[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6649-H6659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1646, FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 545 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 545

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against the conference 
     report and against its consideration are waived. The 
     conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 545 is a rule waiving 
all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2002 and 2003, and 
against its consideration.
  The underlying legislation has taken on a new meaning, Mr. Speaker, 
this year. The United States is leading a worldwide war against 
terrorism. This is a very difficult task, which requires a careful 
combination of strength as well as diplomacy. The legislation that we 
will consider today supports the needs of President Bush and his 
administration to conduct the foreign relations of the United States 
while keeping our citizens abroad safe from harm.
  It provides $13.8 billion in fiscal year 2003 to help achieve these 
goals, including $5.2 billion for counterterrorism assistance to our 
allies and $1.6 billion for security at our embassies abroad.
  I am very pleased to see that this report includes increased 
authorization levelings for human rights monitoring as part of our 
effort in Congress to promote human rights around the world. This 
legislation also requires State Department officials to work to reform 
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, whose membership 
includes some of the world's worst human rights violators.
  The underlying legislation will also help promote our Nation's 
message of freedom and support for democracy by providing new 
authorities to our international broadcasting entities, with an 
emphasis on those countries whose governments obviously do not permit 
freedom of the press.
  I am pleased to see a continued commitment to our friends in Israel. 
Every country under international law has the right to designate its 
capital city. In fact, however, this has not been the case with Israel. 
This legislation requires compliance with existing U.S. law that 
recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which has been the 
capital of that country since 1950.
  This legislation also enacts the Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 
2002, which requires the President to formally determine whether the 
Palestinian Authority is complying with its commitments under 
international

[[Page H6650]]

agreements, including the absolute renunciation of terrorism and 
violence.
  It is important, Mr. Speaker, we continue to support our democratic 
allies around the world. For example, Taiwan has demonstrated its 
continued commitment to a democratic path even under the constant 
threat just miles off its shores. The administration has shown that 
they have a clear understanding of Taiwan's security needs by 
requesting four Kidd class destroyers which this bill provides for.
  Mr. Speaker, as we continue our efforts to prevent future acts of 
terror, it is important that we provide the administration with the 
necessary tools to continue to bring the world's community on board. I 
would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking 
member, and all the members of the Committee on International Relations 
for in effect making the tough decisions required to produce thoughtful 
legislation that meets our most important priorities in this field, the 
field of foreign affairs.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this straightforward rule, 
noncontroversial rule as well as this very important underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
granting me the customary time for debate, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the House is able to review and act 
on the conference report on H.R. 1646, the fiscal year 2002 and fiscal 
year 2003 authorizations for the Department of State; and I commend the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), his distinguished ranking member, for moving the conference 
process along; and I thank all the conferees for their work.
  The rule providing for debate is the standard rule for a conference 
report. It waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against consideration. It provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read and it allows for 1 hour of debate equally divided. 
As such, this rule should be supported.
  This bipartisan bill has much to commend it. It authorizes $8.6 
billion for the operations of the State Department and related agencies 
in fiscal year 2003, slightly more than the level approved in the House 
version of the bill. The measure's funding level includes a substantial 
increase for the State Department as requested by the administration.
  I do want to clarify that this is not a foreign aid authorization 
bill which would involve the authorization of our bilateral development 
economic and security programs. This bill primarily authorizes funding 
for the State Department programs, multilateral aid administered by the 
State Department such as international peacekeeping funds and refugee 
assistance and U.S. information programs such as freedom broadcasting 
to the Middle East and Asia.
  Most importantly, this bill authorizes $564 million for worldwide 
security upgrades to protect U.S. diplomatic missions and personnel 
abroad. It also strengthens the authority of the United States to fight 
terrorism as well as strengthening our commitment to Israel and peace 
in the Middle East, reform at the United Nations, the survival of a 
democratic Taiwan, the promotion of religious freedom, and protection 
for the victims of human trafficking.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure every Member of this body could find at least 
one provision in this bill that runs counter to his or her convictions 
about what is best for U.S. policy. For example, this bill authorizes 
$25.9 million for broadcasting Radio and TV Marti to Cuba. Since TV 
Marti reaches no one in Cuba, I find it a particulars waste of 
Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. There is a shocking lack of 
accountability in Radio Marti's professional conduct and broadcast 
content. Often, it broadcasts news to Cuban households many hours after 
such news has already been broadly reported by other sources, including 
sometimes even Cuban government programs such as in the case of Jimmy 
Carter's recent address to the Cuban people. I know that the Committee 
on International Relations has been looking into the lack of 
effectiveness of Radio and TV Marti, and I hope that this waste of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars will soon be remedied.
  The conference report also includes a total of $5.2 billion to fund 
security assistance provisions, including counterterrorism and other 
military assistance to our allies. This section of the bill facilitates 
access by U.S. pilots to the Gulf Air Warfare Center in the United Arab 
Emirates and authorizes funding for the destruction of surplus weapon 
stockpiles in the former Soviet Union, Africa, and elsewhere. It also 
includes a new program to forgive certain Russian debts in exchange for 
investments in nonproliferation programs.
  My colleagues will detail many of these key provisions, but I would 
like to take a few moments just to highlight a few. This bill serves as 
the vehicle for the release of funds previously appropriated for back 
payments of U.S. dues to the United Nations. The Omnibus Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2000 provided $926 million for U.S. back payments 
to the United Nations. However it conditioned the release of these 
funds on enactment of an authorization bill that specified U.N. 
agreement to certain reforms, including a decrease in the percentage of 
assessed U.S. contributions to the organization. These conditions were 
successfully negotiated by former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations 
Richard Holbrooke.
  In May of 2001, the House passed its version of H.R. 1646 and 
authorized both the release of the $582 million and a third installment 
of $244 million. However, 2 weeks before the House considered the bill, 
the United States lost its seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. 
The House responded by adopting an amendment conditioning release of 
the remaining installment on the return of the U.S. to the commission. 
Since then the United States has regained the seat. This bill, 
therefore, authorizes the third and final installment owed to the 
United Nations.
  This bill also completes the process of U.N. reform under which U.S. 
dues to the United Nations will be reduced from 25 to 22 percent, 
providing American taxpayers with $2 billion in savings. In addition, 
this bill modestly increases the level of U.S. contributions for U.N. 
peacekeeping, raising it from 25 to 27 percent.
  At a time when the United States is asking so much of the United 
Nations, it is important that we put in place the financial and legal 
structure that will ensure the U.S. remains a responsible and 
accountable leader of this singular international body.
  I am also very pleased to see a number of important programs 
authorized in this bill. Among these is the inclusion of the Tibet 
Policy Act, which requires the State Department to create an office for 
a special coordinator for Tibetan issues. It also requires the U.S. to 
undertake a number of initiatives to improve the condition of human 
rights and religious freedom for the Tibetan people and encourage 
dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama over the 
future of Tibet. It also calls for the release of the 11-year-old 
Panchen Lam from detention by China, an act that would significantly 
increase confidence among the international community about China's 
commitment to respect the culture and religion of the Tibetan people.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my colleague and the 
ranking member, should be commended for his leadership on this issue 
along with our colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Kirk). This bill will also enact the East Timor Transition to 
Independence Act, which authorizes economic aid for East Timor and 
provides a framework for a strong bilateral relationship between the 
U.S. and the world's newest nation. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), ranking member, as well as the efforts of the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy), for their long leadership in support of freedom and human 
rights in East Timor.

[[Page H6651]]

  The conference report also requires the State Department to report to 
Congress on the extent to which the British Government has implemented 
the recommendations for police reform in Northern Ireland listed in the 
Patten Commission's report. The establishment of a new, nonpartisan 
police is critical to the implementation of the Good Friday Peace 
Accords and bringing peace and genuine security to the people of 
Northern Ireland. It also emphasizes the importance of continuing the 
decommissioning of weapons by all Irish armed groups and the 
investigations of the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Patrick Finucane, and 
Roberts Hammill. So many of our colleagues have worked long and hard to 
secure a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and we are all 
appreciative of the leadership on this provision of the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  Finally, the conference report agreement also extends and strengthens 
authorizations provided for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, it 
requires the State Department to maintain a special envoy for Sudanese 
issues; authorizes $5 million for a special court to try war criminals 
and human rights abusers in Sierra Leone; it requires annual country 
reports on the use of children as soldiers; and it requires the State 
Department to report to the Congress on U.S. efforts in Colombia to 
promote alternative development, recovery, and resettlement of 
internally displaced persons, judicial reform, and the peace process 
and human rights. It also requires reports on the activities of U.S. 
private contractors involved in counter-narcotics programs in Colombia, 
an issue brought so compellingly to the attention of the House by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill that is long overdue, and I 
urge my colleagues to approve the rule and adopt the conference report 
on H.R. 1646.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to some language that 
is in this conference report having to do with assistance to Lebanon. 
There was an attempt early on with an amendment to eliminate most of 
the money for Lebanon, and I guess wiser heads prevailed.
  I want to offer my thanks to the chairman of the full Committee on 
International Relations for working out an arrangement that will allow 
for the country of Lebanon to be authorized for $35 million. The 
language I object to is that they have carved out $10 million that 
cannot be used for the country, $10 million of the $35 million, until 
there is a certification from the President that a certain group that 
is in the country is no longer a threat. I think this is a mistake to 
have this kind of language in there. The country of Lebanon is 3 
million people. It is a peace-loving country. It is caught in the 
switches between other countries who are involved in disputes. To 
single out this country for this kind of certification I think is 
without merit. I wish the language were not in there.
  The $35 million is walking-around change compared to the money that 
is authorized for a lot of other countries. Lebanon certainly does not 
deserve this kind of treatment from this Congress. I know there are 
people in the administration, particularly in the State Department, who 
have strong objections to the way that Lebanon is being treated. I, 
too, have strong objections, and I wanted to make those objections 
known. I intend to vote for the rule. I know that the chairman and 
others have worked very hard to put together a good conference report; 
but my objection for the country of Lebanon needs to be noted here. 
Again, this to me is just an opportunity to take a very unjustified 
criticism of a country that has tried to work with the United States, 
has tried to work with other countries in the region. I object to the 
language, and I hope at some point people will come to respect the 
country of Lebanon and what the leaders there are trying to do.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my very strong support 
for the conference report on the International Relations Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 2003. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde); the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
as well as Senator Biden and Senator Lugar, for their hard work to 
support the State Department at a time when alliances and international 
partners matter most.
  By paying more of our back dues to the United Nations, we are finally 
stepping up to the plate and being a responsible partner in this great 
international organization we helped create.
  This bill also makes a bit of history by authorizing a new way to 
protect the United States from the threat of weapons of mass 
destruction: debt-for-security swaps.
  In June, the leaders of the G-8 nations agreed to fund 
nonproliferation programs at $20 billion over the next 10 years and 
stated that debt-for-program exchanges should be used to stop the 
spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
  Several months ago I introduced the first bipartisan nonproliferation 
legislation in the 107th Congress with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff), the Russian Federation Debt Reduction for 
Nonproliferation Act for 2002, that would authorize the President to 
forgive a portion of Russia's outstanding debt to us in exchange for 
Russia using that money to lock down loose nuclear weapons and 
material.
  Our colleagues in the House and Senate went a step further, including 
a debt-swap provision in the State Department authorization bill. Debt-
for-security swaps are an important development. They will help Russia 
reduce its outstanding debt, involve Russia and the rest of the G-8 
countries in programs that directly improve U.S. national security, and 
extend burden-sharing to our allies.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time to seize this existing and unique 
opportunity to use a tool that would both help stabilize the Russian 
economy and find new sources of funding for the critical programs that 
keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Saddam and al Qaeda. I 
encourage Members to vote for this bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his very important efforts on this legislation. I 
also join in commending the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for reporting out 
this very important State Department authorization. This, as we know, 
covers a wide range of issues; and I would like to take just a moment 
to focus on one particular issue, and that has to do with the new 
degree of flexibility which is being put into place to deal with our 
war on drugs.
  We know that President Uribe from Colombia is here in the United 
States. He met with President Bush today and met with a number of us 
yesterday. I believe that efforts are being made by leaders in Latin 
America to deal with the tremendous scourge of drugs that have been 
flowing into this country.

                              {time}  1500

  But we had a very antiquated structure for certification, 
decertification, was something that went on. In fact, it was very, very 
poorly crafted and I believe that it played a role in exacerbating 
rather than improving the situation. The language that is included in 
this conference report provides, as I mentioned, a degree of 
flexibility. So it basically uses the two words ``demonstrably failed'' 
in describing what it is that countries would have done who are dealing 
with this issue.
  So the point is, we need to congratulate, encourage and support those 
nations which are helping us deal with

[[Page H6652]]

the illegal drug problem that we have faced as a Nation. I particularly 
want to congratulate President Fox who has faced a great deal of 
challenges in his country. He has come forward and in dealing with this 
question, there is the horrible Tijuana-based Arellano Felix drug 
cartel. Under President Fox's leadership, two of the very powerful 
members of that cartel have been arrested. There are other ongoing 
efforts taking place between the United States and Mexico. I believe 
that the language that is now incorporated in this conference report 
will help us further deal with this difficult challenge.
  I want to congratulate all those involved in this very important 
effort and to say that I strongly support the rule that is being 
managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the 
conference report that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will be 
managing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and I must 
say that I support most of the provisions of the conference report. I 
am concerned, though, and I do object to one provision with regard to 
India. In section 1601 of the legislation, the President is required to 
submit a report to Congress with regard to U.S. efforts relative to 
nonproliferation benchmarks. There is mention in that regard of both 
India and Pakistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that India should be mentioned and 
specified in this report for the following reasons: First of all, in 
the House version of the bill we did not include India. India was 
included at the behest of the Senate. And if you think about it, since 
1998, when India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons, India has 
had very good relations with the United States and has had numerous 
discussions on the issue of benchmarks for nonproliferation. Right now 
basically there is no disagreement between the United States and India 
in that regard. India has stated very dramatically that it has put in 
place a moratorium on further testing of nuclear weapons. India has 
also been very adamant about a policy of no first use of nuclear 
weapons, which is certainly not the case with regard to Pakistan. For 
that reason, I do not think we need to include India in any further 
negotiations or in any report that would have to be submitted on behalf 
of the President.
  I am not quite sure why it was the case that the conference report 
did not adopt the House version of the bill, which I think made a lot 
more sense than the Senate version, and I did want to raise an 
objection at this time because I think that once again our policy is 
somehow reflecting that if Pakistan is included then India has to be 
included as well. I think that does not make sense under the 
circumstances.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this rule and to approve the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I again would like to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member 
Lantos for leading the Committee on International Relations to a very, 
not only successful but I think admirable and commendable result in 
this legislation. This is, as I stated before, very important 
legislation. By virtue of the fact that it is in effect consensus 
legislation in that it is supported in a bipartisan way by an 
overwhelming majority obviously of the committee, but also I am sure 
later by the House, it does not I think in any way minimize the 
importance and really the brilliance of the result.
  This country, the Nation, the United States of America, has not only 
a role in leadership, a leadership role in the world but constantly has 
to be developing ways to implement that leadership on behalf of 
protection of democracies and the spreading of the values of freedom. 
This legislation goes a long way in once again doing that, and so it is 
legislation that I strongly support and urge my colleagues to as well.
  I think that if there is a chairman and ranking member whom I 
certainly look at and admire for their clarity and their leadership and 
their vision, it is the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations. I would like to reiterate not 
only my thanks but my admiration for both of them. This is another 
example of why I think we all thank them and admire them. The issue was 
brought out of the fact that this legislation, for example, supports 
broadcasting to the oppressed people of Cuba, and it does and I am very 
proud of that. Despite the fact of the opposition of some folks such as 
the gentleman who expressed opposition once again to broadcasting to 
the oppressed people of Cuba, the overwhelming majority on a bipartisan 
basis of this Congress has supported and has continued and continues to 
support that broadcasting and the efforts to offer news and information 
as well as assistance to that people only 90 miles from our shores that 
have been suffering for over 40 years oppression. Again, if there is a 
leadership of a committee that I think demonstrates on a bipartisan 
basis in terms of the chairman and the ranking member clarity and lack 
of confusion with regard to dictators and tyranny and oppression, it is 
the leadership again of Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos.
  I think this is legislation that we can all be proud of, Mr. Speaker. 
Again, I strongly support it and the rule, which is eminently fair and 
permits obviously all Members to express any points of view that they 
may have on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the 
Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 545, the conference report is considered as having 
been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 23, 2002 at page H 6422.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on the legislation under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1646, the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This 
comprehensive foreign policy legislation will give the President and 
the Secretary of State the tools they need to conduct a foreign policy 
that strengthens the security of the United States, protects American 
interests and promotes American values.
  Mr. Speaker, it is traditional that in matters of foreign policy the 
Congress leaves the President and the Secretary of State some 
flexibility. This legislation respects that tradition, but it also sets 
limits, both on the amounts that may be spent and on the purposes for 
which they may be used. It identifies foreign policy priorities and it 
requires that Congress be kept informed.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report reaffirms and strengthens the 
authority of the U.S. officials to combat terrorism and to protect our 
embassies and the people who work in them. It also reaffirms and 
strengthens the United States' commitment to the survival of Israel and 
to a just peace in the Middle East, to United Nations reform, to the 
continued existence of a democratic Taiwan, and to religious freedom 
and other fundamental human rights.
  To be specific, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will enhance our 
national security by authorizing $1.6 billion for security at our 
embassies and other United

[[Page H6653]]

States missions abroad and by providing new law enforcement authorities 
for the diplomatic security agents who are charged with the protection 
of these missions. It will also authorize new counterterrorism 
assistance to countries that are helping us in this global struggle, 
and provide new authorities for the State Department's Bureau of 
Verification and Compliance, which monitors compliance by foreign 
governments with arms control agreements in order to stop the flow of 
weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and to rogue regimes.
  The conference report also reaffirms and strengthens our commitment 
to freedom and democracy by setting aside funds for enhanced human 
rights monitoring, extending the life of the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, providing for enhanced U.S. diplomatic 
efforts to promote human rights in Tibet and Vietnam, and requiring 
State Department officials to work for reform of the United Nations 
Commission on Human Rights whose membership now includes some of the 
world's worst human rights violators.
  This legislation would also complete the process of United Nations 
budget reform which we began several years ago under which the U.S. 
dues to the U.N. will be lowered from 25 percent to 22 percent of the 
total. Our contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations will also be 
reduced through the end of fiscal year 2004 and thereafter will be 
capped at 25 percent. In addition, 15 provisions promote sound 
financial and management practices at the U.N. and its affiliated 
agencies.
  The conference report will strengthen our bilateral relationship with 
important allies, such as Israel and Taiwan. It not only provides 
enhanced antiterrorism assistance for Israel but also contains 
provisions to spur compliance with existing U.S. law recognizing 
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The conference report also includes 
the Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002, which requires the 
President to determine whether the Palestinian Authority is complying 
with its commitments under international agreements, including the 
renunciation of terrorism and violence, and to report to Congress on 
what actions will be taken in the event of noncompliance. The 
legislation also authorizes the transfer to Taiwan of four Kidd class 
destroyers, as requested by the Bush administration, and requires that 
Taiwan be treated for purposes of military assistance as though it had 
been designated as a major non-NATO ally.

                              {time}  1515

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill contains important provisions to 
protect a variety of other vital American interests. For instance, it 
requires a plan from the State Department for improving the recruitment 
of veterans into the Foreign Service, as well as a report on steps 
taken by the U.S. Agency for International Development to ensure that 
the bidding procession is fair to small businesses in the United 
States. The legislation will require senior State Department officials 
in the law enforcement bureau to have some experience with law 
enforcement and/or international counternarcotics efforts, and it will 
require the State Department to report to Congress on foreign 
governments that refuse to extradite criminals for prosecution in the 
United States or to comply with the Hague Convention on International 
Child Abduction, as well as on joint cooperative efforts to eradicate 
opium in Colombia.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important 
legislation.
  I would like the record to show what a pleasure it was to work with 
the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), whose 
cooperation and vision has added greatly to the end product.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in strong support of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Illinois, for his most gracious words.
  Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset congratulate the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations on bringing this 
conference report to the floor. Since this matter last came before the 
House, a myriad of procedural and substantive issues blocked the path 
of this bill. At every turn, the outstanding leadership of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) brought us closer to our shared 
goal, and today an important and very substantive bill is before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill blends the very best features of the 
original House-passed measure and the Senate amendments. The conference 
report authorizes funds for the conduct of the foreign relations of the 
United States of America and funds urgent U.S. priorities, such as the 
security of our embassies abroad, broadcasting to the Middle East and 
Asia to communicate our values and points of view to foreign audiences, 
protection of refugees, and scores of other issues.
  Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Speaker, our bill takes a huge step 
towards normalizing our relations with the United Nations. It allows 
payment of our remaining arrears payments to the U.N. and clears our 
debts with a host of other smaller, but important, international 
organizations.
  In addition, our bill includes a new authorization that clears the 
way for the United States to begin paying our bills on time instead of 
a year late. Because of late payments, the U.N. has been forced to 
adopt unsound budgetary practices. Our legislation will help put the 
United Nations and other international organizations on a proper and 
businesslike financial footing.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly delighted that the conference report 
includes language on the reentry of the United States into UNESCO, the 
United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization. Several of 
us have been working for years to bring about this result, and I am 
truly pleased that in his speech before the United Nations on September 
12, President Bush added his support for this critical initiative. The 
conference report now reflects this new consensus, which is truly 
bipartisan, to rejoin this important organization, so that the voice of 
the United States will be loud and clear in UNESCO.
  Our actions are particularly timely, as we are in the midst of 
working with the United Nations to enforce U.N. Security Council 
resolutions aimed at Iraq. Our bill clearly demonstrates Congress' 
commitment to multilateralism, and it offers a vote of confidence in 
the United Nations. It is now time for the United Nations to prove 
itself worthy of such confidence by defending its principles and 
enforcing its resolutions. With the passage of this bill, the United 
States will have done its part. Now the Members of the United Nations 
Security Council must do theirs.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other important features in this 
bill, and I would like to highlight some of them.
  Our bill authorizes U.S. counterterrorism and nonproliferation 
assistance as well as military assistance to recent and future NATO 
entrants and some of our key allies in the war against terrorism.
  The bill also includes a trailblazing initiative to strengthen 
nonproliferation programs in Russia while retiring that nation's huge 
Soviet-era debt. Under our initiative, the United States will forgive 
that debt, and Russia will use the savings to pursue programs, such as 
securing its stocks of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from 
terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism.
  The bill has numerous important provisions on the Middle East, 
including the stopping of illegal weapons transfers to the Palestinians 
and ensuring that the PLO is abiding by the commitments it made almost 
a decade ago in 1993 to stop the use of violence and to negotiate 
peacefully. Our bill reaffirms United States policy that Jerusalem is 
the undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel.
  I also note that a compromise provision on Lebanon included in the 
conference report will create a real incentive for that government to 
deploy its forces along its own national frontier in areas currently 
controlled by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. Our bill provides 
for new exchange programs for Sudanese oppressed by war and for 
scientists who conduct research on HIV-AIDS.
  Our legislation, Mr. Speaker, provides that the Secretary of State 
should establish programs to train scientists and public policy experts 
on

[[Page H6654]]

ethical issues relating to drug trials, allowing governments in 
developing countries to evaluate any trials by foreign pharmaceutical 
companies on their citizens.
  I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the conference report 
contains the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, legislation I introduced along 
with my good friends and colleagues, Senator Feinstein, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). 
This legislation is the first piece of comprehensive Tibet legislation 
ever enacted in the Congress of the United States, and it will send a 
strong signal to the Chinese Government that the United States has not 
forgotten the plight of Tibet and its people. Our legislation will 
promote human rights and religious freedom in Tibet, and it will ensure 
the development sponsored by international institutions benefits the 
people of Tibet.
  The conference report also contains measures I introduced, along with 
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Kennedy) and many others, to help 
the people of East Timor. After more than 2 decades of brutal 
Indonesian rule in East Timor and the enormous devastation subsequent 
to East Timor's vote for independence, our legislation will ensure that 
East Timor's people get the assistance they need to get back on their 
feet.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, our act provides for ensuring that those 
who commit crimes against humanity are not treated with impunity. In 
particular, we provide U.S. funding for the Special Court in Sierra 
Leone, which will deal with the human rights atrocities from that 
country's deadly civil war and authorizes a new U.S. rewards program to 
help apprehend those that the Special Court indicts.
  Our legislation reauthorizes funding for victims of human 
trafficking, extends the life of the Commission on International 
Religious Freedom, and ensures that human rights are more fully 
integrated into the State Department's policy considerations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a major piece of legislation, crafted in a truly 
bipartisan manner with a great deal of statesmanship on the part of 
many Members. But I particularly want to pay special tribute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for his 
leadership on this most important legislation. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, but I 
have a serious reservation that I would like to discuss. I speak as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Drug Policy and cochair of the 
Speaker's Drug Task Force to express my concern with the permanent 
modification to the annual drug certification process contained in this 
bill.
  The annual certification process is one of the strongest tools that 
we have as a Nation to ensure full cooperation from other nations with 
our efforts to control international narcotics traffic by conditioning 
U.S. foreign aid on such full cooperation. I believe that this is a 
reasonable and basic condition on the use of taxpayer dollars. Clearly, 
American workers should not be asked to subsidize the programs of 
foreign governments that will not help us stop drug traffic.
  As a practical matter, we have also heard scores of anecdotal reports 
that the threat of decertification often has been the only real means 
for American officials serving abroad to get meaningful cooperation on 
matters such as extradition, law enforcement, and many other means of 
controlling the drug trade.
  In fact, I was part of the Presidential delegation down to the 
swearing in of the new President of Bolivia; and outgoing President 
Cariaga made a special pitch to me and the other members of the 
delegation, Do not compromise this regulation. He said it was the only 
tool that they really had in Bolivia to take them down from supplying 
one-third of our cocaine down to about 2 percent, and he said that this 
was the most effective tool.
  I appreciate very much the work that the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) and his staff did to minimize what I believe will be a 
permanent weakening of the certification process in this legislation. I 
was disappointed that the administration supported weakening the 
certification standard from fully cooperating, which has been proven to 
work successfully over several years, to leaning toward a new standard 
that would only decertify those countries that have failed demonstrably 
to make substantial efforts to cooperate.
  Instead of the burden falling on countries who want American aid to 
cooperate completely with our efforts, we will now presume in many 
cases that the foreign nations are cooperating, and the State 
Department will have to prove that they are not doing so. No major drug 
source or transit country should ever presume that it is entitled to 
American money, and this body certainly should not enshrine such a 
presumption into law.
  I am particularly concerned that it appears that the administration 
and the other body were determined to weaken the standard to satisfy a 
single foreign country. I worked with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica), who has long been involved with this statute, to propose an 
alternative. The alternative would have kept the current standard for 
decertification, but only would have publicly named those countries who 
are not fully cooperating, instead of the entire majors list, which 
will still be made public under the modified law.

                              {time}  1530

  We believe that this would have addressed the concerns of the 
nations. They have talked to me on every visit down to Central and 
South America, and they are concerned about this listing and seeming to 
have to go through a proving process, but it would only have listed 
those who are not fully cooperating, and would have still maintained 
our option to enforce tough sanctions.
  I am still baffled that the administration would not work with us on 
this compromise which I believe is far superior to the provision in the 
bill today.
  I am pleased, however, that the conferees agreed to change the 
certification reporting date back to September 15 from early November, 
which had been proposed in the original version of the bill. An early 
November report would have essentially removed any congressional role 
from the process.
  I also strongly support the bill's provision allowing the President 
to use the old ``fully cooperating'' standard in making certification 
determination as he sees fit. I fully encourage the administration to 
use this standard as the basis for its determinations in the coming 
year, rather than the weaker ``demonstrably failed'' standard included 
in this bill. The traditional standard has been successful for many 
years as a tool for our foreign policy and has reflected congressional 
intent for many years on the proper standard to be applied in 
allocating taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the new standard seems only 
to reflect an agreement between the administration and a few select 
Members of Congress.
  Let me give one specific example. If a Nation does not cooperate with 
us on extradition, one of the toughest and most important things, does 
that mean that they have demonstrably failed, or does it mean they are 
not fully cooperating? Clearly, they would not be fully cooperating, 
but it is not clear that they would have demonstrably failed. So at the 
margins of the real world, unless the administration takes the fully 
cooperating standard, we are in a real box here.
  My question would be, is this going to be our new standard on 
terrorism? Is this going to be our new standard on human rights? If 
not, why is it different on drugs than it is on human rights and 
terrorism? I know that it has been offensive for us to list all of 
these different countries and try to make them prove the case, but we 
need something more than ``demonstrably failed'' and we need something 
that enables and gives the administration the flexibility. I hope they 
will exercise what they have been given in this bill, because there is 
nothing more tragic

[[Page H6655]]

right now going on in America, thousands of people dying on our streets 
because of drug abuse and the cocaine and heroin and methamphetamines 
and BC Bud pouring into this country, and I hope that we do not back up 
on this administration on drug policy.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my good friend and our 
distinguished colleague.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Israel-Arab Peace 
Partners Program, which is reauthorized in H.R. 1646. The Israel-Arab 
Peace Partners Program is a program that I helped to create in 1999 
with my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I would 
like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his 
leadership on this program and for his help to ensure that it was 
reauthorized in this bill and that it receives proper funding in the 
appropriations process. I would also like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) very much for his support and for his effort, as 
well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
who has been very supportive of the effort as well.
  The Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program authorizes a $750,000 pool of 
grant money within the State Department's Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs to fund public and private nonprofit organizations for 
people-to-people activities with participants from Israel, the West 
Bank, Arab countries, and the United States. Through this program, 
American organizations link up with Israeli, Arab, and American 
partners to exchange skills and ideas on issues such as health care, 
the peace process, the environment, and education. By working on issues 
of common interest to all, people of the region are able to form bonds 
that cross borders and build trust and skills that not only helps each 
of their individual communities, but also helps bring them closer to 
peace. In addition, it brings American citizens and organizations in 
contact with people from a region where the United States plays such a 
crucial role.
  I think it is important to note the wide range of well-respected 
groups that have participated in the program over the last few years. 
Brandeis University, Catholic Relief Services, Fairfax County Public 
Schools, St. Michael's College, Arava Institute for Environmental 
Studies, Seeds of Peace, American-Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, 
Conflict Management Group, and American University. Some of these 
groups already have well-established programs in the Middle East; for 
others the Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program provides an opportunity 
to begin programs that will grow in the years to come. The more groups 
we can aid in establishing ties in the region, the better chance we 
have to build a long lasting network of organizations which are working 
toward professional development, community exchanges, and peace.
  This summer I was able to meet with a group of 20 Israeli, 
Palestinian, Jordanian, and American students who were here in 
Washington to participate in a program funded through the Israel-Arab 
Peace Partners Program. Amid all the senseless killing and suffering 
going on in the Middle East, I was amazed to see this group of students 
come together to study the environment. For many of the Israeli 
students, it was their first time meeting an Arab person their age and 
vice versa. After working together on month-long, environmentally-
focused internships all across this country, these students began to 
see each other not just as Arabs or Israelis or Americans, but as 
colleagues and friends. They were able to understand a little bit 
better what it was like to live as an Israeli or an Arab in the Middle 
East.
  This understanding and the real life professional skills that they 
learned from each other and through their internships was, to me, a ray 
of hope amid all the devastation in the Middle East, and it really was 
an honor to see people from the Middle East, from Israel, from the 
Palestinian Authority, from Arab countries coming together in the midst 
of all of the horror that is existing there, talking about the 
environment, talking about how people can work together to make the 
entire region a better place in which to live.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am very strongly supportive of this effort. I 
think the relatively small amounts of money that we are spending here 
to bring people together who are living amidst all of the horror that 
is going on in the Middle East, to have Arabs talking to Jews talking 
to Christians, is exactly what we should be doing. I would hope that 
this becomes a step forward in continuing to have the United States 
fund programs like this.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
strong support.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
learned gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to highlight one provision in this conference report 
that I think is critical and underscores why there needs to be a 
consistent, government-wide policy when it comes to dealing with 
victims of terrorism.
  In the first half of 2002, Congress introduced several legislative 
initiatives to allow all victims of terrorism equal opportunity to 
recover damages from the assets of terrorists and State sponsors of 
terrorism. The purpose of the bill is to allow victims of terrorism to 
obtain justice and, simultaneously, to hold accountable those who 
commit and support terror. Provisions have passed both the House and 
the other body by a recorded vote of 81 to 3.
  The proposed language included in the State authorization conference 
report will allow only two victims to receive compensatory damages for 
acts of international terrorism from the frozen assets of designated 
State sponsors of terrorism and completely ignores what Congress has 
attempted to achieve this year on behalf of all of the victims. Now, 
this is not to take away from the victims of terrorism. It is 
important. They suffered, they suffered greatly, and they are entitled 
to compensation. But what this underscores and highlights really is 
important, because all of those folks who may have suffered the same 
set of circumstances, even worse in some cases, from the same groups of 
terrorists or those who sponsor terrorism, have been shut out and 
denied the same level of justice that others on a piecemeal approach 
have obtained.
  In light of what has happened in the last year, where potentially we 
are looking at thousands of victims of terrorism, is it not about time 
that an American citizen who suffers from the hands, the violent hands 
of a terrorist or those who sponsor terrorism and is able to obtain a 
judgment where the assets are frozen should be entitled to the same set 
of rights? Instead, what we have, and I hope it does not continue, but 
unless we pass it in the two competing bills in the House and the 
Senate, it will; unless we do something about it, each year there will 
be victims, and whoever can hire the best attorney or the best lobbyist 
will find its way into one of these conference reports. As long as that 
continues, there will be families and victims of terrorism who will be 
denied the same set of compensatory damages. I do not think it is 
right, I do not think it is just. I just want to bring that out to 
underscore why we need to pass it for all Americans who are entitled to 
the same set of rights and opportunities when it comes to justice.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my good friend and 
distinguished colleague.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1646, the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act and, in particular, language in the bill on 
Russian Federation Debt for Nonproliferation. I want to applaud the 
conferees for including this very important language on ways to reduce 
the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the final conference 
report.
  The demise of the Soviet empire ushered in a new post-Cold War period 
and

[[Page H6656]]

a very real sense of urgency with regard to the former Soviet Union's 
weapons stockpile. It has become tragically clear that new threats have 
emerged and terrorists and the States that sponsor them are actively in 
search of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology and 
materials.
  During the last 11 years, the Nunn-Lugar program, which was launched 
to reduce threats from the former Soviet Union, has done much to 
dismantle these stockpiles. However, continuing economic and social 
weaknesses in Russia, coupled with an eroding early warning system, 
poorly secured Russian weapons materials, and poorly paid Russian 
weapons scientists and security personnel increase the threat of mass 
destruction on an unprecedented scale if such materials fall into the 
hands of terrorists or rogue nations.
  Now, more than ever, we must make a fundamental shift in the way we 
think about the spread of weapons of mass destruction and our own 
national security. Using Russia's debt to the United States as a 
funding mechanism for programs addressing the inadequate security of 
the Russian weapons stockpile is an innovative approach we must 
explore.
  The Russian Federation Debt Reduction for Nonproliferation Act, which 
I coauthored with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. McHugh), will provide a means to forgive the loans and credits 
owed to the United States by Russia in exchange for cooperation with 
U.S. efforts to monitor and reduce weapons-usable nuclear material, 
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and the facilities where 
they may be built.
  Securing Russia's arsenal is a massive challenge, but not an 
impossible one. While the cost of a terrorist attack on the United 
States involving Russian expertise or smuggled Russian nuclear chemical 
or biological materials is staggering, funding for these simple 
measures that can prevent these attacks is sensible and urgent, and I 
urge Members' support.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I would just 
like to express my appreciation to Committee staff for the 
exceptionally effective work that they have put into this legislation. 
Legislation of this scope and magnitude could never be completed 
without the dedicated effort of our staff.
  The Republican staff of the Committee on International Relations 
worked with us in a bipartisan way. I want to express my particular 
gratitude to Kristen Gilley, Walker Roberts and Joseph Rees of the 
majority staff.
  I want to acknowledge the efforts of all of the members of the 
Democratic staff, since in a bill of this scope, everyone had a hand in 
the final product. Four people deserve particular recognition.
  David Abramowitz, our Democratic Chief Counsel has devoted enormous 
effort to the successful completion of this bill. We have greatly 
benefited from his solid legal and political judgement.
  David Fite, played a critical role in the security provisions of this 
bill, and I want to thank him for his outstanding contributions.
  lNisha Desai was heavily involved in the initial drafting and 
adoption of this bill. She has since left our staff, but her 
contribution was significant.
  Peter Yeo, Deputy Democratic Staff Director, as always played an 
extremely helpful role in bringing this legislation to completion.
  In addition, I want to express thanks to Art Rynearson of the Office 
of Senate Legislative Council, who helped assure that the substances of 
the legislation was accurate and accomplished what we intended. He is 
one of thee many unsung heroes who makes this institution function, as 
we owe him our thanks.
  Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to signal my intent to 
support H.R. 1646, the State Department Authorization Act. It is a good 
bill with many provisions that will aid the State Department in its 
mission around the world.
  However, I also must express my deep disappointment at the inclusion 
of Section 1224 regarding assistance to Lebanon. Section 1224 withholds 
$10 million of the Economic Support Fund allocated to Lebanon for the 
Fiscal Year 2003 and for all subsequent years unless and until the 
President certifies that the armed forces of Lebanon have been deployed 
to the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel and 
that the government of Lebanon is effectively asserting its authority 
in the area in which such armed forces have been deployed.
  I do not oppose the goal of extending Lebanese control to southern 
Lebanon. Unfortunately, this provision does absolutely nothing to 
further that goal and will in fact hinder any progress. The U.S. should 
continue to press the Lebanese and Syrian governments on this point. 
The people of Lebanon will only know long-term peace and stability when 
Lebanon is willing and able to assert its independence. The U.S. must 
continue to press for full compliance with UN Security Council 
Resolution 425. However, this provision will not lead us toward this 
goal.
  I have supported efforts to expand U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID) activities in southern Lebanon following the 
withdrawal of Israeli armed forces. However, far from supporting 
Hezbollah, this assistance undermines that terrorist organization by 
eliminating the desperate conditions that so many cite as a reason that 
region is a terrorist haven.
  I have received repeated assurances that U.S. money only goes through 
American non-governmental organizations to support projects that 
provide clean water, medicine, agricultural assistance and other basic 
humanitarian needs. None of this money goes to the Lebanese government 
or to any terrorist organization.
  With these facts in mind, it makes no sense to me to withhold funding 
that undermines terrorist control of southern Lebanon. Until the grip 
that Hezbollah has on that region is weakened, the government of 
Lebanon will not be able to deploy armed forces to the border.
  Unfortunately, Section 1224 only punishes the people of Southern 
Lebanon rather than offer a solution to the security needs of Israel.
  I will vote for the bill, but it is my hope Congress will revisit 
this issue in future legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I support the inclusion of Section 213 in 
H.R. 1646, the Department of State Authorization Act Conference Report. 
This section of the conference report repeals Section 738 of the 2001 
Agriculture Appropriations Act, which gave unwarranted special 
treatment to foreign agriculture attaches. Both the State Department 
and the Office of Management and Budget support repealing Section 738, 
and H.R. 1646 does just that.
  In 1978, Congress, with the support of the Office of Management and 
Budget, endorsed the State Department as the sole manager for overseas 
property. In 1990, Congress directed State to implement a uniform 
housing policy for and with the input of all agencies overseas.
  That system worked. It has the support of OMB, the General Accounting 
Office, and apparently had the support of Congress. But last year, a 
little-noticed section of the Agriculture Appropriations Act changed 
the system for one agency: the Foreign Agriculture Service.
  The provision required the State Department to obtain FAS approval to 
sell property originally purchased to house FAS employees overseas. 
Moreover, FAS gained the right to occupy new residences permanently.
  That provision created an exception for one agency, an exception that 
if copied by other agencies would disrupt the equitable management of 
overseas property. Overseas property management would lose much needed 
flexibility and make the housing of overseas personnel more difficult 
and costly.
  At my request, GAO looked into this matter. In a July 11th letter, 
GAO concluded the ``restrictions on the sales of residences purchased 
for agricultural attaches do not appear to be in the government's best 
interests. As the single manager for overseas property, State is 
responsible for implementing cost-effective decisions about the sale of 
unneeded overseas real estate and using sales proceeds for the 
government's highest priorities. . . . [T]he restrictions weaken 
efforts to improve management of the government's overseas properties 
and conflict with congressional and executive branch efforts to 
establish State as the single real property manager.''
  The properties at issue are not just regular old houses. In Cairo, 
the residence is a 4,200-square-foot, two-level house with four 
bedrooms, three bathrooms, two living rooms, a dining room, two 
kitchens, a sunroom, a breakfast room, and terraces. In Vienna, the 
residence is a 3,500-square-foot, three-story villa with six bedrooms, 
three bathrooms, a terrace, breakfast room, basement, and garage. Both 
houses exceed established housing standards.
  This unsound FAS exception is delaying the sale of these valuable 
properties, a sale that could net at least $2.1 million. The provision 
may also complicate the sale of other properties, such as an 
underutilized property in Bangkok worth $50 million.
  The State Department manages 3,500 properties in more than 220 
locations overseas and has had the authority to sell those properties 
since 1926. Proceeds from sales are used to acquire and maintain other 
properties. In the wake of the 1998 embassy bombings in

[[Page H6657]]

Kenya and Tanzania and other terrorist attacks, proceeds from these 
sales are used to ensure the safety of our embassies and personnel 
abroad. Providing special treatment to FAS prevents the State 
Department from implementing some of the measures necessary to protect 
our diplomatic personnel.
  Mr. Speaker, the letter from GAO, ``Current Law Limits the State 
Department's Authority to Manage Certain Overseas Properties Cost 
Effectively'' (GAO-02-790R, July 11, 2001) follows. A more complete 
version of the letter is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d02790r.pdf.

                                   U.S. General Accounting Office,
                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2002.
     Hon. Christopher Shays,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans 
         Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on 
         Government Reform, House of Representatives.
     Subject: Current Law Limits the State Department's Authority 
         to Manage Certain Overseas Properties Cost Effectively
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of State is the central 
     manager for real estate at U.S. embassies and consulates and 
     has the statutory authority to sell properties and use the 
     sales proceeds to acquire and maintain other overseas 
     properties. Section 738 in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act prohibits State from selling residences 
     purchased to house agricultural attaches without approval 
     from the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) and requires the 
     department to use the proceeds from such sales to purchase 
     residences for these attaches. Legislation currently before 
     the Congress would repeal section 738.
       At your request, this report discusses the effect of 
     section 738 on State's management of overseas properties. We 
     examined this issue as part of our review of the Department 
     of State's performance in identifying and selling unneeded 
     overseas real estate. In conducting this assignment, we 
     interviewed officials and analyzed records at the Department 
     of State, FAS, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).


                            Results in Brief

       Section 738 limits the Department of State's authority to 
     implement cost-effective decisions about sales of unneeded 
     overseas property and the use of sales proceeds. Because of 
     section 738's restrictions, State has delayed two property 
     sales valued at nearly $4 million that appear to be in the 
     government's best interests. FAS is concerned that if section 
     738 is repealed, selling these properties will result in 
     increased costs for FAS since it would have to lease housing 
     for attaches who previously lived rent-free in government-
     owned housing. State acknowledges that this could occur but 
     save its financial analysis shows that selling the houses 
     benefits the government as a whole. Although section 738 
     applies only to residences purchased for agricultural section 
     738 applies only to residences purchased for agricultural 
     attaches, OMB and State are concerned that it could lead to 
     fragmented and less cost-effective management of overseas 
     property if other agencies seek similar treatment for their 
     senior representatives. In our view, section 738's 
     restrictions do not appear to be in the government's best 
     interests.
       This report suggests that the Congress may wish to consider 
     repealling section 738. State officials, commenting on a 
     draft of this report, said they agreed with the report's 
     information and conclusions regarding the negative effects of 
     section 738 on overseas property management. FAS officials 
     reiterated their view that repealing section 738 could result 
     in increased costs for FAS. We believe that if the section's 
     repeal and sale of residences used by agricultural attaches 
     increases FAS costs, the Department of Agriculture can 
     request that the Congress consider providing additional funds 
     for FAS operations.


                               Background

       The Foreign Buildings Act of 1926, as amended, authorizes 
     the Secretary of State to sell overseas properties that are 
     used to support diplomatic and consular operations in foreign 
     countries. The Department of State manages about 3,500 
     government-owned properties--including embassy and consular 
     office buildings, housing, and land--at more than 220 
     overseas locations. The law authorizes the Secretary to use 
     the proceeds from the sale of overseas properties to acquire 
     and maintain other overseas properties and requires the 
     Secretary to report such transactions to the Congress with 
     the department's annual budget estimates. The Secretary 
     has delegated this authority to State's Bureau of Overseas 
     Building Operations.
       Over the years, as a result of congressional and OMB 
     actions, overseas property management has been consolidated 
     under State. In 1978, the Congress endorsed State as the 
     single manager for overseas property and asked OMB to prepare 
     a proposal for implementing this concept. In 1979, OMB issued 
     a report that supported the concept of single management and 
     acquisition planning for overseas property under State. OMB 
     noted that the Congress was strengthening and broadening 
     State's existing role as the central manager for overseas 
     property. In 1990, the Congress directed State to establish 
     and implement a uniform housing policy for agencies' overseas 
     personnel. Resulting new overseas housing regulations, issued 
     in 1991 and 1992 with the agreement of the foreign affairs 
     agencies and the Department of Defense, reinforced State's 
     authority to act as the single manager for overseas property. 
     These authorities show that the Congress and the executive 
     branch had intended that State should manage overseas 
     property in a consolidated, integrated manner and that doing 
     so would be in the government's best interests. We have 
     supported this concept since the 1960s because it is more 
     effective, efficient, and economical than having multiple 
     property managers.
       Since 1997, State has increased efforts to identify and 
     sell unneeded overseas real estate in response to 
     congressional direction and our recommendations. As part of 
     this effort, State sold two residences occupied by 
     agricultural attaches for about $855,000 and proposed selling 
     three others for more than $4 million. FAS argued that these 
     properties were purchased to house its attaches; and 
     consequently, FAS should have a say in approving the sales 
     and in determining how the sales proceeds should be used. As 
     a result, FAS sought and the Congress enacted legislation 
     that requires State to obtain FAS approval to sell residences 
     purchased to house agricultural attaches. Additionally, State 
     must use the proceeds from such sales to acquire other 
     suitable residences for agricultural attaches (not 
     necessarily at the same post), and FAS has the right to 
     occupy these properties permanently. According to FAS, State 
     manages 13 properties purchased for agricultural attaches.


 Section 738 Limits State's authority to make cost-effective decisions 
                         on certain properties

       Section 738 of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act limits State's authority to sell unneeded 
     property by making sales decisions contingent on FAS 
     approval. Proposed sales of residences in Cairo, Egypt, and 
     Vienna, Austria, illustrate the potential limitations. 
     Although selling these properties appears to be in the U.S. 
     government's best interests, State has postponed these sales 
     because of concerns about section 738. In October 1998, the 
     State Inspector General reported that the Cairo and Vienna 
     residences were larger than housing standards allow, were 
     underutilized, and should be sold. According to State 
     records, the Cairo residence is a 4,200-square-foot, two-
     level house with four bedrooms, three bathrooms, two living 
     rooms, a dining room, two kitchens, a sunroom, a breakfast 
     room, and terraces. The Vienna residence is a 3,500-square-
     foot, three-story villa with six bedrooms, three bathrooms, a 
     terrace, breakfast room, basement, and garage. These 
     residences are larger than the housing standards allow. 
     Figures 1 and 2 show photographs of the Cairo and Vienna 
     residences.
       State financial analyses suggest that selling the Cairo and 
     Vienna residences would yield net benefits for the government 
     of at least $2.1 million. In addition, using a measure of 
     investment performance, State determined that selling the two 
     residences was a substantially more efficient use of 
     government resources than continued ownership. In February 
     2001, FAS informed State that it approved the sale of the 
     Vienna residence on condition that the sales proceeds were 
     used to purchase a replacement residence in Vienna and new 
     residences for agricultural attaches at two other posts. 
     Because FAS's proposed use of the proceeds would not 
     address the government's highest priority overseas 
     property needs, State officials decided to postpone the 
     Vienna sale pending repeal of section 738. State 
     subsequently postponed the Cairo sale for the same reason.
       State and OMB believe that the sales proceeds should be 
     used to meet the government's highest priority needs. 
     According to its long-range facilities plan, State seeks to 
     reinvest sales proceeds where there is the greatest need or 
     the most opportunity to reduce government operating costs. 
     This plan notes that, in recent years, most sales proceeds 
     have been earmarked for specific capital construction 
     projects, such as building secure embassies. In future years, 
     State plans to use sales proceeds to purchase additional 
     residential housing. Within this broad priority, State plans 
     to direct these proceeds to several objectives: (1) Buying 
     residential properties in locations that offer the greatest 
     rent savings to contain leasing costs, (2) buying earthquake 
     resistant residential properties in seismic areas to address 
     safety issues, and (3) buying key diplomatic properties. 
     Although we did not assess State's priorities or use of 
     proceeds from property sales, its approach is consistent with 
     recommendations we made in 1996 regarding using sales 
     proceeds for the highest priority overseas facility needs.
       FAS believes that the sales proceeds should be used to 
     purchase replacement and additional residences for 
     agricultural attaches--not to purchase properties according 
     to State's priorities. FAS said that past sales had displaced 
     two of its attaches from government-owned housing, forcing it 
     to pay about $400,000 over the past 5 years to lease 
     replacement residences. FAS is concerned about having to cut 
     its program budgets to fund additional leases for replacement 
     housing. In addition, FAS complained that it had insufficient 
     advance notice of the proposed sales and had difficulty 
     freeing up funds to pay for replacement housing for displaced 
     attaches.
       State acknowledged that FAS may have to lease replacement 
     residences if section 738 is repealed and the two residences 
     are sold. However, financial analyses of the proposed sales 
     considered these costs in determining

[[Page H6658]]

     that they were cost effective for the government. State also 
     acknowledged that unanticipated sales could cause short-term 
     budgetary disruptions. As a result, in June 2001, assuming 
     repeal of section 738, State offered to pay for leasing 
     replacement housing until FAS could build these costs into 
     its budget in cases where State disposed of the properties 
     with less than 2 years' advance notice. In January 2002, FAS 
     responded that, before agreeing to any sales, it would 
     require State to provide appropriate government-owned 
     replacement housing within 2 years and expect State to make 
     every effort to ensure that sales did not affect FAS's 
     budget. FAS's letter did not address the repeal of section 
     738. In April 2002, FAS officials told us they were reluctant 
     to accept State's offer because it did not address the long-
     term budgetary effect of the sales and allowed State to 
     retain control over the use of the sales proceeds.
       According to State, if section 738 remained in effect, it 
     could be a complicating factor in the future sale of a 
     compound in downtown Bangkok that could be worth as much as 
     $50 million. In 1998, the State Inspector General reported 
     that the compound--a 15-acre wooded site located in a prime 
     commercial area that contains five executive residences (one 
     occupied by the agricultural attache) and several other 
     facilities--was underutilized and should be sold. Before the 
     1997 Asian financial crisis, State had planned to sell the 
     compound and use the proceeds to finance the construction of 
     new facilities at the post, including housing for more than 
     200 embassy families that would reduce post lease costs by 
     about $73 million over 10 years. Recognizing the changed 
     economic conditions, State reported that further study is 
     needed to determine the appropriate time to sell the compound 
     and the appropriate use of the sales proceeds.
     State and OMB Support Repealing Section 738; FAS Opposes Its 
         Repeal
       State and OMB support legislation currently before the 
     Congress that would repeal section 738. They argue that its 
     restrictions on State's authority seriously weaken 
     centralized management of overseas properties because they 
     essentially establish a separate executive housing program 
     for FAS and subordinate governmentwide priorities to agency 
     priorities. For example, FAS could disapprove the sale of 
     oversize or high-value residences purchased for agricultural 
     attaches while State was selling residences purchased for 
     ambassadors, deputy chiefs of mission, consuls general, and 
     senior representatives of other foreign affairs agencies. 
     State reported that, between 1997 and 2002, it sold 17 
     executive residences for about $38 million and is planning to 
     sell 15 additional residences for about $20 million. 
     Additionally, State and OMB pointed out that other foreign 
     affairs agencies and Defense have experienced budgetary 
     effects from the sale of such residences. In these cases, 
     agencies must weigh housing costs in deciding whether to 
     station their employees overseas. State and OMB are also 
     concerned that unless section 738 is repealed, other agencies 
     may seek similar legislation, leading to more fragmented 
     property management and unequal and uneconomical housing 
     policies at taxpayer expense.
       FAS opposes repealing section 738. FAS argues that section 
     738 maintains Agriculture's entitlement to residences 
     purchased to house its attaches. FAS believes that repealing 
     section 738 would allow State to ignore what FAS believes was 
     the Congress' intent in providing funds to purchase these 
     residences, while imposing substantial budgetary costs on 
     FAS.


                              conclusions

       Section 738's restrictions on the sales of residences 
     purchased for agricultural attaches do not appear to be in 
     the government's best interests. As the single manager for 
     overseas property, State is responsible for implementing 
     cost-effective decisions about the sale of unneeded overseas 
     real estate and using sales proceeds for the government's 
     highest priorities. However, for residences purchased to 
     house agricultural attaches, implementation of State's 
     decisions is contingent on FAS approval and priorities. 
     Although its analysis shows that selling the Vienna and Cairo 
     residences would be financially advantageous to the 
     government, State does not plan to proceed with these sales 
     if section 738 remains in force. We recognize that, if 
     section 738 is repealed, selling these residences may affect 
     FAS's budget. However, FAS's budgetary concerns need to be 
     weighed against the government's overall benefits from these 
     sales--which include disposing of unneeded property and 
     reinvesting the proceeds where they provide the greatest 
     return. In addition, the restrictions weaken efforts to 
     improve management of the government's overseas properties 
     and conflict with congressional and executive branch efforts 
     to establish State as the single real property manager.


                 matter for congressional consideration

       In light of our findings, Congress may wish to consider 
     repealing section 738 of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act.


                   agency comments and our evaluation

       State officials, commenting on a draft of this report, said 
     the report fairly and accurately represents their positions 
     on the negative effects of section 738 and the reasons they 
     support its repeal. They said it is in the government's 
     interest to have a single property manager with the authority 
     to sell unneeded properties and reinvest the proceeds where 
     they will produce the greatest benefits. State officials 
     reiterated their concern that, by according FAS special 
     treatment, section 738 threatens the centralized management 
     of overseas property and is unfair to the staff of other 
     foreign affairs agencies and Defense.
       FAS official reiterated their concern that repealing 
     section 738 could result in additional annual lease costs for 
     FAS and that FAS would need additional budget resources to 
     maintain its current level of services overseas, FAS 
     officials also questioned whether section 738 would 
     fragment overseas property management, stating that only 
     Defense was in a position to assert similar claims to 
     overseas housing.
       We continue to believe that, in considering whether to 
     repeal section 738, budgetary concerns need to be weighed 
     against the government's interests in selling these 
     residences and maintaining a single property manager with the 
     authority to sell unneeded properties and reinvest the 
     proceeds where they will produce the greatest benefits. If 
     the section's repeal and subsequent property sales increase 
     FAS costs, Agriculture can request that Congress consider 
     providing more funds for FAS operations. Additionally, we 
     agree with State that section 738 accords FAS preferential 
     treatment and that other foreign affairs agencies and Defense 
     will likely seek similar treatment for their overseas 
     executives. We believe this would weaken centralized overseas 
     property management, which we have long supported because it 
     is more effective, efficient, and economical than an 
     noncentralized approach.


                         scope and methodology

       To determine the effect of section 738 on State's 
     management of overseas property, we analyzed applicable laws, 
     regulations, and guidance that provide State's authority to 
     sell properties and use the proceeds. Key laws, regulations, 
     and guidance include the Foreign Buildings Act, section 738 
     of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Foreign Affairs Manual. 
     We also examined past GAO and State Inspector General reports 
     on overseas property management. We analyzed State and FAS 
     records that summarized their assessment of the effect of 
     section 738 on State's authority to buy and sell overseas 
     properties and act as the single manager for overseas 
     property. We discussed section 738's effect with appropriate 
     State, FAS, and OMB officials. We examined State's rationale 
     for selling the properties in Cairo, Vienna, and other 
     locations, including State's financial analyses of the 
     proposed sales, OMB guidance on evaluating asset sales, and 
     State's fiscal year 2002 to 2007 long-range buildings plan. 
     We did not access the accuracy or reliability of the property 
     appraisals or other underlying data used in State's analyses 
     or the priorities and objectives in its long-range plan.
       We conducted this review from April to July 2002 in 
     accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards.
       We are sending copies of this report to other interested 
     congressional committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
     State, the FAS Director, State's Director of Overseas 
     Buildings Operations, OMB, and other interested parties. 
     Copies will be made available to others on request. In 
     addition, this report will be available at no charge on our 
     Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
 If you have questions about this report, please contact me 
     at 202-512-4128 or by e-mail at fordj@gao,gov John Brummet, 
     Michael Rohrback, Ed Kennedy, Richard Seldin, Janey Cohen, 
     and Stephanie Robinson made major contributions to this 
     report.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Jess T. Ford,
                        Director, International Affairs and Trade.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this 
important legislation. I say ``reluctant'', not because of what is in 
the bill, but because of what is not in the bill. This bill could have 
been a much better product, and it strongly underscores why the 
American people should think long and hard about which party should be 
in control of this great institution come November.
  It is unconscionable that we are debating this bill today only 
because Speaker Hastert and Majority Whip DeLay threatened to throw 
this entire bill in the waste can unless it excluded a non-binding, 
``Sense of the Congress'' resolution stating merely that the United 
States should re-engage in the international effort to reduce the 
greenhouse gas emissions that have led to global warming. Were this to 
continue unabated, the consequences could be so dramatic that we can 
barely imagine them today.
  The language that was forcibly removed by the Speaker and the 
Majority Whip already was passed by the full House. Its arbitrary 
removal by the anti-environmental House Republican leadership shows not 
only how radical things have gotten around here, but more importantly 
that they do not want the American people to know anything about their 
radical, anti-environmental agenda--certainly not with just over a 
month before the mid-term elections.
  Second, the perennial underfunding of State Department operations had 
become a international embarrassment due to the shortsighted cuts 
forced by our friends on the other side of the aisle. Now we can say 
that some relief is on the way, although many Americans would be 
embarrassed to see the awful conditions of some of our diplomatic 
facilities

[[Page H6659]]

abroad. Let me remind the all too-eager hawks in the Majority and in 
the Administration that diplomacy is truly the first line of defense.
  Second, I am glad to have joined with my colleague from Alabama, Mr. 
Hilliard, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Asian-Pacific American 
Caucus, in developing language in this bill to ensure that the State 
Department makes progress in its recruitment and promotion of 
minorities to its senior-most ranks. Our language makes clear that 
Congress is looking for results in the recruitment and promotion of 
minority professionals. It provides $2 million to increase minority 
recruitment in the Department and requires the Department to track its 
results with a database.
  The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in a long-term study 
that despite years of effort from Congress, the State Department has 
failed to make any significant progress in the recruitment and 
promotion of qualified minorities to senior management positions. For 
example, the State Department--along with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency--actually promoted fewer minority managers in 1999 
than in 1990.
  While having more minorities take the foreign service exam is a step 
in the right direction, that is but a small step, and only one among 
many more steps needed, to rectify the severe under-representation of 
qualified Hispanic Americans, African Americans and Asian-Pacific 
Americans in the foreign affairs agencies. All three caucuses join 
together to urge President Bush and Secretary of State Powell to ensure 
that we, at long last, get on with the business of obtaining results in 
minority recruitment and promotion at the State Department and the 
foreign affairs agencies.

  If the State Department is to make progress, minorities must have a 
seat at the table. And that means, among other things, a seat at the 
table at the promotion boards and the selection boards--the entities 
that placed officers in senior positions. We will look for results and 
we will continue with these efforts until we see results.
  Third, this bill includes the ``Iran Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act'', 
a bill I first introduced in 1998, and whose passage could not be more 
timely than today. In response to Iran's efforts to develop the Bushehr 
nuclear power plant in the Persian Gulf, the language I introduced 
requires the U.S. to withhold proportional assistance to the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for programs and projects of 
the Agency that go toward the development of the Bushehr plant if the 
Secretary of State were to determine that it is inconsistent with US 
nonproliferation policy, helps Iran develop nuclear weapons expertise, 
or is a cover of acquisition of sensitive technology. We must keep a 
watchful eye on IAEA activities in Iran--one of the nations that 
President Bush singled out as part of the ``axis of evil'' that 
threatens our way of life. While I have no interest in cutting off all 
IAEA assistance to Iran, it is ludicrous for the U.S. to support--even 
indirectly--a plant which clearly poses a threat to the United States 
and to stability in the Middle East.
  Finally, this bill provides language I was glad to sponsor to provide 
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) with a modest increase for 
the first time in years. This vital and cost-effective organization 
promotes the fundamental American values of democracy and human rights 
abroad. By leading many efforts in the struggle for freedom worldwide, 
NED enjoys strong bipartisan support as it advances our national 
security. From Lech Walesa in Poland to Nelson Mandela in South Africa 
to human rights activists in Nigeria to civil society leaders in 
Mexico, NED and it core institutes have assisted grassroots 
organizations that have helped bring about peaceful transitions to 
democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the outrage committed by the majority on global 
warming, for the reasons I have mentioned, I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to commend Chairman Hyde and 
Ranking Member Lantos for their diligent efforts in producing a bill 
which will truly assist in the conduct of our foreign affairs.
  There are a few specific provisions in the conference agreement which 
I would like to draw attention to. The first is the Middle East Peace 
Commitments Act. This section requires the President to report to 
Congress on the Palestinians adherence to their commitments to resolve 
their conflict with Israel through exclusively non-violent means. If 
the President cannot report to Congress that the Palestinians are 
complying with their commitments to peace, and unless the President 
utilizes a national security waiver, the legislation requires the 
imposition of one or more of following sanctions: the denial of visas 
to PLO and Palestinian Authority officials; the downgrading of the 
status of the PLO office in Washington; the designation of the PLO, the 
PA, or any of their constituent groups or arms as Foreign Terrorist 
Organizations; or the cut-off of all non-humanitarian aid to the West 
Bank and Gaza.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem with the U.S. policy to date isn't that 
we're disengaged--far from it. The problem is that for all our effort, 
we haven't gotten any commitment to peace from the Palestinians. It 
doesn't seem to matter how many envoys and senior policy makers the 
President sends to meet with Palestinian leaders, these visits have 
failed to produce any change in Palestinian behavior. With the adoption 
of these sanctions, Congress is sending a strong message to the 
Palestinians that America's never-ending supply of last-chances has run 
out.
  Another important provision in the conference report concerns Taiwan. 
Last year, President Bush altered arms sales discussions between the 
U.S. and Taiwan from once a year to an as needed basis. The experience 
with this policy has thus far been satisfactory and has removed a major 
irritant in U.S.-PRC relations by removing the focus an annual meeting 
between the U.S. and Taiwan provides. However, in order to ensure 
Congress's historic role in assessing Taiwan's defense needs under the 
Taiwan Relations Act, the bill requires that the Administration consult 
with the Congress twice annually regarding Taiwan's defense needs. This 
provision will ensure that the Congress retains its unique role in 
determining the types and quantity of defense articles and services 
that should be provided to Taiwan.
   Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the conference report authorizes the final 
payment of our U.N. arrearage. For too long the late payment of our 
dues has set an example for other nations to follow and has caused 
serious budget problems for the U.N. At a time when the President has 
challenged the United Nations to be a forceful advocate for peace and 
security, or risk irrelevance, it helps for us to demonstrate that we 
support the U.N. by putting our money where our mouth is.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for 
their extraordinary work on this measure and I urge my colleagues to 
support the conference report.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, Section 1601 of the State Department 
Authorization Conference Agreement addresses nuclear missile 
nonproliferation in South Asia. I have reservations about the 
provision. U.S.--India relations are strong and both countries are 
looking forward to an enhancement and expansion of their economic, 
political and strategic potential. The engagement between our two 
nations continues to be mutually beneficial. In light of this tangible 
bilateral progress being made, and India's long-standing commitment to 
regional and global peace and security, provisions of Section 601 
create an unnecessary diversion in the steadily strengthening bilateral 
relationship between the U.S. and India.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________