[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.
____________________