Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 104 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6715-H6724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1950, FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2005

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 316

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1950) to authorize appropriations for the
Department of State for the fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to
authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act
and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security
assistance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
International Relations. After general debate the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
International Relations now printed in the bill modified by
the amendments recommended by the Committees on Armed
Services and Energy and Commerce also printed in the bill.
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to
that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc
described in section 2. Each amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report (except as specified in
section 3), may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment except as specified in the report, shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against amendments printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules or against amendments en bloc described in
section 2 are waived.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman
of the Committee on International Relations or his designee
to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier
considered. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this
section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on International
Relations or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included in
such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the
Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of
the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 3. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed,
but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the
Committee on International Relations or a designee
prospectively announces from the floor a request to that
effect.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee

[[Page H6716]]

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 316
is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 1950,
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.
The Committee on Rules worked well into last evening in order to ensure
a rule that is fair, that grants opportunity to this Congress to debate
the major issue of the day in this field. In fact, out of the 75 or so
amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, 42, 42 were made in
order by this rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate evenly divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on International Relations. The rule provides for a motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1950 was introduced by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), along with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman). The legislation authorizes $9.6 billion in fiscal year 2004
and $9.5 billion in 2005 to address the need of the State Department
and their executive operations. The legislation includes significant
language and funding to ensure international security through important
assistance programs and activities.
To highlight the need for this critical legislation, Mr. Speaker, we
really need to look only 90 miles south of Florida to see the evils of
an oppressive dictatorship. The regime there in Cuba is the only
dictatorship in the western hemisphere, and it works to subvert the
message of freedom not only on the island of Cuba but elsewhere in the
world. As we have seen this week, there are reports that the Cuban
dictatorship is jamming U.S.-based broadcasting to Iran. This
demonstrates the need, once again, to reinforce our message of freedom
to the entire world.

{time} 1045

I think the world has recognized, at least recently since the very
brutal crackdown in March of this year by the Cuban regime, where many
of the country's most well-known and many of the most courageous
prodemocracy activists were thrown in dungeons, that the nature of the
Cuban regime is one that must be condemned and certainly that it must
be isolated.
This legislation includes an increase of funding at $15 million for
democracy-building programs while authorizing countless other programs
such as continued radio and television capabilities to make sure that
the message of freedom reaches the people of Cuba. I would like to
commend the chairman and ranking member for recognizing the needs for
international broadcasts not only for Cuba but for many other places in
the world that are still under tyranny.
While I think it is essential to address dictatorships such as the
one in Cuba, many other people are also fighting for essential and
inalienable rights.
For years designated terrorist organizations in Colombia, for
example, have plagued efforts by the people of that country to live in
a peaceful democracy. I think proactive action must be taken to ensure
that armed rebels in Colombia such as the FARC and the ELN are not
continued to be allowed to disrupt peace with impunity.
H.R. 1950 provides funding to further secure, among other things, Mr.
Speaker, United States embassies throughout the world in order to
maintain a strong diplomatic presence for the United States abroad.
We made in order, and later today the House will be considering, an
amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the
gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos) to authorize the
Millennium Challenge Account, a very important initiative of President
Bush's. This historic expansion of foreign assistance will serve to
bring economic security and some basic tenets of transparency to
countries throughout the world. That Millennium Challenge Account will
be administered by a government entity held responsible for results and
benefiting from the flexibility to provide innovative solutions to the
problems of poverty and oppression.
The main goal of that account will be to assure that U.S. foreign aid
is targeted towards transparency and breaking down corruption where
U.S. foreign aid goes to.
Funding for this important program is phased in under this
legislation, beginning with $1.3 billion next fiscal year and
continuing with $3 billion in fiscal 2005 and $5 billion in 2006. By
the last fiscal year, this challenge account will be financially able
to assist all those countries currently counted by the World Bank as
what it terms lower-middle-income countries.
I am proud that the Committee on Rules did its job to provide a full
and fair discussion through 42 amendments, Mr. Speaker, so we should
let the debate begin.
This is a good bill, H.R. 1950, and this rule is fair, and it
provides for much debate on many important issues. Through this
legislation, the House will continue its important work to fund
important State Department actions while, I believe, beginning the
journey to relieve burdens on those across the globe that need
assistance.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the
chairman, again, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the
ranking member, for their great leadership. As I said yesterday in the
Committee on Rules, for me, it is an honor to be able to serve in this
legislative body with both of them.
I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support both the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is a place of great creativity.
At times, rules reported by the committee bend, stretch, and outright
waive the rules of the House in order to ensure passage of legislation.
Many times, substantive amendments that deserve to be debated are
denied a vote.
Late last night, the Committee on Rules met to report the rule for
H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This is a complex,
omnibus bill that brings together no less than seven important pieces
of legislation. Specifically, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act
includes the State Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2004
and 2005, the Global Internet Freedom Act of 2003, the Missile Threat
Reduction Act of 2003, the International Free Media Act of 2003, the
United States International Leadership Act of 2003, the Defense Trade
and Security Assistance Reform Act of 2003, and the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act of Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.
H.R. 1950, as reported by the Committee on International Relations,
is a bipartisan bill that authorizes funding for foreign military aid
and training programs, programs that reduce the threat of missile
proliferation, international broadcasting activities, U.S.
contributions to international organizations and multilateral financial
institution, and for economic development and humanitarian foreign
assistance programs.
Like most other major bills, there are serious points of contention.
Several controversial provisions have been included; others have been
deleted. This rule has made consideration of H.R. 1950 more complex and
more contentious than it needs to be.

[[Page H6717]]

The Republican leadership, as it has done in the past, ordered the
Committee on Rules to deny consideration of many of these contentious
issues in order to protect their members from having to take a tough
vote; but before I explain the problems with the rule, let me say that
I am pleased that the Hyde-Lantos amendment creating the Millennium
Challenge Account and reauthorizing the Peace Corps was made in order.
With the adoption of the Hyde-Lantos amendment, this bill will contain
one of the most important and ambitious foreign policy initiatives
undertaken by the United States to help lift countries out of poverty.
The Millennium Challenge Account is intended to reward poor countries
that demonstrate a commitment to ruling justly, investing in people,
and promoting economic freedom. It is supported by the administration
and by the many nongovernmental development and humanitarian
organizations engaged in antipoverty programs around the world.
The Millennium Challenge Account focuses on assistance to low-income
countries, has a strong emphasis on the role of women in the design and
implementation of these programs, and gives careful attention to
coordinating MCA programs with our existing development priorities.
Mr. Speaker, I was relieved to hear from the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), the ranking member, that the funding for the Millennium
Challenge Account programs will come from additional foreign aid
funding and that it will not rob funds from existing economic
development, humanitarian, and food assistance accounts.
I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the
chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking
member, for their leadership on establishing the Millennium Challenge
Corporation and its programs. I believe the Committee on International
Relations improved the President's initial proposal. Economic growth
and prosperity lift people out of poverty and help prevent the chaos
created from conflict, misery, and hopelessness. It is in the national
security interests of the United States to see these new programs fully
funded and implemented once they are established by the passage of H.R.
1950.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to watch the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), the ranking member, work together. They truly understand the
meaning of the word bipartisanship, and their commitment to this ideal
should be a model for this Congress.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership does not share
the same view as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman,
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, there are real policy differences that are part of this
bill. For example, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) offered an
amendment in the Committee on International Relations increasing
funding for the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA. Many anti-
choice Members in this body opposed this provision.
Instead of using the rule to unfairly strike this provision from the
bill, the Committee on Rules made the Smith amendment in order. Mr.
Speaker, this is democracy. This is how the legislative process is
designed to work. Every Member will be able to vote their conscience
and vote up or down on whether or not to strike the Crowley amendment
from the bill; and while I will oppose this amendment very strongly and
very passionately to strike the Crowley amendment, every Member
deserves the option to vote their conscience.
Unfortunately, this is a rare break from the way the Republicans
traditionally run this body; but rest assured that they have returned
to form with the rest of this bill.
Seventy-five amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and
42 amendments were made in order, but numbers do not tell the whole
truth. This rule must also be judged by the amendments that are not in
the rule, by the important issues we have prohibited from debating.
More than 20 very important Democratic amendments were denied the
opportunity to be debated and voted on by this body. In one case, an
amendment adopted by one committee and stripped from the bill by
another was denied the opportunity to be considered. The Republican
majority refused to make in order the following amendments. I am just
going to name a few of them:
An amendment by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that
would have provided assistance to Afghan women;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to
promote environmental sustainability by requiring environmental impact
assessments for millennium challenge projects;
An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) that
urges U.S. leadership by participating in negotiations on climate
change to reduce greenhouse gases;
An amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) requesting
an IG investigation into the Niger uranium intelligence documents that
led to the President's use of this misinformation in making the case
for war in Iraq;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that
would have provided funding for removal of land mines and agriculture
redevelopment of former mine fields;
An amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) to
designate Poland as a participant in the visa waiver program;
An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) urging
the administration to conclude a comprehensive migration agreement with
Mexico; and
An amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), distinguished member of the
Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman)
urging the President to engage in an open dialogue with the Government
of Poland to achieve a final settlement for those Jews, homosexuals,
European Roma, and other individuals and groups who had their private
property seized by the Nazis during World War II.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments were all offered in good faith, and
they deserve the right to be debated and voted by the Members of this
body. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican leadership
would deny us the chance to vote on these amendments and instead hide
behind arithmetic to argue that they are being fair.
Mr. Speaker, I will urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Every week, pursuant to an idea of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), he and I rise on this floor to speak about the brave men and
women who are languishing in prisons in totalitarian Cuba, an island
that has been oppressed for 44 years by a totalitarian dictator. So
each week I spend a few minutes at least bringing forth specific cases
to remind our colleagues and all those who will listen about the
horrors taking place just 90 miles from the shores of the United
States.
This week, I would like to speak about Rafael Ibarra. Rafael Ibarra
heads the 30th of November Democratic Party, an island-wide opposition
movement to the Castro tyranny. In 1994, he was sentenced to 20 years
in prison and is currently at the prison known as Combinado del Este,
after having spent 3 years in an isolation cell in the province of
Camaguey, in an area of Camaguey in Cuba, hundreds of miles from his
family.
In 1997, his wife at the time, Maritza Lugo, also a highly respected
prodemocracy activist, was arrested as well and sentenced to 2 years,
leaving their two daughters without parents. On multiple occasions
after 1999, Maritza would continue to be arrested and harassed by the
regime. Even when Maritza and Rafael were both in prison at the same
time, the dictator sought to evict their two girls from their small
farmhouse which had become a gathering point for human rights and
prodemocracy meetings.
Rafael Ibarra was one of the political prisoners who recently signed
the Cuban flag painted on a pillow case and sent it to the United
Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

[[Page H6718]]

Maritza and her two daughters, at Rafael's request, fled Cuba as
refugees in 2002 to the United States so that the girls could be able
to live in freedom.
Next year, Mr. Speaker, will mark 10 years that Rafael has been
imprisoned, much of that time in solitary confinement. While other
fathers have been able to watch their daughters grow and guide them as
they become young adults, Rafael has been confined in Castro's gulag
for daring to dream and to work on behalf of a democratic Cuba.
Our thoughts and our prayers are with him, as is our solidarity and
our profound admiration, and we demand once again the liberation of
Rafael Ibarra and all of Cuba's political prisoners.

{time} 1100

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules; and I wish to thank him
for his courtesy in being here this morning.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart), for his stellar management of it, as well as my friend,
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The Committee on Rules, as was said by both gentlemen, worked into
the night to fashion this rule, and it will allow for the consideration
of a wide range of very important issues. As was further pointed out by
both of my colleagues, 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to
us were made in order. We have 23 Republican amendments, 13 Democratic
amendments, and six bipartisan amendments in that package, which will,
I believe, allow us to consider many, many different issues of this
important piece of legislation.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), Mr. Speaker, raised
a number of important issues on amendments that, quite frankly, have
not been made in order; and, obviously, everyone understands that we
have to have some kind of constraint on the amendment process as we
proceed with 75 amendments, many of which are duplicative. And so we
have to put some kind of structure in order. That is the raison d'etre
for the Committee on Rules, in fact.
So as he addressed those issues, I was thinking that many of those
are important and need to be looked at, obviously focusing on
environmental issues, focusing on the issue of the transfer of uranium.
These are all questions that should be addressed. I agree with him that
they should be addressed, but I would argue that this institution is
effectively and very responsibly taking them on. Today, for example, on
the issue of the Schiff amendment, we have the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence here in the House, very ably chaired by the
vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Goss), and in the Senate our colleague Pat Roberts is working on
this issue; and obviously that is going to be an issue of discussion
there and I believe will be responsibly addressing that question.
On other issues which the administration can very effectively
address, I know that they are committed to improved environmental
quality and other issues that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) brought forward as well.
I want to, Mr. Speaker, talk about a number of very important
measures in this legislation which I am particularly supportive of, and
I want to talk about a couple of amendments that I am going to be
dealing with. First, I had the privilege of cochairing, along with our
former colleague Lee Hamilton, who was in fact the predecessor of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), having served as chairman of what
was called then the Committee on Foreign Affairs and now the Committee
on International Relations.
Mr. Hamilton and I cochaired a task force that was put together by
the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House, and the particular
charge was to look at the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations.
We obviously know, leading up to U.N. resolution 1441, before the war
with Iraq, and the challenge of trying to put together a multinational
coalition in dealing with the liberation of Iraq and the war on
terrorism and a wide range of other international challenges that we
face, that there has been a question out there about the U.S.
leadership role. So this task force, I believe, came forward with some
very, very first-rate recommendations, and I am happy that we have been
able to include those recommendations as part of this bill.
I introduced, along with the ranking minority member of the Committee
on International Relations, our very able colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), the package that is basically described as the
International Leadership Act; and it will, I believe, take us down the
road towards improving the role of the United States in the United
Nations.
Now, many of the recommendations that are there are designed to deal
with challenges like the fact, and this is unbelievable, the United
States of America's being removed from the Human Rights Commission
within the United Nations and one of the most repressive anti-human
rights entities on the face of the Earth, Libya, being given the
opportunity to preside over that structure looking at human rights.
Well, obviously, there is something wrong with this picture, Mr.
Speaker; and I think virtually everyone can acknowledge that.
We need to do what we can to encourage self-determination, political
pluralism, and the rule of law worldwide; and I believe that those are
goals that the United States and most nations that are members of the
United Nations share. But, unfortunately, we have not had the kind of
success in doing that that we would like, so it is for that reason that
we have in this legislation the U.S. International Leadership Act,
which will do things like encourage the establishment of a democracy
caucus. It will encourage the United States to engage even more
actively than we already do under the very able leadership of our
first-rate ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. We will
be involved in a lot of things that, frankly, are modeled after the
work here in the United States Congress, which I hope can be utilized
to enhance the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations.
So I want to congratulate both my friends Lee Hamilton and the other
great members who served on our task force, along with my colleague,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and I want to say that this
has enjoyed strong bipartisan support from our friends, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others. And so I look forward to
discussing this further. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) will, but I wanted to raise that now at this juncture.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), be allowed to continue
controlling the time for our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Without objection, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier) now controls the majority's time.
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there
are a couple of other issues that are very, very important that need to
be addressed here. One of them has to do with the challenge we have
been dealing with in California, and it has to do with the issue of
extradition.
Very tragically, last year a constituent of my colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), happened to be near the area
that I represent, Irwindale, California. He was with the Los Angeles
Sheriff's Department and he was, unfortunately, killed. His murder was
reportedly by a Mexican national, who, after murdering Deputy Sheriff
David March, shooting him point-blank, fled to Mexico. We have been
dealing with the challenge of trying to extradite this man who we
believe is responsible for this murder back to the United States so
that he can face justice here.

[[Page H6719]]

We know that there is a challenge within the Mexican constitution.
They prevent extradition to countries that have a death penalty. And
while I happen to personally be a proponent of the death penalty, we
know that is a hotly debated issue here in the United States. But for
that reason, because of the prospect of this individual facing the
death penalty, he has not been extradited; and, in fact, the request
has not formally been made for his extradition.
But there is another decision the Mexican Government made, and it had
to do with the Supreme Court in December of 2001. They came down with a
ruling that said that life imprisonment is, in fact, cruel and unusual
punishment, and that has played a role in hindering the opportunity for
this individual to be extradited back to the United States to face
justice.
The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has an amendment, which I
will be strongly supporting, that basically calls on both countries to
try and bring about a resolution to work this issue out. I have to say,
Mr. Speaker, that I have been working closely with the very able
Mexican ambassador to the United States on this issue; and I am
convinced that within the leadership of Mexico, President Fox and other
leaders obviously want justice. And so the McKeon amendment simply
encourages a resolution to that which I hope will take place in the
near future.
Having spent time talking with family members of Sheriff March and
others in Los Angeles who have spent a lot of time focusing on this
issue, it is very clear that justice is a priority. And I want to say
that I hope that with passage of the McKeon amendment it will help us
in our attempt to deal with this question.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to be offering an
amendment here which will deal with the overall issue of migration. I
know there was a lot of discussion in the Committee on International
Relations on this. I know the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez)
worked on this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and others; and I am
joining, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), with whom I am privileged to serve as cochairman of the
U.S.-Mexico Caucus, which was established at the encouragement of
Ambassador Bremer, and our goal has been to focus on the overall issue
of trade between Mexico and the United States and the fact that we have
seen tremendous benefits that have come about because of the passage of
the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In fact, we have seen trade between our two countries move from 1993,
prepassage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, at about $83
billion, to around $230 billion. So virtually a tripling of the trade
between our two countries. So the U.S.-Mexico Caucus has been charged
with looking at the real benefits and ways that we can actually enhance
the relationship between our two countries.
So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I have joined as
coauthors of an amendment which will deal with the overall issue of
migration and encourage action on that, and I am hoping that we will be
able to enhance the level of bipartisan support we have for this
measure. It does, in fact, rectify something that I believe should not
have been in the measure that was reported out of the Committee on
International Relations with the United States basically calling on the
Mexican Government to privatize Pemex, which is the oil company in
Mexico.
We all recognize that there are problems within the operations of
Pemex. In fact, I have yet to talk to a Mexican who has said to me
anything other than that there are problems with Pemex. But I do not
believe it is correct for the United States Congress to basically
provide as a contingency for dealing with our very important migration
policy, which Secretary Powell and this administration obviously want
to address in a very responsible way, I do not believe that that should
in any way be contingent upon our seeing Mexico deal with their
challenge with Pemex. We want them to do that, but we obviously are not
going to tie our goal of dealing with migration to a resolution to
that.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair rule. It is a balanced rule
that, as I said, allows 42 of the 75 amendments that were submitted to
us to be considered. This legislation has some problems with it. I will
admit it is not perfect. And I know there are some in the
administration who have raised understandable concerns about a number
of issues. But I believe that we can work very positively towards
dealing with a number of those with the amendment process that has been
put into place.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time remains
on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) has 22\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time to speak on this rule.
One of the pleasures of serving on the Committee on International
Relations is the spirit of bipartisanship that is exhibited by our
committee chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); our ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the give and
take on the committee to deal with issues that truly should be
bipartisan in nature that deal with international affairs of our
country.
I heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules speak to
the need for international leadership and some concerns he had in the
United Nations. Well, I am sad that the rule that is before us today
does not permit us to debate one of the most significant issues of
international leadership that the United States should be involved
with, and that deals with global warming.

{time} 1115

It is sad that the Committee on Rules would not permit the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) to reinstate his amendment that passed
with a bipartisan vote on our committee on perhaps the single most
important environmental issue of our day, global warming.
I know that some of the consultants from the Republican establishment
are talking about talking differently about the environment. We are not
supposed to talk about global warming. It is climate change. We are
supposed to have questions about whether or not it is occurring. The
fact is that the consensus of the scientific community is that global
warming is happening, it is impacted by human activity, and the United
States is missing in action.
One can disagree with the approach of the administration turning its
back on Kyoto and not providing an alternative. I am less concerned
about what they are doing with Kyoto than the fact that we are not
engaging the international community. I hope the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) will speak on this rule. It is critical.
The American public understands that the climate is changing. Global
warming is impacting all of us. I do not think it is any accident that
there were 562 tornadoes in the month of May, more than any month in
record; that in India's pre-monsoon season, we are seeing a spike in
temperature, leading to hundreds and hundreds of deaths; that the
hottest 10 years in recorded history have occurred since 1990. We as
Congress need to embrace this debate. We should not be afraid of it.
I am sad that the Committee on Energy and Commerce stripped this
language from the bill. That is the right of their committee
leadership, but we ought to have the right on the floor of this Chamber
to deal with the single most important environmental issue of the day.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that this rule be rejected, but I
strongly hope that this is the last time that Congress is going to be
missing in action on the issue on global climate change, that we will
have free and open and forthright debate. The American public deserves
it, not just on this bill but on each environmental issue that follows
to deal with this matter.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
New

[[Page H6720]]

Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is the distinguished chair of our Democratic
Caucus. He had four amendments brought before the Committee on Rules,
and three were not made in order.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
I am outraged that particularly two amendments which I sponsored and
which passed with bipartisan support in the Committee on International
Relations will be stripped from this bill by legislative tricks
designed to protect Republicans so the American public cannot see their
anti-Mexican and anti-environmental beliefs. Let me emphasize that
these amendments passed the Committee on International Relations.
With their treatment of my Mexican migration amendment, Republicans
have once again shown the real feelings of their party towards
Hispanics. My amendment simply called on the United States to stop
waiting and to support the President's own commitment in September,
2001, to ensure that migration is ``safe, orderly, legal and
dignified.''
While we waited, 19 migrants from Mexico and Central American,
including women and children, died this May from asphyxiation and heat
stroke in a truck crammed with people. Over the past 5 years, more than
2,000 migrants have died crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. This is not
a story of numbers and statistics. This is a story of real human beings
literally dying.
As the President mentioned, it is in the economic and national
security interests of this country to conclude, not to begin, we have
been debating this and the administration has been negotiating this for
2 years, to conclude a migration agreement with Mexico.
My amendment recognized that Mexican immigrants make an invaluable
contribution to this country, as immigrants have done throughout the
history of the United States. Mexicans pick the fruit and vegetables
that end up on our tables. They work in the service industry on the
East and West Coast, they pluck chickens in Arkansas, and let us not
forget that some who died in the war in Iraq were originally
undocumented immigrants.
However, my amendment was gutted by the Ballenger amendment, which
should be called the Halliburton amendment since it cynically links
migration policy to oil. In fact, it says that any migration accord
between our countries should also include an accord to open Petroleos
Mexicanos, or PEMEX, to investment by U.S. oil companies. What, in
God's name, does that have to do with migration policy?
But guess what? The Republicans finally figured out that their
amendment was a huge error and made in order an amendment to strike the
Ballenger provision and replace it with a watered-down version of my
original amendment.
Imagine the reaction of the Republican leadership, not to speak of
the diplomatic consequences faced by this administration, when it
realized that my simple amendment using the President's language to
advocate for a conclusion of a migration accord with Mexico was
hijacked by Republican extremists and turned into a ``migration for
Mexican oil'' agreement.
The callousness of that so-called Republican compassion equated U.S.-
Mexico migration policy with U.S. access to Mexican oil, and
Republicans were unable to spin their way out of this outrage but
instead quickly provided another amendment that did away with this
embarrassment but provided no further incentive to conclude, not
convene, but conclude a migration accord.
Now I would like to turn to my amendment on global climate change and
tell a similar story about an amendment that passed the Committee on
International Relations in a bipartisan vote and was removed from this
bill by bipartisan tricks designed to hide the Republicans anti-
environmental stance on global climate change.
My global climate change amendment simply says that the United States
should take the lead in the world in the fight against global warming,
not Kyoto, not anything else, a lead in the world against global
climate warming. This is not a new idea. This is an amendment which
previously passed in the House. Both sides of Congress have supported
it. This very amendment unanimously passed the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, this year. And last week it
was sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce so it could be
stripped from the bill. The real goal is to save Republicans from
taking a public stand on global climate change.
What is the Republican leadership afraid of when it thwarts the
bipartisan will of the Committee on International Relations or of any
committee? Only through its procedural, back-door dealings was it able
to reverse a decision made by this committee; and by doing so, it has
staked out its opposition to the majority will of the committee, the
American people and the world community.
In this Chamber of democratic ideals, the House of Representatives is
supposed to be the place where we take a stand on the issues. If
Members disagree with my amendments, that is fine. Then stand up and
vote against them, but do not sneak them out of the bill. The American
people should be able to find out where Members of this House stand on
global climate change, stand on concluding a Mexican migration
agreement. The truth is that Republicans are so embarrassed by their
own policies they will not let these two provisions remain in the bill
or even allow a vote on the floor, the marketplace of ideas, the
greatest democratic institution in the world. That is fundamentally
shameful. Therefore, this undemocratic rule, this unfair rule should be
voted against, and I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so so we
will have an opportunity to vote on global climate change in a real
amendment or resolution on Mexican migration accord.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has offered a very strong statement, much
of which I agree with. I believe that it is very important for us to
vigorously pursue our goal of putting into place a comprehensive
migration accord, and I think it is the right thing to do.
I will admit that I do not believe it was the correct thing for that
Ballenger amendment to have been included in the legislation, and that
is one of the reasons that in the role that I play on the Committee on
Rules we chose to take and make the following amendment in order which
I believe very responsibly deals with our shared goal and the goal
that, as the gentleman pointed out, the President of the United States
has on this.
The amendment reads as follows, ``(1) that the United States and
Mexico should as soon as is practicable commence negotiations in an
attempt to reach a migration accord that is as comprehensive as
possible and which addresses the key issues of concern for both
nations; and (2) that as part of any migration agreement between the
United States and Mexico, the issues of extradition of violent
criminals and law enforcement cooperation between the two nations be
addressed.''
Mr. Speaker, I have raised these issues of concern on the issue of
extradition, and I have been working with my California colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), on this issue dealing with a
particular case in California. I do believe, as the gentleman said, the
President does want to responsibly move ahead with this.
On the second issue of global warming, I have no doubt that this
administration is very committed to dealing with that. We made a
determination when 75 amendments had been submitted to us that we would
include 42 of them, so there has been nothing secretive about this
process. It is very open. We, in fact, are discussing it right now on
the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would be here lauding and applauding
your initiative on the Mexico migration agreement if in fact you would
have a single but very powerful difference in your wording; and that
is, instead of, after 2 years of significant talks and negotiations,
speaking about a commencement, that we would be

[[Page H6721]]

talking about a conclusion. Then I would be here supporting your
amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I hope we bring about an
expeditious conclusion to this. Obviously, that is our goal. Secretary
Powell has indicated his support of our amendment, and we know full
well that he wants to deal with this.
I want to say this issue of immigration is something that we can
address in a bipartisan way. I would urge my colleagues to realize that
as we proceed to work to pass this rule and move ahead with this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, control of one's reproductive autonomy is
a fundamental human right. But the basic right is meaningless without
the knowledge and means to exercise reproductive autonomy. The United
Nations Population Fund, known as UNFPA, works with governments and
nongovernmental organizations in over 140 countries, supporting
programs that help men, women and young people to plan their families,
undergo pregnancy and childbirth safely, avoid sexually transmitted
disease, including HIV/AIDS, and to combat violence against women.
Each of these principled goals is embraced by the United States and
many countries around the world. In fact, as we have heard throughout
the Presidential trip to Africa, the President has committed $15
billion to fight the pandemic of HIV/AIDS on the African continent.
The Committee on International Relations recently adopted an
amendments by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which would
facilitate U.S. contributions to the United Nations Family Planning
Fund. The Crowley provision clarifies current law which bars U.S. funds
from any international organization the President determines ``supports
or participates in the management'' of forced abortion or
sterilization. Crowley's proposal provides strict safeguards against
the use of any kind of coercion in U.S.-funded family planning
programs; second, clarifies the current law to enable U.S. funding to
be used to help to end coercion in China; and provides badly needed
maternal health and other services in poor countries.

{time} 1130

This language is necessary because Congress authorized U.S. funds for
UNFPA, but the President refused to release them. Just last year, the
President blocked $34 million for UNFPA activities around the world.
The opposition to this funding is premised on the false notion that
UNFPA supports coercive abortions in places like China. UNFPA does not
provide abortion services anywhere in the world. Not one penny of UNFPA
funding is used to promote abortion. Unfortunately, this fallacy
diverts attention from the real issues and blurs underlying opposition
to comprehensive family planning. All UNFPA activities are based solely
on voluntary participation. UNFPA rejects coercion in any form in its
activities and works to end the coercive practices of others.
The Chinese Government's so-called one-child policy unofficially
involves some coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization
practices. The United States and United Nations do not tolerate these
practices. We stand on the side of human rights and work to put an end
to these abuses. The U.N. population fund program in China was
developed with the express purpose of moving China away from coercion
and toward delivery of voluntary reproductive health services to its
people, just as it did in India in the early 1990s.
UNFPA has operated in 32 Chinese counties and the government of China
has agreed in each one of these counties it would lift all birth quotas
and recruitment targets; improve the delivery of voluntary family
planning information and services; eliminate the use of coercive
measures; allow independent confirmation that targets and quotas have
been lifted; allow independent investigation of any reports of coercion
and suspension of the UNFPA program in any county where violations have
occurred; and allow regular independent monitoring to ensure compliance
with the principles of informed choice and voluntary participation.
This is a remarkable achievement. No Main Street human rights
organization has ever accused UNFPA of being complicit in China's human
rights violations. In fact, in May 2002 President Bush sent a three-
member State Department team to China to investigate claims against the
work there. The team found ``no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly
supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive
abortion in the People's Republic of China.'' The team recommended that
the $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to
UNFPA.
Cutting off funding harms millions of women and children in the
poorest nations on Earth and does nothing to help women in China. The
officials of UNFPA estimate that the loss of the $34 million would
prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced
abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of maternal
illness or disability, and 77,000 infant and child deaths. Just this
morning, The New York Times published an editorial strongly supporting
the Crowley language and strongly opposing efforts to remove that
language.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the editorial for the Record. I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support the efforts of UNFPA to provide the
meaningful exercise of fundamental human rights. And I vehemently
oppose any efforts to defund UNFPA which would result in harm to the
health of women, men and children around the world. Please vote against
the Smith amendment which would strip the Crowley language.

[From the New York Times, July 15, 2003]

Population--Control Politics

The House of Representatives faces a crucial vote today
affecting the health of women in 140 poor countries. Through
the authorization of the State Department budget, the House
can restore tens of millions of dollars in vital American aid
for the United Nations Population Fund or, for a second year
in a row, cut it off in the mistaken belief that the fund
colludes with coerced abortions in China.
The Population Fund is the largest agency in the world
focused on women's reproductive health. There was a brief,
unremarked ceremony yesterday in the Afghan capital, Kabul,
that illustrates what the fund does. With help from the fund,
the Khair Khana Hospital, once filthy and overcrowded, was
reopened with a large staff, modern equipment and the
possibility of helping Afghan women with complicated
pregnancies deliver their babies safely.
The Population Fund helps women give birth safely. It
fights such debilitations as obstetric fistula, a hideous and
difficult complication in pregnancy. Indeed, it is just the
kind of organization and work the United States should be
supporting. Instead, conservative Republicans stripped the
fund of American support last year because of false
accusations that the U.N. Population Fund has either stood by
or helped with coerced abortions in China.
Today's vote on the State Department budget includes a
restoration of the organization's funds, thanks to an
amendment by Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York
Democrat from Queens. Opponents, who mistakenly believe--or
cynically advertise--that they are protecting Chinese women
and unborn babies, want to kill the amendment.
The opponents, led by Christopher Smith, a New Jersey
Republican, unfairly describe the Population Fund as an
organization with a ``long history of complicity in human
rights violations'' engaged in an ``attack on women
overseas.'' These are irresponsible, unsubstantiated
accusations. They have helped persuade numerous members of
Congress that it is wiser to deny the organization American
support.
The fact is that Population Fund performs no abortions and
is working to end coerced abortion in China. An American
investigating team sent by the administration last year found
``no evidence'' that the fund ``has supported or participated
in the management of a program of coercive abortion or
involuntary sterilization in China.'' In previous years,
Congress has supported the fund with the stipulation that no
American money be spent in China. That is unnecessary, but if
that is what it takes to get the fund the $50 million it
deserves from Congress this year, it is a compromise that
should be explored.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Schiff), who had a very important amendment last
night that was not made in order.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this

[[Page H6722]]

time. I wish to speak today on three amendments before the Committee on
Rules, two of which were approved for the debate today and one which
was not. I want to thank the Chair of the Committee on Rules for his
work in supporting an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) that would urge reconsideration of Mexico's extradition policy
which currently precludes the extradition of Mexican nationals to face
charges in the United States that may carry life imprisonment or the
death penalty.
The addition by the Mexico Supreme Court of the life imprisonment
clause fundamentally means that, for the most serious crimes in the
United States, we are unable to extradite those who flee south of the
border to seek refuge. That is not in our interest. It is certainly not
in the interest of the people of Mexico to have fugitives from justice
free south of our border.
Second, I want to thank the committee for their approval of an
amendment that I offered calling attention to the problem that we have
had in our nonproliferation efforts to obtain the assistance of Russian
scientists, to bring Russian scientists into the United States for the
purpose of improving our nonproliferation joint efforts. These have met
obstacles, in part understandable as a result of September 11, but we
cannot allow the September 11 visa changes to get in the way of our
broad security interests by bringing these scientists in who are
working on nonproliferation itself.
But most significantly, I want to comment about the one that got away
and that was an amendment that I had offered calling for an
investigation into the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium
from Niger, the claim that made it into the State of the Union address.
There is a request on the Senate side, it is a bipartisan request, that
the Inspector General of the CIA and the Inspector General of the State
Department work together on an independent investigation of how that
claim rose to the level of the State of the Union, now something the
White House says was not substantiated and did not belong in that
address.
This is, I think, critical for three reasons. First, the Congress
made the most important decision it can undertake, the decision to
authorize the use of force on the basis of our intelligence. Second, in
the ongoing war on terrorism, it is essential that we have good
intelligence if we are to prevent another September 11. If we have a
problem with our intelligence agencies, we have got to find out about
it and now. Finally, our standing, our credibility around the world,
the willingness of other nations to cooperate with the U.S. in the war
on terrorism will be dependent on whether they feel they can rely on
what we represent to them about our intelligence and the quality of our
intelligence.
As this is perhaps the most graphic example of intelligence gone
awry, it is something that merits our most serious investigation and
attention. I recognize that the intelligence committees in the Senate
and the House are working on this issue, and they are doing good work.
However, as the Senate concluded on a bipartisan basis, this
investigation by the two IGs does not detract from what the Senate
committee or the House committees are undertaking, but in fact supplies
that information to both committees. This is complementary to the work
that is already going on and I think it is essential.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I congratulate my
friend on his statement and I believe that we clearly do have the
shared goal of trying to address that concern that was raised from the
State of the Union message. The reason that we did not make the
amendment in order was very simply that we do believe that the work
that is being done by both the Intelligence Committee in the House and
the Intelligence Committee in the Senate will effectively address this.
I know that the ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee
in the Senate, Senator Rockefeller, has already had a lengthy
discussion as I heard on the radio this morning with the Director of
Central Intelligence, George Tenet; and I know that this is an issue
that will be addressed in their committee tomorrow. I believe that we
will be seeing attention focused on it within our Intelligence
Committee. I know that, in a bipartisan way, concern has been addressed
from members of the Intelligence Committee that the establishment of
this could in fact play a role in undermining them. That was the reason
that we did not make the amendment in order.
But I want to say to my friend that I do believe that since the ratio
was 2 to 1, I hope that my friend will come down in support of the rule
based on that. Two amendments he liked, one he did not; so I hope that
he will join with us in supporting the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I went to Oslo, Norway, and met with
Palestinian women and women from the Knesset in Israel. The
overwhelming impact was the positive input and collaboration that came
about by women being involved in the peacekeeping process. I am
disappointed that the Committee on Rules in its wisdom could not have
been more generous to be able to include language that would have
encouraged the utilization of women in international peacekeeping
matters around the world. We have seen the impact, the difference. We
know that women understand the loss of life and the enormity of the
impact of crises involving war against families. I look forward to
working with the chairman and ranking member of the committees to
engage in that process.
I think it is also disappointing that we do not have language that
speaks pointedly to the crisis in Liberia where thousands are dying and
a million have already died, to encourage the White House to move more
expeditiously as it relates to a peacekeeping/humanitarian organization
there in Liberia. What is the hesitancy to wait on the 3 million that
have died in the Congo or the 1 million that have died in Rwanda?
I am also frustrated that we do not understand that a little island
close to our shores, Haiti, is literally dying on the vine and that the
amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) was not made in
order to provide assistance immediately to Haiti. It is certainly
disappointing that we have not had an opportunity to meet with the
President and to move forward the resources that are needed to help
rebuild Haiti, a nation that engaged and helped us in the Revolutionary
War. It is imperative that we begin to look at those issues.
And then I would say that the Committee on Rules did itself an
enormous disservice in not being able to attack head-on the credibility
that this Nation now faces with respect to the reliance on our
intelligence by the lack of accountability on the Niger reference, that
Iraq was about to buy uranium from Niger and do it imminently, if you
will, to suggest that we needed to have a preemptive attack against
Iraq. I think it is ludicrous that this body would not put forward an
amendment that would allow the truth to be told to the American people:
who had the information about the purchase in Africa, why was the
comment in the President's speech, why did he use the word
``recently,'' and whose hands can be found on this information.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who chairs our Committee on Veterans Affairs'
and has long worked on so many of these very important issues.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, later on today when this bill comes up for
consideration, I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), will be offering
an amendment to strike language that is in the underlying bill, the
Crowley amendment, which was adopted very narrowly in committee. The
Crowley amendment would fundamentally change the Kemp-Kasten amendment
that has been in effect for 18 years. The Kemp-Kasten language is
anticoercion language that says very simply that our country will not
contribute money to any organization that supports or participates in
the management of a coercive population control

[[Page H6723]]

program. Under the Kemp-Kasten language last year, Secretary of State
Colin Powell, after his due diligence, made a finding that took the
money from the UNFPA, the U.N. population fund, and sought to reprogram
each and every dollar of that to an organization or to programs that
provided family planning or maternal health care programming. Secretary
of State Colin Powell said:
``The PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have
unapproved births.'' Let me just remind my colleagues, in China you
have got to get permission by the government in order to have a child.
They have unapproved births and approved births. If you are unapproved,
if you are out of plan, as they say, if you have an illegal child, a
heavy fine is imposed upon the mother until she gets an abortion. If
she has that child, somehow escapes the family-planning cadres, she
then is severely criticized as well as fined. Sometimes up to 6 years'
worth of her salary and her husband's is taken by the government as
part of that fine. Secretary Powell goes on to say that the regime
plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to
avoid the penalties; and, therefore, this amounts to a program of
coercive abortion. He points out, and I quote, ``UNFPA's support of,
and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the
Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of
coercive abortion.''
Let us not rig this program, this test, Mr. Speaker. The Crowley
amendment would fundamentally change this anticoercion language that we
have had on the books for some 18 years. I ask my colleagues, those who
support abortion and those who do not, there should at least be a
consensus that coercion is absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable
and we will not in any way directly or indirectly facilitate its use.

{time} 1145

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman).
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we all remember when this President came
before our House and, in a burst of excessive honesty, told us
perceptively that we faced an axis of evil: three nations posed a great
threat to the United States. His phraseology deliberately harkened back
to the 1940s when we also faced a tripartite axis of evil. But what if
President Roosevelt had led us in an invasion of Italy, forced
Mussolini into hiding, and pretty much left it at that--ignoring what
was going on in Berlin and Tokyo?
It is easier to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than it is
to find a policy toward Iran here in Washington.
So I went to the Committee on Rules with two amendments. One I
identified as an important amendment with 18 co-sponsors, including the
gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke, including our ranking member,
including senior Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on
International Relations. This amendment would deprive the tyrants in
Tehran of money and would provide money for those fighting for
democracy.
Then I put forward a second amendment which I clearly identified as
unimportant, something that could be ignored by the Committee on Rules
if they chose, a mere resolution.
What did the Committee on Rules do? They killed the important
amendment. They killed a chance to really discuss our policy toward
Iran. And then they took the sense of Congress amendment, stripped out
a little part of it, and put it before this House. They did nothing to
save the House's time. We are still going to debate one of my
amendments dealing with our policy toward Iran--the unimportant
amendment. But the important amendment will not come before this House.
Today in Tehran terrorist acts are being planned. Iran is the number
one state sponsor of terrorism according to our State Department. Today
in Tehran they plan to complete nuclear weapons within a few years. I
believe those nuclear weapons will be smuggled into American cities and
either exploded or used to blackmail America. When that happens our
constituents will ask, what did the People's House do to prevent the
empowerment of tyranny in Tehran? The answer will be, the Committee on
Rules would not let us do very much of anything, but they would let us
vote on sending a good luck card to the students fighting for democracy
in Tehran.
Please vote against this rule and give us a chance to debate the most
important foreign policy issue before us today, and that is Iran and
its nuclear weapons.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) has 1\1/4\ minutes left; the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 1 minute left.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from California
whether he has any additional speakers?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would say it
is my intention to close the debate here single-handedly.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close single-handedly for our side,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. It seems to be a
radical thought in this House for us to actually spend whatever time it
takes to debate the issues. I cannot understand why in the People's
House the Republican leadership seems to be working overtime to try to
deny us the right to debate the issues that people care about. Seventy-
seven amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules last night.
Forty-two were made in order, of which only twelve are Democratic
amendments. We can do much better. And there are some very important
issues.
We heard about the Schiff amendment which deals with the African
uranium issue. I know there are some people in the White House and some
people in the leadership here in this House who do not want to discuss
this issue, but it is important because it gets to the issue of
credibility. It is about whether the American people can have
confidence in what their government tells them. It is about whether
what the United States says is respected around the world.
So if some of my colleagues do not want to ask the tough questions or
get to the truth, then fine. They can vote no on the Schiff amendment.
But at least give us the opportunity to vote up or down on some of
these very important issues.
The American people deserve an open process. They deserve a process
much better than what we are getting right now. This rule,
unfortunately, does not allow us to debate a lot of very important
issues; and I would urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms
to vote no.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and balanced rule. As was said, 75
amendments were submitted to us; 42 of those 75 were made in order. We
are going to be debating a wide range of issues.
The question that was just raised by my friend from Massachusetts is
one that will be very effectively addressed by the majority and the
minority on our House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To
try to portray a concern about that other amendment is partisan. I will
tell the Members that there are minority members on the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence who believe that we did the right
thing here.
There are concerns that exist with this legislation, but I do believe
with we should allow for a full debate, and we are going to be doing
that. The establishment of the International Leadership Act, very
important; dealing responsibly with the issue of migration, very
important; dealing with the millennium challenge issue which the
President has put forward and enjoys bipartisan support; these are all
important issues that we will be able to move forward with once we pass
this rule and pass this legislation.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
While I am extremely pleased that my amendment to help women and
girls in Afghanistan was included, I am disappointed that an amendment
to help all women and girls in MCA eligible countries was not ruled in
order.
My amendment would have simply ensured that the equal rights of women
and girls are

[[Page H6724]]

included in the Millennium Challenge Account principal objectives.
Statistics show that when we help a woman out of poverty, we help her
family out of poverty.
Women are key to sustainable development--a primary goal of the MCA.
Countries that actively discriminate against women and girls should
not become eligible to receive MCA funding.
If we had included women and girls as part of the principal MCA
objectives, we would have made a much more powerful difference in
ensuring that our programs have the greatest impact.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
adopting House Resolution 316 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2330, which was debated
yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 201, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 360]

YEAS--222

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

NAYS--201

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
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
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--11

Berkley
Conyers
Gephardt
Hayworth
Janklow
Jefferson
Millender-McDonald
Myrick
Owens
Oxley
Pitts

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw) (during the vote). Members are
reminded there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

{time} 1214

Messrs. RANGEL, SPRATT, and MARSHALL, and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to recommit was laid on the table.

____________________