations. So you're hurting the ability of
these non-governmental organizations to provide the service
to people in need.

I agree with the Secretary of State that this amendment would have
the effect of hurting innocent people. I would urge my colleagues to
vote against it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 210, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 119]

AYES--216

Ackerman
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Bartlett
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Bonilla
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Camp
Cantor
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Graves
Green (TX)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wu
Wynn

NOES--210

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeMint
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Ford
Frank
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Luther
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Serrano
Sessions
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Stump
Sununu
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Borski
Brady (PA)
Cubin
Moakley
Skeen

{time} 1806

Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Messrs. EHLERS,
OLVER, LARGENT and BERRY changed their vote from ``aye to ``no.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. HART, Messrs. CAMP, GOODE,
WALDEN of OREGON, HILLEARY, COBLE, BARTLETT of Maryland, SHAYS,
PICKERING, GALLEGLY, GUTIERREZ, HOBSON, CUNNINGHAM, VITTER and TANCREDO
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 119 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye.''
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 119 I
inadvertently pressed the ``No'' button. I meant to vote ``Aye.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
address the Committee for 1 minute.
Mr. FOLEY. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Objection is heard.

[[Page H2248]]

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Lee
Amendment, a provision in this bill included by my friend and colleague
from California, Barbara Lee.
I would like to begin by reminding my colleagues that since 1973, no
U.S. dollars have been used to pay for the performance of an abortion
as a method of family planning or for involuntary sterilizations
overseas--None!
The Lee provision does not alter that restriction, but instead
restores U.S. support for international family planning organizations.
In my view the best way to reduce the number of abortions worldwide, a
goal we all share, is to ensure access to family planning. Yet,
supporters of the so-called Mexico City policy claim that we must limit
all funds to prevent United States dollars from being used in clinics
that only inform their patients on the option of abortion--including
clinics in countries where abortion is legal.
Turning this into a vote about abortion does a disservice to the
millions of women throughout the world who do not have access to the
health care and reproductive services, education and treatment that
women in this country take for granted.
Mr. Chairman, I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to
have a child. I also recognize that for some women, that choice is
about whether or not to give birth to a healthy child. More than
600,000 infants become infected with HIV each year worldwide. That is
appalling. How can we possibly claim to be working to prevent the
spread of HIV if we do not offer counsel and education in family
planning? It seems to me that it is an oxymoron to be both anti-
abortion and anti-family planning. Only through family planning efforts
can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies--a result always
preferable to abortion.
The Lee provision will prevent international family planning groups
from being denied lifesaving funds to carry out their work--both in
preventing unintended pregnancies and the spread of the deadly HIV/AIDS
disease.
We have the chance to really make a difference for millions of women
worldwide. Let's give women the opportunity to make informed and
educated decisions about their reproductive health. Vote for to keep
the Lee provision.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the
authorization bills for our foreign policy agenda, it is necessary to
recognize the continuing human rights abuses practiced by governments
in the Horn of Africa, particularly in Ethiopia. The U.S. Department of
State must carefully investigate the continuing human rights abuses in
Ethiopia.
Just recently, I am outraged by the recent violence in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, especially the loss of life in the face of peaceful
demonstrations on the campus at Addis Ababa University on April 11th. I
am deeply disturbed that police forces used excessive force to prevent
students from vocalizing their discontent in an academic setting. I
understand that as many as 41 brave individuals were killed on or near
the campus at Addis Ababa University, while another 250 persons were
injured in an indiscriminate attack by the police forces. The recent
action taken by police forces can never be justified.
Although I have strongly spoken out against human rights abuses in
Ethiopia before, I wholeheartedly join the Ethiopian community in the
United States in denouncing the indiscriminate killings that recently
occurred in Ethiopia. Justice must be served swiftly and fairly even
though the brutal attack has already exacted an unimaginable toll.
Further, I am somewhat relieved that approximately 2,000 students who
were detained by police have now been released. That is not enough,
however. As some of you may know, the U.S. Department of State is
concerned that dozens of persons who were arrested without warrant
remain detained. The United States Government must vigorously call upon
the government of Ethiopia to promptly and unconditionally release all
the students that remain in detention. Their freedom cannot be denied.
In the past, I successfully fought for a legislative measure that
would prohibit the government of Ethiopia from receiving aid until
human rights abuses are eliminated. We must do more. The people of
Ethiopia deserve to be treated humanely by their government.
Mr. Chairman, in the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ``We believe
that the only whole man is a free man.'' I hope we can support efforts
to bring human rights abuses by government actors in Ethiopia to a
halt.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the Members
of the House Committee on International Relations for including $13.5
million for the East-West Center in the FY2002 State Department
Authorization bill. An amendment to delete this funding was
overwhelming defeated in Committee on a vote of 6 yeas to 30 noes.
The last time we considered the State Department Authorization bill
in July 1999, we had to defeat an amendment on the floor to reduce the
funding authorization for the East-West Center, North-South Center, and
the Asia Foundation. That amendment was defeated on a vote of 180 yeas
to 237 noes. I am very pleased that we face no such amendment this
year.
The East-West Center is an internationally respected research and
educational institution based in Hawaii with a 40-year record of
achievement. It is an important forum for the development of policies
to promote stability and economic and social development in the Asia-
Pacific region. Established in 1960 through a bipartisan effort of the
Eisenhower Administration and the Congress, the Center has worked to
promote better relations and understanding between the United States
and the nations and peoples of Asia and the Pacific through cooperative
study, training, and research. Presidents, prime ministers,
ambassadors, scholars, business executives, and journalists from all
over the Asia-Pacific region have used the Center as a forum to advance
international cooperation.
The Asia-Pacific region accounts for more than half the world's
population, about a third of the world's economy, and vast marine and
land resources. The United States has vital national interests in
connecting itself in partnership with the region. As the Asia-Pacific
region continues to develop and change, it is essential that the United
States be seen as a part of the region rather than an outsider. The
most powerful force of U.S. influence in the Asia-Pacific region has
been our ideas, and the East-West Center is the only program that has a
strategic mission of developing a consensus on key policy issues in
U.S.-Asia-Pacific relations through intensive cooperative research and
training.
I want to thank my colleagues for supporting the mission of the
Center with this authorization and I ask that the Commerce, Justice,
State Appropriations Subcommittee fully fund this important national
program.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1646 the
Foreign Relations Authorization. When this bill was placed on the floor
of this House, I was surprised to see such a reasonable piece of
legislation. For several years now this bill has been used to advance a
conservative agenda including restrictions on international family
planning activities, refusals to pay our commitments to international
organizations, and fund totaling billions of dollars in direct military
and economic aid to other countries.
I am encouraged that there is not a multi-billion dollar package of
military and economic aid to other countries in this bill. It is
foolish to help train and equip other countries for war when there are
so many people here at home who need help to obtain prescription drugs,
lift their families out of poverty, and educate our children.
Unfortunately, the amendment process has overridden my earlier support.
This bill now restricts international organizations, cuts funding to
these organizations, and re-implements draconian restrictions on
international family planning activities abroad.
The first amendment passed by the House provided special protections
from international prosecution to U.S. forces engaged in human rights
abuses. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created to ensure
that those people who violate internationally recognized human rights
would suffer consequences for doing so. By providing special protection
from prosecution to U.S. forces we are telling the world community that
Human Rights are not important to the United States and that we should
not have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the world. This is
wrong and I am disappointed that so many of my colleagues supported
this language.
The second amendment passed by the House halted repayment of our back
dues to the United Nations until we are given a seat on the UN Human
Rights Commission (UNHRC). I disagree fundamentally with this decision
and was dismayed that a majority of my colleagues supported this
amendment too. This body has passed numerous bills and resolutions
supporting democracy throughout the world. Unfortunately, when three
other countries were democratically elected to the UNHRC rather than
the United States, a majority of this House voted against democracy
because we didn't win the election. It's an infantile reaction and I
oppose it.
The third amendment passed by the House re-affirms President Bush's
implementation of the Mexico City provisions which prohibit U.S.
funding to organizations who mention abortion in their counseling of
people seeking family planning services. Existing law has prohibited
these groups from using U.S. dollars to conduct abortions. This bill
does nothing more than eliminate important services to people around
the world, including access to contraception and other family planning
services which reduce the number of abortions by decreasing the number
of unwanted pregnancies. I strongly oppose its inclusion in this bill.
I am disappointed in the bill as amended. It has gone back to
advancing a conservative agenda when it should advance a free and
democratic agenda. I oppose this bill and the principles it now
supports.

[[Page H2249]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order,
under the rule the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gibbons) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1646) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 138, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hastings of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R.
1646 to the Committee on International Relations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:

Page 58, after line 20, insert the following:

SEC. 306. UNITED STATES SPECIAL COORDINATOR FOR KOREA.

(a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States to engage diplomatically with the Government of
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in order to reduce
the threats from such government and to improve the stability
of the Korean peninsula and surrounding countries until such
time as the United States concludes that such efforts are no
longer productive.
(b) Establishment--There shall be within the Department of
State a United States Special Coordinator for Korea who shall
be designated by the Secretary of State.
(c) Consultation.--The Secretary of State shall consult
with the chairman and ranking minority member of the
appropriate congressional committees prior to the designation
of the special coordinator.
(d) Central Objectives.--The central objectives of the
special coordinator are as follows:
(1) To seek to reduce or eliminate the missile program of
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and its export of
ballistic missile technology through steps that include
resumption of the discussions between the United States and
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding a binding
and verifiable agreement.
(2) To ensure the compliance of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
International Atomic Energy Agency agreement and increase the
transparency of its nuclear activities.
(3) To reduce the conventional military threat of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the Republic of
Korea.
(e) Duties and Responsibilities.--The special coordinator
shall--
(1) serve as the primary advisor to the Secretary of State
on security issues on the Korean Peninsula, including the
central objectives outlined in subsection (d);
(2) coordinate United States Government policies, programs,
and projects concerning security issues on the Korean
Peninsula;
(3) oversee discussions and negotiations on issues
concerning the central objectives in subsection (d);
(4) consult with the Governments of the Republic of Korea
and Japan to coordinate negotiating strategy and overall
policy toward the Democratic People's Republic of Korea;
(5) serve as the primary liaison to Congress on issues
relating to the central objectives in subsection (d); and
(6) take all appropriate steps to ensure adequate
resources, staff, and bureaucratic support to fulfill the
responsibilities of the special coordinator.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the
motion.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as good as this bill is that is
presently before us, I think this motion to recommit with instructions
would make it even stronger.
Mr. Speaker, there are several realities upon which we can all agree.
Security and stability on the Korean Peninsula is a matter of vital
national interest to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, reducing and eliminating the North Korean long-range
missile threat is a vital national interest of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, eliminating any vestiges of a North Korean nuclear
weapons program is a vital national interest of the United States.
The motion that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and I have
drafted would create a special coordinator position within the
Department of State for Korea. This official would be charged with
serving as the primary advisor to the Secretary of State on security
issues on the Korean Peninsula; coordinate United States Government
policies, programs and projects; oversee discussions and negotiations
with North Korea; consult with the governments of the Republic of Korea
and Japan to coordinate negotiating strategy and overall policy towards
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and serve as the primary
liaison to Congress on issues related to North Korea.
The previous administration had a special envoy on North Korea. This
administration cannot afford to reduce the level of institutional
attention to these matters by not creating a similar position.
Indeed, our colleagues in Europe in the European Union have already
begun to fill the void that we have created. Mr. Speaker, we must not
allow ourselves to be losing opportunities to shape the future of this
region which is so vital to our national security.
Mr. Speaker, the North Korean threat to the United States and its
allies in the region is too great to downgrade its management to lower-
level officials.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion and allow it
to be included as part of the underlying bill. It does not change the
structural underlying portion of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), my good
friend, who is a cosponsor of this motion.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding, and I rise in support of the motion to recommit
the bill to create the special position of special coordinator for
Korea.
North Korea tested a missile in August 1998. They have not tested a
missile since, because the Clinton administration successfully
negotiated a moratorium on their test program.

{time} 1815

North Korea has voluntarily continued this moratorium through 2003.
If they cannot test their missiles, they cannot deploy their missiles
to threaten us. President Bush, Mr. Speaker, has refused to continue
negotiations with the North Koreans.
Mr. Speaker, we can negotiate away the North Korean missile threat
but only if we sit down at the table to discuss the subject. That is
why we need a special coordinator for Korea. President Bush appears to
be more interested in justifying a technologically unproven missile
defense than in eliminating the missiles themselves. It is easier to
defend against the missile that is never launched than one that is.
Let us seize this opportunity to negotiate an end to the North Korean
missile threat. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.

[[Page H2250]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the amendment made in order by this motion
would require the creation of a special office in the Department of
State to carry out negotiations with North Korea. It mandates that the
person appointed to that office, and I quote, must oversee discussions
and negotiations with North Korea regarding missile proliferation and
other matters.
It does not mandate negotiations, and that is what the gentleman said
we want. It does not do anything except say hire somebody and give them
a title and he should oversee negotiations.
This is micromanagement gone mad. We should not be telling a new
State Department, a new administration what personnel it should have
and what they should do. There will be somebody overseeing negotiations
in North Korea. It may be the Secretary of State who is a general of
some accomplishment. It may be the Deputy Secretary of State. It may be
an Assistant Secretary of State. It may be lots of people.
But to set up a special office and give him a title and he is to
oversee discussions and negotiations is micromanagement, and the
administration should be given the opportunity to do this in its own
way. If we do not like what they are doing, we can criticize it. But to
micromanage the Department of State and tell them they must hire
somebody, give them the title, and then he should oversee negotiations
is just a tad arrogant. I would trust Secretary Powell to do the right
thing.
So I hope my colleagues will vote this down. We can pass this bill
and get on to other matters.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker: this motion to recommit symbolizes the
direction I believe we should be steering U.S. national security policy
in the 21st century.
Last year, our diplomats made significant progress, negotiating an
agreement with North Korea in which it would end its ballistic missile
program.
Unfortunately, President Bush has backed away from these discussions,
publicly telling South Korean President Kim Dae Jung that the North
Koreans could not be trusted.
Meanwhile, the administration is proceeding full speed ahead with
plans for a costly missile defense system, whose initial purpose is to
defend against ballistic missiles from North Korea.
These actions and others strongly suggest that the Bush
administration is taking us down the wrong path: toward a policy of
isolationism, unilateralism, and disengagement that jeopardizes our
security and undermines our leadership role in the world.
We must resist this direction. Instead, we should convince the
Administration that there is a better way to serve our interests and
enhance the security of our citizens.
We must choose leadership over isolation. We must work to shape the
international security environment rather than simply insulate
ourselves from it by relying excessively on a defensive shield.
We should choose cooperation over unilateralism, and collaborate with
our allies like South Korea, not alienate them.
Finally, we should choose engagement over disengagement, and pursue
verifiable agreements like the one with North Korea that can eliminate
real threats to our security.
By adopting this motion, we will demonstrate our commitment to
reducing threats to the United States, at their source, before they
spread to other unfriendly nations or are launched against us.
And we will indicate that we want our foreign and defense policies to
go in the direction of preserving America's security through
leadership, engagement and cooperation.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 239, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 120]

AYES--189

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--239

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matsui
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller

[[Page H2251]]

Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Borski
Brady (PA)
Cubin

{time} 1837

Mr. THOMPSON of California and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 352,
noes 73, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 121]

AYES--352

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--73

Akin
Baird
Barr
Berry
Blunt
Bonior
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clay
Combest
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dicks
Doolittle
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Filner
Flake
Goode
Hefley
Hostettler
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lee
Lucas (OK)
McDermott
McInnis
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Otter
Paul
Payne
Pence
Petri
Pombo
Putnam
Rahall
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sanders
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Sununu
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Watkins
Weldon (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Borski
Brady (PA)
Cubin
Sabo
Shaw
Smith (TX)

{time} 1848

Messrs. ROYCE, BAIRD, and JACKSON of Illinois changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________