[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3605-H3618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP AGAINST HIV/AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS, AND MALARIA 
                              ACT OF 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 210 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1298.

                              {time}  1306


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1298) to provide assistance to foreign countries to 
combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Sweeney (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 108-80 offered 
by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) had been disposed of.
  Under the recent order of the House, it is now in order to consider 
Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 108-80.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
  Page 81, beginning on line 22, strike ``$30,000,000,000 for each of 
the fiscal years 2004 through 2008'' and insert ``$2,000,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2004, $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $3,000,000,000 
for fiscal year 2006, $3,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and 
$4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 210, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment brings back the level of funding for the 
first year to the level recommended by the President, the amount of $2 
billion, which is the amount that is also in our budget resolution.
  The third reason is I would like to document and persuade to my 
colleagues, expert witnesses from Africa that are suggesting that it is 
going to be much more effective to start gradually and then increase 
the spending over the year.
  My amendment does not decrease the total 5 year commitment of $15 
billion, but, rather, is consistent with what the President has 
requested, starting at $2 billion and then growing each year.
  I would like to read a letter from a former United States ambassador 
to several of those African countries.
  ``As the son of a medical missionary to Africa, a career State 
Department diplomat with over 28 years of service, mainly in Africa, 
and as the former United States Ambassador to Rwanda and Mali, I am 
well aware of the problems making foreign aid genuinely benefit the 
populations it was intended to impact. Throughout my career, I have 
been involved in rural health initiatives in Africa, and while there is 
great need to meet the challenge of AIDS in Africa, front-loading a 
program might well do more harm than good. There is great risk in 
squandering precious funds when expenditures are made without adequate 
controls or accountability. We also risk forcing our big-ticket 
solutions on Africans who may need more modest help in finding local 
solutions and building up their own capacity to deal with the challenge 
in the early year.
  ``Accordingly, I support the original emergency plan for AIDS relief 
proposed by the President that would launch this new initiative to $2 
billion in '04 and steadily escalate spending over 5 years.''
  Again, because we can maximize this money over the 5-year period, 
because it would be consistent with the President and the budget 
resolution, I hope Members support the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield such time as he may 
consume to my distinguished friend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding me time.

[[Page H3606]]

  Mr. Chairman, it is with extreme regret that I must oppose the 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith). He never offers an amendment, but what it is not well thought 
out, and this is a well thought-out amendment. But, unfortunately, it 
disturbs the balance that we have carefully, and as I have said, 
painstakingly negotiated with the many different elements of our body 
who have particular points of view.
  The $2 billion limitation which the gentleman from Michigan would 
impose is indeed what the President said in his budget, but I hasten to 
point out that the President supports our bill, and our bill 
authorizes, and I stress the word ``authorizes,'' $3 billion for 5 
years.
  The gentleman from Michigan's formula does not, in any way, deduct 
this money, the total is still $15 million over 5 years, but it is a 
question of how much for the first year and how much for the succeeding 
years.
  I respectfully request that this amendment be defeated, because it 
would unbalance what has been very carefully put together. I suggest 
that the President does support our bill and has issued a statement 
this morning doing so.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. We 
considered the gentleman's amendment in committee and it was defeated, 
and, with great respect and admiration, I hope this is defeated too.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), expressed my views. In order to save time, I merely concur 
with his comments. I also oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. 
As our chairman indicated, we did defeat this amendment in committee.
  Several days ago at the White House, the President illustrated quite 
well the cost of delaying these funds to those who are so desperately 
in need. As President Bush said, time is not on our side. Since the 
State of the Union address, he said that an estimated 760,000 people 
have died from AIDS, 1.2 million people have become infected and more 
than 175,000 babies have been born with the virus.
  Imagine how many more will die and become infected if we accept this 
amendment and deny the $1 billion in funding this year to those who 
desperately need this help? Clearly we cannot wait. There are programs 
out there that can use our funding immediately. Even the executive 
director of UNAIDS, Dr. Piot, has said Africa could absorb $6.57 
billion in AIDS funding without any improvements toward infrastructure.
  Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to vote against this bill and to 
maintain the compromise that we worked so hard to negotiate with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith), and, in deference to my chairman, for whom I have great 
respect, I am still speaking.
  I think that this would ensure that we stay within the President's 
plan originally and within the budget. He did say on the 29th of April 
that, with the approval of Congress, this plan will direct $15 billion 
to fight AIDS abroad over the next 5 years, but beginning with $2 
billion in 2004.

                              {time}  1315

  The reason I think it is important to stay within our budget is 
because due to the war and the economic downturn we, unfortunately, are 
running the largest budget deficits in American history this year and 
next. We cannot continue to just overspend every year, piling debt on 
our children and grandchildren. It does not mean this program is not 
important. I support it. But there are many important programs, and 
there is a limited amount of money.
  So passing the President's proposal, with this amendment, is still a 
huge increase in our commitment to this problem.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair would inform 
Members that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
understand the good heart of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) 
and where he is coming from. But, Mr. Chairman, this is money that is 
needed now.
  The President has stated, ``Seldom has history offered a greater 
opportunity to do so much for so many.'' This year, the President made 
an unprecedented commitment to fight HIV/AIDS on a global scale, and we 
must not thwart that momentum by cutting this year's authorization by a 
third.
  The President has stated that his HIV/AIDS initiative is intended to 
prevent 7 million new infections, treat 2 million HIV-infected people, 
and care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans. 
There is no reason I can think of to limit the immediate flow of money. 
There are children in Africa going to school without teachers and then 
going to a home without parents, and we have to deal with that.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend President Bush for taking such a bold step in 
committing these funds and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for 
moving it through this Chamber. I think we need to maintain the full $3 
billion authorization as it is.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this is 
exactly what the President recommended. My amendment is what the 
President recommended.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I too rise in reluctance to support this amendment in that the 
chairman does not support it. But I respect the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith), and I believe that we need to take into account that this 
is the first bill of the year, I believe, that actually goes over 
budget. We are 50 percent over budget. What the President asked for was 
$2 billion in the first year. We are going for $3 billion. I think it 
sets a bad precedent for the rest of the year if we are starting out 
this way.
  As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) also pointed out, the U.N. 
Global Fund and others that will absorb this money may have a hard time 
absorbing it that quickly anyway, and I believe that is why the 
President only asked for $2 billion in the first place.
  We should note that the Global Fund has been criticized by its head, 
who is currently Secretary Tommy Thompson, who said that it has some 
inefficiencies. One thing that has been noted is that the Office of the 
Secretariat spent $11 million on salaries last year for 65 staff 
members. That is an average of $170,000 per employee.
  I would challenge those who say that we need to put this money in 
that quickly. We ought to go with the original request from the 
President, and I would urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 1 minute of our time 
to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my great 
appreciation for the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos), and the Members of the Committee on International 
Relations. Might I remind this body that the Global Fund was 
implemented in 2000, signed by President Clinton, and worked on very 
hard by Members of this body, Democrats, and certainly we were joined 
by members of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. Chairman, 40 million children will be orphaned in sub-Saharan 
Africa on the basis of losing their parents to

[[Page H3607]]

HIV/AIDS. This is a time when we cannot wait. It is imperative that the 
funding be as it is designated in the legislation to begin fighting 
this crisis now. I join with the chairman and the ranking member to say 
we are fighting an epidemic, a pandemic, a crisis; lives are being 
lost. Absolutely we cannot stop one moment to defer funding to this 
Global Fund and the necessity of moving on this as fast as we can.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  Let me conclude by simply saying that this is what the President 
suggested, starting at $2 billion. It is consistent with our budget 
resolution that we passed just 2 weeks ago. It still maintains the $15 
billion over 5 years. So there is no disagreement; there is no 
reduction in total funding.
  Again, I quote from Ambassador Rawson who says, ``While there is 
great need to meet the challenge of AIDS in Africa, front-loading a 
program might well do more harm than good,'' and he recommends that we 
support the Smith amendment, which is the President's suggestion, to 
launch this new initiative at $2 billion in 2004 and steadily 
escalating that spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I also am reluctant to go against my chairman on this 
amendment, but I thought sure that the gentleman from Illinois would 
support this amendment with all of the good, rational, logical reasons 
that I have. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to engage with the 
gentleman from Michigan in debates, but the gentleman keeps citing the 
President. That has been overtaken by a statement of position from the 
White House supporting our version and in opposition to yours. The fact 
is, under the Smith amendment, there is no net saving. There is a 
reshuffling of money within the 5-year framework, but it still adds up 
to $15 billion. With respect, I hope the gentleman loses the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 5 
additional seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That request may not be entertained.
  All time has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 4 
offered by Mr. Stearns of Florida and amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. 
Smith of Michigan.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second vote in 
this series.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 108-80 offered 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, 
noes 145, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               AYES--276

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--145

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Boyd
     Buyer
     Combest
     Conyers
     Dreier
     Gephardt

[[Page H3608]]


     McCarthy (MO)
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Sandlin
     Slaughter
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). The Chair 
wishes to inform Members that there are 2 minutes remaining on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1343

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Messrs. DEUTSCH, LANGEVIN, and MENENDEZ changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. MCCOLLUM and Messrs. BACA, DAVIS of Tennessee, RUPPERSBERGER, 
ROSS, CRAMER, SHERMAN, TIERNEY, and MEEHAN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the 
remaining question will be a 5-minute vote.


            amendment no. 6 offered by mr. smith of michigan

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 288, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                               AYES--130

     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker

                               NOES--288

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burns
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Becerra
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Buyer
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Dreier
     Gephardt
     McCarthy (MO)
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Sandlin
     Slaughter
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). The Chair 
will advise Members that there are less than 2 minutes remaining in the 
vote.

                              {time}  1350

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, on May 1, 2003, on rollcall vote No. 156, an 
amendment by Mr. Nick Smith of Michigan to H.R. 1298, I voted ``yea'' 
in error mistaking this amendment which I opposed for one by Mr. Smith 
of New Jersey, which I support. I meant to vote ``no''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 9 printed in House Report 108-80.


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 404. ASSISTANCE FROM THE UNITED STATES PRIVATE SECTOR TO 
                   PREVENT AND REDUCE HIV/AIDS IN SUB-SAHARAN 
                   AFRICA.

       It is the sense of Congress that United States businesses 
     should be encouraged to provide assistance to sub-Saharan 
     African countries to prevent and reduce the incidence of HIV/
     AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. In providing such assistance, 
     United States businesses should be encouraged to consider the 
     establishment of an HIV/AIDS Response Fund in order to 
     provide for coordination among such businesses in the 
     collection and distribution of the assistance to sub-Saharan 
     African countries.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 210, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to the ranking member and

[[Page H3609]]

the chairman, I am not sure how momentous a day or how historic a day 
this will eventually be, whether or not it translates to the American 
psyche or the international psyche.
  This is probably a day long in coming. And that is this bipartisan 
but very responsible response to a devastating deadly disease 
permeating the entire world, if you will. I think it is appropriate to 
thank the ranking member and chairman of this committee and all of the 
negotiators, including my good friend, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) for where we are today.
  All I would like to do with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to be 
helpful, to be able to move the process along. And what I think is so 
innovative and so particularly unique about this particular initiative, 
H.R. 1298, is that we are dealing with HIV, tuberculosis and malaria.
  One of the challenges that many of us who have dealt with this issue 
for a long period of time was the conflicting themes that may have been 
throughout to have been coming from sub-Saharan Africa. I recall a 
period of time in our history when the head of state of South Africa, 
the present president, made a very, very startling point, and that is 
how nutrition impacts on the condition of individuals. I recall the 
debate about nutrition. Here we have come full circle to understand 
that there are many variables that impact the devastation of HIV/AIDS 
malaria and tuberculosis.
  This legislation goes right to the heart and understands the 
interrelatedness of the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. It applauds 
nations that have been able to move forward such as the Ugandan effort, 
the ABC. It recognizes that we must do this collaboratively. And it 
also acknowledges, as I said on the floor of the House just a few 
minutes earlier, 40 million sub-Saharan children will be orphaned by 
this disease; but more importantly, Mr. Chairman, businesses, 
industries, are being devastated because young and vibrant workers are 
being cut down by AIDS.
  This is sub-Saharan Africa, Mr. Chairman. I have been to India. It is 
growing there. China, it is growing there. So this amendment is based 
upon my experience in history that there are many who want to 
contribute to the finality of this disease, and that is by encouraging 
the business community to be able to contribute to the U.N. Global 
Fund, in particular, and to contribute to a resource pool that will 
shuttle those monies to the U.N. Global Fund, as I indicated, a fund 
established just a few years ago in 2000 by many of us who worked on 
this with the leadership of this Committee on International Relations, 
President Clinton and many Members of Congress. This amendment that 
will engage the business community in a very real way.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We are 
very pleased to accept this amendment which adds to the quality of 
bill. I thank the gentlewoman and we are pleased to accept it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her excellent amendment. 
We are delighted to accept it on this side.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member.
  I close by simply saying that this language squarely places a very 
firm hand of encouragement on our business community and a firm hand 
toward the U.N. Global Fund and a firm hand to finally or maybe moving 
towards stamping out this terrible devastation of HIV/AIDS, along with 
tuberculosis and malaria. I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the ``United States 
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and malaria Act of 2003'' to 
encourage American businesses to help sub-Saharan African governments 
and communities fight the spread of HIV/AIDS in their countries.
  Many U.S. corporations operate in sub-Saharan Africa. From my home 
State of Texas, the oil industry conducts business operations in 
Africa. Businesses such as pharmaceutical companies, computer 
companies, food companies, and businesses from practically every 
economic segment of the country operate in Africa.
  These companies earn substantial profits from their operations in 
Africa. Accordingly, they should be encouraged to provide financial 
assistance to sub-Saharan communities and participate in fighting the 
spread of HIV/AIDS.
  I fully support and applaud the efforts of the Global Fund. My 
amendment, which establishes a Response Fund, will neither conflict 
with the activities and mission of the Global Fund, nor create 
unnecessary bureaucracy. The Global Fund was established by the United 
Nations Secretary General in April of 2001. The stated purpose is to, 
``attract, manage and disburse additional resources through a new 
public-private partnership that will make a sustainable and significant 
contribution to the reduction of infections, illness and death, thereby 
mitigating the impact caused by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in 
countries in need.''
  The Response Fund that I propose in my amendment will work in 
conjunction with the Global Fund not in opposition to it. My Response 
Fund will create more flexibility for corporations to contribute to the 
fight against HIV/AIDS, and give corporations more options. My Response 
Fund will be a vehicle to getting funds to sub-Saharan communities, 
medical facilities and patients with utmost speed.
  The Response Fund and the Global Fund will share the same goal, and 
they would certainly have opportunities to collaborate and work 
together in the fight against infectious diseases. I want to be clear 
that the Response Fund will not create an extra step in getting funds 
to sub-Saharan Africans suffering from HIV/AIDS.
  I encourage U.S. businesses to contribute to both the Response Fund 
established in my amendment and also to the United Nations Global Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because the fight against HIV/
AIDS should be waged by the Congress, the sub-Saharan African 
community, and the American business community as well. I encourage the 
American business community to contribute needed funds to both the 
Response Fund in my amendment and The United Nations Global Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 10 printed in House Report 108-80.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Page 54, line 21, insert before the period the following: 
     ``, or to endorse, utilize, or participate in a prevention 
     method or treatment program to which the organization has a 
     religious or moral objection''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 210, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), our chairman, for the extraordinary job he as done in this 
legislation. This has been a work in progress as we all know for 
several months, over last year and into this year. This legislation, in 
the end, is something that will save millions of lives and something we 
can be proud of.
  I have an amendment that is co-sponsored by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) that I think is a critical 
clarification needed to make sure that the many successful and 
compassionate organizations are not inadvertently disqualified from 
participating in our international HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment 
efforts.
  The amendment is a one-phrase all-important clarification of the 
existing language in the bill. It will ensure that a qualified grantee 
that does not want to participate in all aspects of a treatment or 
prevention strategy is not disqualified from participating in our HIV/
AIDS efforts. For example, if a Muslim or Catholic organization is 
excellent in abstinence education or

[[Page H3610]]

AIDS testing, they should not be disqualified from U.S. funding because 
they have a moral objection to condoms.
  The bill already says, I would point out, that organizations shall 
not be required as a condition of receiving the assistance to endorse 
or utilize a multi-sectorial approach to combatting HIV/AIDS. While 
this language is intended to protect organizations that are qualified 
in one phase of prevention or treatment from being disqualified if they 
have a moral or religious objection, the concern is that the language 
might be too vague. The word ``multi-sectorial'' has many meanings and 
might not protect organizations. That ambiguity--that infirmity--in the 
underlying bill is remedial by our amendment.
  Thus the amendment which we are offering today would clarify, 
according to the original intent of the bill, that organizations should 
not be disqualified if they have moral or religious objections to one 
part of a treatment or prevention strategy. The one phrase that would 
be added is this: ``To endorse, utilize or participate in a prevention 
method or treatment program to which the organization has a religious 
or moral objection.''

                              {time}  1400

  It could not be more clear. It could not be more transparent.
  Some of my colleagues may say faith-based organizations do not need 
this protection, but I assure them that the problem is real. In one 
case, a Catholic doctor who worked in sub-Saharan Africa for 31 years, 
caring for thousands of young people suffering from AIDS, was 
approached by USAID in Uganda and asked to draw up a program to prevent 
HIV/AIDS. Her group presented a project proposal which involved AIDS 
awareness and behavior change programs. In the project proposal, the 
emphasis was on abstinence and faithfulness as a way of preventing the 
spread of HIV and was for people of all faiths. USAID, however, 
responded by asking them to put in a component of promoting and 
distributing condoms. When this organization said they were not 
prepared to do so because of a religious objection, they were denied 
funding.
  This is one of many stories. And the ones who are harmed when this 
kind of action takes place are those who are suffering the most and are 
at greatest risk and need services. This provision would not require, I 
would say to my colleagues, a change in the overall strategy to fight 
HIV/AIDS. The overall strategy would stay the same even if certain 
groups only worked on parts of that strategy where they are qualified 
and successful.
  Let me say, finally, the Catholic Church, today, cares for one out of 
every four AIDS patients. One out of every four. If the bill remains 
unclear, this could potentially prohibit, could proscribe the funding 
of many of the initiatives of the Church, and I said earlier Muslim 
groups or Catholic Relief Services, which today cares for about 2 
million people who are at risk or perhaps have been affected by AIDS, 
mostly in Africa but around the world as well. Two million by one 
Catholic agency alone
  We want inclusion. We want more people involved. I ask that this 
amendment be approved. This conscience protection is real and it would 
be impossible for anyone, at anytime to misconstrue Congressional 
intent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment.
  First, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) for his long-standing leadership on human rights' matters and 
for his support for this critically important legislation. His vote in 
committee in favor of H.R. 1298 was greatly appreciated.
  I would also like to note that the amendment being offered today is 
different from the one that was offered in committee. The amendment 
offered in committee during markup was deeply offensive in that 
consciences were only granted to faith-based organizations.
  The amendment before us today builds upon language already in H.R. 
1298. The bill currently states that an organization receiving funds 
under this act shall not be required to endorse or utilize a 
multisectoral approach to combating HIV/AIDS. In other words, a group 
does not need to endorse condom use or hand out condoms or endorse 
abstinence and promote abstinence education to receive money under this 
act.
  The Smith amendment adds a new clause to the current language. It 
states that groups shall not be required to endorse, utilize, or 
participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the 
organization has a religious or moral objection. I certainly agree, Mr. 
Chairman, that no organization should be required to have anything to 
do with a program to which it has religious or moral objections. 
However, I remain concerned that some organizations will use this 
clause to implement programs designed to undermine other HIV/AIDS 
prevention strategies, including effective condom use.
  I am also concerned that groups utilizing one approach to HIV/AIDS 
prevention and treatment will refuse to refer someone to another 
organization which offers a different method of HIV/AIDS prevention.
  Mr. Chairman, it is critically important that organizations which 
receive HIV/AIDS funds from the United States work closely and 
collaboratively supporting each other's work. Abstinence-only groups 
should not use United States' funds to tell men and women in Uganda 
that condoms do not work and are morally wrong and condoms-only groups 
should not use U.S. funds to denigrate abstinence.
  Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the work of faith-based organizations 
around the world, which are playing a critical role in battling HIV/
AIDS; but until we clarify these questions, I cannot support the 
amendment in its current form.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my good friend, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), whether he would be willing to add the 
following words at the end of his amendment by unanimous consent: 
``Except that such organization may not undermine interventions that it 
does not endorse, utilize or participate in.''
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, and with 
all due respect, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), I would have to respectfully decline.
  Earlier we had spoken, and the gentleman had indicated he wanted to 
do a colloquy on identical language. The problem is the word 
``undermine.'' If a group opposes a certain type of prevention such as 
condom use that could be construed in the eyes of someone who is making 
a grant or letting a grant, that organization should not get funded. 
The proposed Lantos language nullifies any conscience clause so I must 
reject it.
  Our hope with our amendment is that we empower the maximum army of 
volunteers and professional people to care and assist people who are at 
risk of HIV/AIDS as well as people who have already contracted this 
horrific disease. We should not limit our response to this crisis; we 
need to have a more flexible response. Be reminded, we are talking 
about grant money. So it is still up to the grantor--the United States 
Government--to decide whether or not the grant request that we are in 
receipt of meets the criteria in terms of what the project is all 
about, whether it be dealing with actual treatment of AIDS patients or 
hospice care or some prevention strategy or mother to child 
transmission initiatives.
  So with all due respect, I would have to decline.
  Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good 
friend from New Jersey for his very clear answer.
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsor's unwillingness to make this clarification 
makes me even more concerned about the amendment as it is drafted. I 
believe that this amendment could be used by some organizations to 
undermine and denigrate the effective use of condoms and other HIV 
prevention strategies overseas.

[[Page H3611]]

  Mr. Chairman, use of condoms is an effective way to prevent HIV/AIDS. 
If we allow this clause, conceivably scientific misinformation could be 
disseminated and it would undermine a proven prevention strategy, which 
means people would die. I must, therefore, reluctantly oppose the 
passage of the Smith amendment and ask all of my colleagues to join me 
in voting ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), one of the sponsors of the 
amendment.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding me this time, and I am grateful for his leadership on this 
important amendment.
  It is said to those that have been given much, much will be expected. 
It is with this sense of duty and obligation that the President has 
turned the Nation's attention, America's attention, to the realization 
that our Nation can use a portion of its wealth to help eradicate the 
devastating effects of AIDS in some of the most impoverished portions 
and regions of our world.
  Yet without passage of the Smith amendment, certain worthy 
organizations, who have proven themselves successful in taking on this 
fight, organizations who have been there from day one on the front 
lines, would not qualify, possibly would be disqualified if they have 
moral or religious objections to just one part of a three-part 
strategy. This amendment makes necessary distinctions which ensure that 
faith-based organizations can continue to educate and change people's 
hearts, minds, and souls towards a more moral way of life.
  While it has been said they undermine, the fact is, again, 
reiterating, these faith-based organizations, particularly the 
Catholic-based organizations, care for one out of every four AIDS 
sufferers in the world. I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and I ask unanimous consent that 
she be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Without objection, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for the balance of 
the time.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Early on in the 
drafting of this bill, we decided really not to let ideology drive the 
process and drive the contents of this bill. I believe, as our ranking 
member said, that the language we worked on and negotiated in committee 
addresses the issues and concerns raised in this amendment, and it 
addresses it quite well.
  Now, it seems to me, quite frankly, that social conservatives are 
looking at a way to carve out a specific exemption. All of us support 
faith-based organizations, but it looks like one group of individuals 
in this country wants to carve out for religious organizations a 
specific exemption. The amendment looks tame on its face, but I really 
think there is another motive behind this amendment.
  I do not believe that we should subject this very important piece of 
legislation to the ideological whims of either side. The compromise 
that we negotiated in the bill was specifically intended to avoid this. 
Both sides made some major concessions with an understanding that the 
needs of those who are living and dying with AIDS would trump our 
political differences. It appears now that this amendment would give an 
organization the ability to affirmatively tell those suffering and 
dying of AIDS not to use one method over another. This could be deadly.
  Now, there were several amendments that I would have offered to shape 
the bill more to my liking, more to many of my colleagues' liking on 
our side; but we refrained from doing this because we felt quite 
strongly that the delicate balance established in the bill should not 
be upset. So I would encourage Members to oppose this amendment. The 
language in the bill is very clear with regard to faith-based 
organizations, and I ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just want to 
make it very clear, and I wish the gentlewoman had not gone the route 
of saying there is another motive here. The motive--my motive--is to 
say that there are a vast array of other people who are very competent 
in mitigating this crisis called AIDS, and maybe even ending it some 
day who are on the ground providing essential services as we speak. 
Others--if the wherewithal exists--will soon join them.
  I mentioned Catholic Relief Services earlier in the debate. Catholic 
Relief Services, today, provides HIV/AIDS services to 2 million people. 
They do it without a brass band or self promoting press releases and 
are very much underheralded. These saints who care for the afflicted 
are on the ground, village after village, heavily embedded in Africa, 
helping people with this horrible scourge and helping the people who 
are trying to cope with it and prevent it. Catholic Relief Services is 
made up of the most caring and compassionate people on earth. Let's 
hope they apply for more funding.
  I mentioned earlier the one case of a diocese, five dioceses in 
Uganda in the 1990s that had hoped to develop an AIDS plan with some 
funding augmented by the United States Government. And because the 
organization said they did not want to embrace the condom part, they 
were precluded from U.S. funding. So there is a real world tragedy and 
dark consequence as a direct result of not having an air-tight 
conscience clause.
  Again, we can fund condoms till the cows come home in this bill; but 
we are saying there are providers among the best an earth--the CRS--who 
are deeply respected in the community, with access to the at risk 
populations, yet who would not get funding without real conscience 
clause protection. Catholic and Muslim groups are the ones we are 
mostly talking about, and it seems to me that it is counterproductive 
in the extreme to everything we are trying to do here--to prevent their 
full participation.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
thank the gentleman for his comments, but let me just say that the 
language that was negotiated that is in the base bill, in the bill 
before us today, takes care of all of the issues that we care about in 
terms of allowing for a multifaceted, multisectoral approach to 
addressing this pandemic.
  What we do not want to do, and what I believe will happen with the 
gentleman's amendment, is that organizations now will be allowed to say 
``do not use one method versus the other.'' We crafted the language in 
a way that would allow organizations, if for whatever reasons decided 
that they were not going to promote abstinence, to be faithful, or 
condom use, that they would not necessarily have to promote it.

                              {time}  1415

  But what I believe the gentleman's amendment will do will be to allow 
organizations to tell individuals that one approach is not going to 
work, or there is danger in an approach that allows for the 
distribution of condoms. I think that is downright wrong. The ABC 
approach is the approach that works. Organizations can choose whichever 
approach they want to address.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in Congress we talk. It is what we do. But in Africa at 
this very hour, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) just said 
with passion, there are Catholic Relief workers and Christian 
missionaries in medical missions elbow deep in a crisis that has struck 
42 million souls and rising, the

[[Page H3612]]

AIDS pandemic. Only by passing the Smith amendment will we make certain 
that not only those who would be willing to come to the aid of people, 
but the overwhelming majority of those who are thanklessly, and without 
the klieg lights of publicity or public support, are coming to their 
aid at this very hour.
  Only by creating a conscience exception for faith-based organizations 
to say that they can accept some of this $15 billion that will 
avalanche from Washington, D.C. into Africa without violating their own 
moral conscience, will we ensure that those who do the work continue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am on the floor here today to support an 
amendment that will simply clarify existing language in this bill. Our 
amendment is short and simple. It says that otherwise qualified 
organizations shall not be required as a condition of receiving 
assistance to endorse, utilize or participate in a prevention method or 
treatment program to which the organization has a religious or moral 
objection.
  We should all be working together, Muslims and Catholics, to fight 
AIDS. In fact, Catholic organizations alone are caring for one in every 
four AIDS victims in the world. It makes no sense to disqualify them.
  Our language will give organizations of all faith an opportunity to 
join in this monumental effort to fight the pandemic. This provision 
will make sure that we do not arbitrarily disqualify organizations that 
have proven their ability to provide excellent care to those afflicted 
with this dreaded disease. I congratulate my colleagues for joining 
together to address this tragedy that can no longer be ignored.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this conscience protection 
amendment. Faith-based organizations are often the most effective in 
preventing the spread of HIV; and despite their effectiveness in caring 
for millions with the disease and working to prevent the spread of it, 
many relief organizations continue to disregard the right of faith-
based organizations to object to condom distribution.
  In the hearing we had, we cited the quotations from the U.N. 
representatives in this regard. This amendment will provide protection 
for faith-based groups, like the Catholic Church, who apply for Federal 
funds but who object to distributing condoms as a form of HIV 
prevention. It is meant to make sure that we do not arbitrarily 
disqualify any organization from one part of our strategy because they 
do not participate in another.
  We should have the best organizations working within our overall plan 
on parts of the plan that they do best. We should not discriminate 
against organizations that are saving lives. I urge Members to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to close debate on the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this is an effort to make the army in 
opposition, the army that is fighting AIDS as inclusive as possible. 
Just think for a moment, put biases aside. Here is an organization that 
takes care of 1 in 4 people afflicted with AIDS, the Catholic Relief 
Services. Without this amendment, they stand very much in jeopardy of 
being excluded from this program. Why should we hobble ourselves as we 
are attacking the deadly scourge of AIDS?
  There are religious people who do not believe in condoms who can 
teach, who can go from village to village administering medicines. 
There are so many things that need to be done on the human level, and 
why should we exclude them because they have moral scruples against 
condoms. This is a 3-part attack: Abstinence, as well as being faithful 
and using condoms. We can certainly do some good teaching abstinence, 
teaching fidelity in the family, and many other creature comforts that 
can be administered by Muslim groups that do not support condoms. Why 
exclude people from this force that is going to attack AIDS?
  I think it is irrational. The purpose of the bill is to get as many 
forces together to attack AIDS. If we exclude people because they do 
not believe in condoms, we are tying our hands and it is a big mistake. 
I hope this amendment passes. It in no way at this diminishes the 
efficacy of this bill. It simply says there are people who do not 
subscribe to the ``C'' of the ABC, but they do to the ``A'' and ``B,'' 
and we need all of the people we can muster in this struggle. I hope 
the Smith amendment passes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 11 printed in House Report 108-80.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Pitts

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Pitts:
       Page 83, line 10, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, of which such amount at least 33 percent 
     should be expended for abstinence-until-marriage programs''.
       Page 83, line 22, add at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``For fiscal years 2006 through 2008, not less than 
     33 percent of the amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under section 401 for HIV/
     AIDS prevention consistent with section 104A(d) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 301 of 
     this Act) for each such fiscal year shall be expended for 
     abstinence-until-marriage programs.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 210, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1298 endorses Uganda's ABC model that focuses on 
abstinence, but it does not ensure that money is actually directed to 
abstinence programs.
  Abstinence works. In Uganda, which has been cited as the ABC model, 
``A'' for abstinence first; ``B'' for being faithful to one partner; 
and ``C,'' condom use, and this focus on abstinence first lowered HIV 
infection rates from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2000. The ABC 
model saves lives, and this amendment will ensure that these funds save 
more lives by moving taxpayer dollars to life-saving strategies that 
have been proven to work.
  It mandates a percentage: 33 percent of the prevention funds 
disbursed under the bill for abstinence. Now that is not all of the 
bill, that is just prevention funds, and one-third of those.
  Other countries have begun implementation of the ABC model and are 
already showing great success, as they did dramatically in Uganda. But 
countries like Kenya, which have stuck mainly to the social marketing 
of condoms, are experiencing huge increases in HIV prevalence rates, 
and this amendment takes that fact seriously.
  It makes sense to guarantee that this money will fund what works. 
This amendment makes sure that there is sufficient flexibility for the 
AIDS coordinator. It only mandates 33 percent of the prevention funds 
to go to abstinence. It leaves the remaining 67 percent of prevention 
money to be disbursed as the coordinator sees fit.
  Opponents claim that abstinence just is not possible. Dr. Edward 
Green, a researcher at Harvard University was an opponent of the ABC 
model, in particular abstinence, until he saw what happened in Uganda. 
He testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and he said, 
``Many of us in the AIDS and public health communities did not believe 
that abstinence, or delay, and faithfulness, were realistic goals. It 
now seems we were wrong.''
  In Uganda the proportion of young males age 15 to 24 reporting 
premarital sex decreased from 60 percent in 1989 to 23 percent in 1995. 
For females, the decline was 53 percent to 16 percent. The program 
actually changed the behavior in women and men, a fact I hope my 
colleagues take seriously.
  This amendment will make sure that funds get to what works. It 
maintains

[[Page H3613]]

flexibility, makes the bill better. It will save lives. I urge Members 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I had the honor on Tuesday to join Senators Lugar and 
Biden and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) at the White 
House as the President called for Congress to quickly approve 
comprehensive HIV/AIDS legislation. The President has since announced 
his strong support for our bill. When the President spoke to us, he 
asked that Congress make the ABC strategy used in Uganda and elsewhere 
as the model for our prevention efforts. I could not agree more with 
the President. To quote him, ``The ABC strategy is effective by 
emphasizing abstinence, marital fidelity as well as condoms to prevent 
HIV transmission.''
  Mr. Chairman, I quote President Bush on the ABC strategy because 
there is some confusion in Washington as to what it means. Some Members 
of Congress attribute the dramatic success of Uganda's HIV/AIDS 
prevention program solely to abstinence and marital fidelity programs. 
While these components of the ABC strategy have been effective, 
Ugandans also use an average of 80 million condoms per year, and that 
figure is increasing.
  While I certainly respect the fact that some religions may have moral 
objections to the use of condoms, many other faiths actively promote 
their use as a medically proven way to stop the transmission of HIV. 
The legislation before us explicitly authorizes the use of funds to 
promote programs which promote abstinence and faithfulness. However, 
the Pitts amendment would require that one-third of the HIV/AIDS 
prevention funds be set aside for the exclusive use of abstinence 
before marriage programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the President of the United States. The 
ABC approach does work, but the Pitts amendment undermines the ABC 
approach by earmarking funds solely for the abstinence program. The 
Pitts amendment also raises a whole series of very disturbing questions 
to which we have been given no answers.

                              {time}  1430

  Does the Pitts amendment seek to replicate certain abstinence-only 
programs under which educators are explicitly prohibited from giving 
full and complete information about condoms to high-risk populations? 
Under these abstinence set-aside programs, will people who are already 
sexually active be given any information about condoms? Will any 
information provided about condoms be medically accurate and complete? 
Will faith-based groups such as the Anglican Church of Uganda be 
eligible to receive these abstinence funds if their priests discuss 
condom use in the context of abstinence education? Do abstinence 
programs that are part of a multisectoral approach count towards this 
set-aside? And questions along these lines too numerous to mention.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these questions remain unanswered. I therefore 
urge all of my colleagues to support the ABC approach to HIV/AIDS 
prevention and to oppose the Pitts amendment. I also want to call my 
colleagues' attention to the fact that today in an editorial, the 
Washington Times, no liberal publication, says, ``The revision expected 
to be offered by Representative Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican, 
which would set aside up to one third of the money specifically for 
abstinence and monogamy programs, seems less wise since such decisions 
should be made by the experts in the field.''
  I fully agree on this issue with the Washington Times, the President 
of the United States, and the experts working in the field; and I urge 
all of my colleagues to reject the Pitts amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, the Uganda model was developed by Ugandans 
themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Pitts amendment. According to the World Health Organization data, 
abstinence education programs work to reduce the premarital sex rate 
for Ugandan males, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania earlier said, in 
1989 60 percent to 23 percent. For females the decline was 53 percent 
to 16 percent. The proportion of males reporting three or more sexual 
partners fell from 15 percent to 3 percent. With each successive sexual 
partner one has, their probability of contracting HIV goes up 
proportionally and by reducing the income of sexual partners, 
increasing the age of sexual debut, by increasing the incidence of 
abstinence before marriage, faithfulness in marriage, the rate in 
Uganda declined by half.
  I think this is a very modest amendment. I actually think we should 
be putting substantially more money than he is proposing into 
abstinence education because it has been shown scientifically to be the 
most effective way and cost-effective way to prevent the spread of this 
disease. I strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support the Pitts amendment, a very well-thought-out 
amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), who has led this fight on our side.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong and very vigorous opposition to this amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Again, we see attempts to unravel 
the delicate compromise established by our negotiations on this bill. 
We have already dealt with this issue in another forum in the Committee 
on International Relations when the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Pitts) pushed for the prioritization of abstinence over condom use in 
the ABC model of prevention. Abstinence, fidelity, and the use of 
condoms should all be placed on equal footing; and that is what we 
agreed to in committee. So I hope that we similarly defeat this 
amendment. Even the Washington Times, as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) points out, agrees that a balanced approach should be 
implemented and should be part of this bill.
  The Uganda model is based upon the ABC approach, which is prevention, 
abstinence, and condoms. In fact, the former director of the largest 
organization in Uganda dealing with HIV and AIDS treatment says that 
that is what has worked and that it is wrong for those who want only 
one approach to pull out one element of a bigger picture. And she said 
this is a very small percentage of the whole picture. What works is 
what worked in Uganda, and that is abstinence, be faithful, condoms; 
and that is the only strategy that makes sense.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as we look at a disaster such as this, 
it is hard to comprehend the misery and the suffering. We look at women 
and the children and the men that are dying such horrible deaths, and 
it is hard to take it all in. But what we look for in Africa is a ray 
of hope, a ray of hope for these people; and we see this ray of hope in 
Uganda. And we see a ray of hope with abstinence education. Abstinence 
is not just a moral issue. It is an issue of whether or not we will 
teach people what the healthy life-style is. If we are compassionate 
about the people in Africa, if our hearts go out to the people that are 
dying, that are in incredible suffering and misery, we want to do 
something that works. We want to have something that will give these 
people hope, that will give them life; and I am in strong support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. My colleagues and the chairman have worked very hard to 
ensure a proven approach to HIV and AIDS funding which is based on the 
successful Ugandan model. The President himself has seen the wisdom of 
this approach and supports it. We agree that abstinence is a great 
approach,

[[Page H3614]]

but it cannot be used alone, and it cannot be dictated where it 
absolutely cannot work. And where it works best is in a comprehensive 
educational program. Our own CDC experience attests to this; and as a 
family physician who has worked in family planning and HIV and AIDS, I 
know this is the best approach. It is the one that delays sexual 
activity, reduces partners, and more importantly saves lives.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues, no matter what their personal 
or religious convictions might be, not to impose them on others but to 
allow these funds that are so very important to the lives of millions 
of people to be used how and where they can be most effective. And this 
needs to be done globally as well as in our domestic programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and do a 
great thing here today by passing H.R. 1298 with the good amendments 
that have already been passed.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. Pence asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pitts 
amendment, and along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), 
ranking member, whom I have labored with on other issues and will labor 
still, I was there in the East Room of the White House when the 
President of the United States described a compelling and compassionate 
vision for addressing this pandemic AIDS crisis in Africa. The 
President insisted that we not just send billions of dollars to Africa, 
but we send values that work; and he encouraged us in this Congress to 
put a priority on the values of abstinence and monogamy before condom 
distribution in that room. In fact, in a statement of administration 
policy, Mr. Chairman, the administration said they, quote, ``support 
additional provisions that would prioritize the abstinence component of 
the ABC approach which has been successfully implemented in Uganda.''
  The administration supports the Pitts amendment; and those who would 
embrace this vision of abstinence and endorsement of faithfulness in 
marriage and then condom distribution must, and by all means should, 
support the Pitts amendment to this bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. 
Abstinence or monogamy or condom use, it just does not work. What 
worked in Uganda was abstinence and be faithful and condom use. It is 
essential to pursue all approaches to prevention. Promote and value 
abstinence, encourage monogamy in both men and women, and teach that 
lifesaving use of condoms works. Using all three options, men and women 
can be approached differently according to the cultural values of a 
village or religion or a region. United States policy reflects that by 
funding faith-based organizations as well as secular organizations that 
may focus on one area or health concern.
  Abstinence, be faithful and condom use worked in Uganda.
  Each approach is different, and may be suitable at different stages 
in life. But each approach can and does work together.
  Many of us believe that abstinence is most realistic in the years 
before sexual activity begins--because it can delay sexual activity, 
and that's important. But abstinence may not be an appropriate message 
for a girl who has no say in the extent of her sexual activity.
  Once sexual activity begins--keeping in mind that the sexual activity 
may not be consensual--it's critical that accurate information about 
condoms and other prevention methods be available, to limit exposure to 
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.
  It is essential to pursue all approaches to prevention. Promote and 
value abstinence, encourage monogamy in both men and women and teach 
the life saving use of condoms. And, if married, monogamy is both a 
social and a public health value, and it should be strongly promoted 
for both men and women.
  Using all three options, men and women can be approached differently, 
according to the cultural values of a village, a religion, or a region. 
U.S. policy reflects that, by funding faith-based organizations as well 
as secular organizations that may focus on one area or health concern.
  Many Members have spoken about Uganda, a country in east central 
Africa. But I want to focus on another part of Africa--the West African 
region, and the countries of Cote d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso. About 10 
percent of the population in each of these countries is infected with 
HIV.
  In both countries, the health care infrastructure is poor and 
strained--18 months ago, Cote d'Ivoire was in better shape than Burkina 
Faso, but the civil war has had a devastating impact on its health care 
sector. In Burkina Faso, a HIV diagnosis has been akin to a death 
certificate, because there has been no access to treatment at all.
  In these countries, it's not uncommon to arrive in a village and see 
that the local business is coffinmaking.
  In these countries, it's not unusual to see children who are raising 
each other because there are no parents.
  In West Africa, many villages are politically, culturally, and 
economically dominated by men. Women are married as young as 12 or 13, 
and begin bearing children immediately. The cultural values of these 
villages enforce monogamy for women, but positively encourage men to 
have multiple partners. Men make all the decisions, and the community 
reinforces that tradition.
  Economic realities also impact behavior. Men often travel to find 
employment--even work in another country, hitchhiking up and down major 
roadways, looking for work in trade centers where prostitutes gather. 
He might be away for months, or seasons, at a time. Whether single or 
married, these men often have sexual encounters while on the road, and 
subsequently bring HIV into their home villages.
  In fact, HIV can be tracked from cities, to major highways, and into 
completely rural, isolated villages, simply by following the travels of 
the men who call those villages home.
  Many women in Africa infected with HIV were abstinent before 
marriage, and monogamous in it, and yet still they are wasting away 
from AIDS.
  That's today's reality. And to combat that reality, we believe it's 
essential to pursue all approached to prevention--promote and value 
abstinence, encourage monogamy in both men and women, and teach about 
the life-saving use of condoms.
  Each of those approaches involves education. People must learn that 
it's possible to refuse sexual activity. And if refusing isn't 
realistic, they can learn to negotiate with their partner to wear a 
condom. In West Africa, health workers put on plays for villages and at 
trading centers, to show an audience gathered by music and comedy how a 
wife might persuade her husband to wear a condom, or how a migrant 
worker can use condoms to protect himself--and his wife--from 
devastating disease. Villagers of all ages, men and women, attend. 
Local cafes offer condoms, alongside information about monogamy and 
abstinence.

  This kind of education is respectful of local tradition, but it's 
also appropriate to the public health emergency that is AIDS in Africa. 
It will take years of sustained effort to make it easier for women to 
negotiate more equally with men, because it's an issue that goes well 
beyond sexual relationships. It will take years of effort to end 
prostitution as a means of supporting a family, because in some places, 
it's all there is.
  While these societies work to change behavior, and the world unites 
to help them--young women bear 5, 6, 7 children in rapid succession by 
a husband who may have infected her with HIV.
  Again, she's married, she's faithful . . . she's dying.
  We can have it all--we can have monogamy and condoms, we can have 
abstinence before marriage and access to condoms too. It's just a 
matter of deciding that saving lives matters more than how it's done.
  Because abstinence works. Monogamy works. Condom use works. Together.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the global HIV epidemic issue 
cannot and must not be ignored. People are dying from this disease, and 
we know how to help them. Our duty is to promote good public policy 
that saves lives, and we have an opportunity today to do that. As we 
look for the method of reducing HIV/AIDS infection rate, we have to 
look no further than to Uganda to find a very successful program. 
Uganda has led the way in drastically reducing its infection rate of 
HIV/AIDS from 21 percent in 1991 to 5 percent in 2001. This has been 
accomplished through the ABC program, a model of behavior that we need 
to follow. First of all, abstinence; second, be faithful; and, third, 
using a condom. The stunning drop in HIV proves that

[[Page H3615]]

the behavior can change and save lives, and I encourage my colleagues 
to support this Pitts amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  (Mr. GREENWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania on the value of 
abstinence. I would be opposed to a penny of this money going to any 
program that did not preach and teach abstinence. It is absolutely 
necessary. My concern with the amendment is it would allow money to go 
to programs that do abstinence only. The problem with that, and I have 
friends from Africa who are with us today who have just explained to 
us, if we take a woman whose husband has contracted HIV and she needs a 
condom and the only program in her community is a program that simply 
does abstinence and nothing else, then we have done nothing for her and 
it will cost her her life, and it will cost the lives of the children 
that she bears. If every program provided abstinence, I would be for 
the Pitts amendment completely. But the Pitts amendment, by allowing a 
third of the money to go to programs that provide abstinence, will 
allow programs that provide abstinence only and that certainly is 
insufficient, as everyone has agreed.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I think we all serve here with the same 
purpose. Each of us in our own hearts would like somehow to make the 
world a better place and we have before us an amendment, and the 
technology of this amendment is very straightforward. It is very 
simple. Abstinence is the only tool we have that works 100 percent. So 
it is not a matter of whether we like the morality of abstinence or 
not. The fact is that technology-wise it works. It is the only thing 
that is 100 percent effective. We are only talking about one third of 
the money. So we could pass a law here to repeal the law of gravity, 
but it would not do us much good. The scientific fact is a flat fact 
that abstinence works, and that is why we have to use the very best 
tool with at least a portion of this money to deal with this serious 
crisis.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), chairman of the Congressional 
Black Caucus.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pitts 
amendment which detracts from this consensus bill.
  This bill endorses the successful ABC Ugandan model of abstinence, be 
faithful, and condom. This system works, and it should be the only 
prevention program that receives funding. The Pitts amendments would 
devote 33 percent of precious prevention resources to 
disproportionately fund an abstinence-until-marriage model that has not 
proven to be effective.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have time to play Russian Roulette with 
millions of lives while testing politically charged prevention methods. 
In fact, a 2001 report issued by the National Institutes of Health 
concluded that beyond mutual lifelong monogamy among uninfected 
couples, condom use is the only method for reducing the risk of HIV 
infection and STDs available to sexually active individuals.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pitts 
amendment.
  The Federal program on abstinence is not a mandated program on the 
States. In fact, States have to put up dollars to get into the 
abstinence program. And States readily do. Do my colleagues know why? 
Because it works. We have heard story after story after story before 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce that abstinence works. Not only 
does it help prevent the kinds of disease we are talking about, but it 
literally is the best way to make sure that other venereal diseases are 
not spread and other cases of awful calamity are avoided for young 
women as they are growing up.

                              {time}  1445

  We learned, for example, that condoms do not stop the spread of many 
new venereal diseases that are viral in nature, and nevertheless ruin a 
woman's chance of reproduction as they grow up and try to become young 
married women and have a family.
  We learned a great deal in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The 
most important thing we learned is that abstinence works. It works in 
our States, it works in this country, and it can work in this program.
  The second thing to keep in mind is that every time we have promoted 
abstinence programs in this country, the argument on the other side is 
abstinence-only should not be the deal. This is not abstinence-only, 
this is abstinence as one-third of the program.
  I urge Members to support the Pitts amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted and honored to yield the 
balance of my time to my good friend and neighbor, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic Leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Pitts 
amendment. First I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos), for the strong, and effective bipartisan bill they 
produced in the Committee on International Relations.
  I also want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), who has fought for years to strengthen our 
efforts in the fight against the AIDS pandemic, both domestically and 
internationally.
  We know the statistics. They are staggering, and they should move us 
to action. Every day, over 16,000 people become infected with HIV, 
primarily in the developing world. This crisis is too severe and our 
response is too important to let our efforts be undermined by politics.
  We must support what works. We are talking about saving lives. If we 
do, experts say that a strong global response could prevent nearly two-
thirds of the 45 million new infections that are projected by 2020, 
saving tens of millions of lives.
  The successes are there for us to replicate. We can look to Uganda as 
a model and for inspiration. We can learn a lot from their experience. 
Over the past decade, Uganda's infection rates have dropped from 30 
percent to 5 percent. It can be done. This success was achieved using 
the model of prevention that is a key component of the Hyde-Lantos 
bill, a model that gives equal weight to the full range of options and 
relies on the best scientific information.
  H.R. 1298 is not anti-abstinence. It supports a balanced approach to 
HIV-AIDS prevention. This is a debate about whether or not we use the 
model that has been effective in Uganda and that gives flexibility to 
those fighting this disease on the ground.
  In July 2001, NIH confirmed the effectiveness of condoms in 
preventing HIV transmission. The Pitts amendment asks us to abandon 
what we know and has been proven to work.
  H.R. 1298 is a bipartisan bill that we can all proudly support. It is 
a bill that President Bush supports. Why sacrifice that broad support 
in the name of politics, especially when so many lives are at stake?
  Keeping information from people does not keep them safe. And when 
that information is about AIDS, it can be a death sentence.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment and to 
support the original Hyde-Lantos bill, and again commend the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman, the very 
distinguished chairman, the about-to-have-his-picture-unveiled 
chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their 
very important contribution to saving lives.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). All time of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) has expired.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

[[Page H3616]]

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of speeches on this floor 
supporting the President's program and supporting ABC and the program 
of Uganda, yet being opposed to the Pitts amendment. The Pitts 
amendment is the Uganda program. It is the President's program. So we 
should support the Pitts amendment because it is what the President is 
asking us to do.
  Every day, 2,000 more children are infected with the HIV/AIDS virus. 
Entire generations of communities in Sub-Saharan Africa are being 
obliterated by a preventible disease.
  AIDS in Africa is not just an epidemic, it is an emergency. But there 
is something we can do about it. President Bush, I wish Members on the 
other side of the aisle would listen, has called upon us to marshal the 
virtue and resources of the American people to help save a continent in 
crisis. This is his initiative, and, as such, our legislation should 
reflect his ideals for it.
  Mr. Chairman, abstinence-based prevention programs work, and the 
President supports the Pitts amendment. After years of trial and error 
and research, the facts, and the striking success of Uganda's 
abstinence program, are very clear. No other method has produced the 
success rates or saved as many lives as Uganda's ABC approach.
  Because of this, the discovery of a new and effective weapon in the 
war against AIDS, the President has endorsed the Uganda model. So have 
experts in the field, who were once skeptical of abstinence as a 
solution.
  Despite the evidence, some still suspect proponents of abstinence-
based prevention of simply being on a moral crusade. I would say in 
response that this entire bill is a moral crusade. Not to impose our 
values on anyone, but to save a continent of the Great Plague of our 
age.
  This debate is not about supporting one political agenda over 
another. It is about supporting proven methods of AIDS prevention over 
the failed policies that have tragically contributed to the infection 
of 30 million Africans. The disease is running rampant across Sub-
Saharan Africa, and the only places returning encouraging news are 
those nations committed to abstinence-based prevention programs. It 
works, and we cannot let the fog of politics obscure that fact.
  In Uganda, 10 years of the abstinence-based approach have slowed the 
march of the disease, and in Zambia recent results are showing similar 
success.
  To meet the moral responsibility of this crisis, we must promote 
policies that work, not ones that have been proven failures.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a test of our 
seriousness about this issue. People are dying and politics will not 
save them. The United States has a real chance to do good in the world 
with this bill, but only if we do the job right.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the cosponsor of this 
amendment, to close.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has expired.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations, be granted such time as he may consume to 
make a concluding statement.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the Chair will 
provide an equal amount of time on both sides.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Needless to say, I am very moved by the generosity of my friend from 
California.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of simple thoughts in closing on 
the Pitts amendment. First of all, please note what the amendment 
actually does. It simply says 33 percent of the funds to be expended 
for prevention under this total program shall go to support abstinence. 
That is all it says. It does not downgrade or denigrate condoms or 
family fidelity, marital fidelity. It simply says as we move forward in 
this war, do not forget abstinence, which is the one sure preventative 
for AIDS. One need not be a microbiologist to know that if abstinence 
were practiced, you would have far less of a serious problem.
  So, this amendment does not distort the balance of ABC. This 
amendment reinforces the balance by saying abstinence, family fidelity 
and condoms, but to not forget abstinence. That is all it says.
  I hope those of you who are convinced with me that this is a bill 
that has to pass, that this is a statement that has to be made, will 
understand that this amendment does not distort the spirit nor the 
principle nor the thrust of our bill in chief. It actually reinforces 
the balance.
  I hope Members will support this so we can pass this bill this 
afternoon and say we did a great day's work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) has expired.
  All time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) has expired.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is recognized for 2 
minutes under the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to my 
friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for the 
chairman of this committee, I humbly oppose this amendment, because I 
do believe in abstinence and I believe in options, and I believe in 
options to save lives. We need to pass this legislation with the ABC in 
place and the flexibility in place in order to save lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. 
Pitts and Mr. Hyde to H.R. 1298, the ``United States Leadership Against 
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.'' I oppose this 
amendment because it severely diminishes the flexibility and choices 
available to those suffering from infectious diseases by allocating 
funds to organizations that only promote abstinence until marriage 
programs.
  I am a strong proponent of the ABC Model used in Uganda. The elements 
of the ABC Model are: Abstinence, Being Faithful, and Condom use. The 
ABC Model recognizes that in communities worldwide, whether in sub-
Saharan Africa, India, China, or the United States, there are different 
approaches and different preferences for fighting HIV/AIDS and other 
infectious diseases. When the patient and the health care administrator 
cannot agree on the method of prevention, yet another life may be lost 
to HIV/AIDS.
  The amendment offered by Mr. Pitts and Mr. Hyde will limit the 
prevention methods available to those suffering with infectious 
diseases. Organizations that only promote abstinence and refuse to 
promote condom use deny those at risk with a reliable prevention tool. 
I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that abstinence is the only 
100 percent effective means of preventing the transmission of 
infectious diseases, and should be fully endorsed by the House of 
Representatives as a prevention tool.
  However, for many in sub-Saharan Africa and around the world, 
abstinence is not a reasonable option. In the cases of those 
individuals, health care advocates should present several prevention 
methods as options. The ABC Model provides those options, the amendment 
sponsored by Mr. Pitts and Mr. Hyde does not.
  I am a proponent of HIV/AIDS prevention. I am a proponent of 
abstinence, and I am a proponent of options, flexibility, and choice. 
The amendment offered by Mr. Pitts and Mr. Hyde will allocate one-third 
of the funds allocated under H.R. 1298 to programs that do not promote 
condom use. By doing so, the amendment limits the infectious disease 
prevention options available to millions of people at risk to contract 
HIV/AIDS. I do not support limiting life-saving prevention methods to 
anyone at risk.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by Mr. 
Pitts and Mr. Hyde, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues on all sides. 
Particularly I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde), I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) on 
the other side, and I want to pay tribute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), who has done an outstanding job.
  We are on the verge of passing one of the most significant pieces of 
legislation in this session. I am deeply grateful for the contribution 
of all of my

[[Page H3617]]

friends on the Republican and the Democratic side.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Pitts/Hyde amendment to H.R. 1298, the Global AIDS bill. The 
President's commitment to supporting Global AIDS outreach is 
commendable, and this bill, without amendments, has the approval of the 
Bush Administration. It is widely supported by Republicans and 
Democrats.
  However, some of my colleagues want to ``improve'' this bill with a 
controversial amendment that further wages war against family planning 
and reproductive health. At the heart of my concern with the 
``abstinence-only'' curricula is its insistence that a ``mutually 
faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the 
expected standard of human sexual activity.'' This program emphasizes 
that sex outside of marriage is physically and psychologically harmful 
and should be avoided for these reasons.
  Abstinence-only education is simply not effective. Many of the women 
who are infected with HIV/AIDS are in monogamous marital relationships. 
Abstinence education that elevates the marital relationship as the only 
place where sex is appropriate would still leave these women vulnerable 
to infection. Abstinence education would also ignore the needs of women 
involved in the sex trade. Prostitution is a reality in all parts of 
the world, and it is one of the most vicious vehicles for spreading 
diseases. The Pitts amendment would do nothing for these women and for 
the children they will bear.
  Abstinence-only education has been proven to be ineffective time and 
time again, while only truly comprehensive sex education really 
prevents unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases. There is no 
scientific evidence that abstinence-only education is effective. 
Congress should not tie the hands of health care professionals as they 
attempt to stop the spread of AIDS.
  This discussion is about more than promoting ``proper'' sexual 
behavior. This is a matter of life and death. We should not be willing 
to gamble with the lives of millions of men, women, and children across 
the globe.
  It is pure common sense that if you are trying to prevent a disease, 
you apply the remedy that has been shown to work, rather than fueling 
millions of dollars into an idea that has been proven not to work. If 
what we care about is AIDS prevention, then we should put our money 
into programs, like the Ugandan ABC program, where it might actually be 
effective.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 197, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 157]

                               AYES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Becerra
     Boyd
     Buyer
     Combest
     Dreier
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Honda
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sandlin
     Scott (VA)
     Slaughter
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan) (during the vote). The Chair 
announces that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1519

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order, 
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Sweeney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1298) to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and

[[Page H3618]]

malaria, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 210, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 375, 
noes 41, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 158]

                               AYES--375

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--41

     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonilla
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Carter
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Graves
     Hayes
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Petri
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Becerra
     Berman
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Combest
     Dreier
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sandlin
     Scott (VA)
     Slaughter
     Whitfield


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). The Chair 
reminds Members that there are less than 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1537

  Mr. COLLINS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 158, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________