[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.

                          ____________________