[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.''
____________________