Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 98 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 98 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5851-H5875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and with the chairman of the
subcommittee.
I want to first thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) for
his work in overseeing the critical rebuilding effort in Iraq.
A key element in our foreign policy is developing and strengthening
local governmental institutions. It is my

[[Page H5852]]

privilege to represent an organization, the Research Triangle
Institute, which is helping to fulfill this laudable goal. I joined the
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on a Congressional delegation
trip he led to Iraq in November, and we saw firsthand evidence of RTI's
good work in Kirkuk and elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina and I are coming
together on the House floor today to discuss the important ongoing work
which Congress supports and RTI conducts.
USAID's Local Governance Project has supported the establishment of
16 provincial councils and more than 700 local councils. The project
staff of international experts in municipal government, supported by
almost 3,000 Iraqi nationals, has worked to link local council leaders,
citizens, and municipal service departments to improve service delivery
to the citizens of Iraq. They have coached and trained 15 governors, 42
deputy governors, 420 department heads and more than 380 local service
departments.
Working with USAID and RTI, Iraqis are building the capacity to
deliver essential services, to develop transparent and participatory
policy processes at the local level, and to develop civil society
institutions that foster participation in political processes. USAID
Administrator Andrew Natsios has remarked that local government will be
the training ground for future national political leaders.
Mr. Chairman, that future is now.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) yield to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) for such remarks on the
local governance projects as he might want to make?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Burr).
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and
I appreciate my colleague including me in this colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina is correct. This is
an exciting and important work. With the Committee on Appropriations'
financial and USAID's technical support, Iraqis have seized the
opportunity to participate in government and have demonstrated an
aptitude for local governance. They are working hard to restore
services in their communities. They are drafting and approving
procedures and policies to efficiently provide government services.
They are prioritizing the needs of the people within their communities,
and they are developing budgets to support those plans.
The Iraqi people have discovered government that operates with the
consent of the governed, and they are enthusiastic about it. Their
representative officials have discovered accountability to the people,
and they are eager to demonstrate their fidelity.
There is still a long way to go in Iraq before the seeds of democracy
that have been planted are fully established. We cannot be short-
sighted with respect to these kinds of activities in our foreign
operations agenda. We must make certain that the work started by such
programs can be sustained as a partnership not only between the United
States and Iraq but also through our foreign operations activities
throughout the world.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentlemen for their
comments.
For decades, the Iraqi people have labored under the brutal
dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. In the last year, Iraqis have
established local governments and representative councils. These
entities represent a radical departure from past practice in which the
central government made all of the decisions, including many that we
believe are appropriate for the local level, such as education or
municipal services.
As the gentleman remarked, we face significant challenges in Iraq
that are going to require our continuing oversight. The United States'
assistance to Iraq is well over $21 billion thus far and is the largest
single assistance program ever undertaken in the world.
The effective implementation of programs like the Local Governance
Project is critical to American efforts to bring peace to the Middle
East and to the successful withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and
I appreciate the gentlemen for bringing this to our attention today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

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

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
In title II, in the item relating to ``millennium challenge
corporation'', after the aggregate dollar amount insert
``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``global hiv/aids
initiative'', after the aggregate dollar amount insert
``(increased by $90,000,000)''.
In title IV, in the item relating to ``contribution to the
international development association'', after the dollar
amount insert ``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the distinguished chairman for his great work on foreign
relations. I share his great concern with the fact that half the people
in this world live on less than $2 a day, that half the people in this
world have not made a phone call, that one-fifth of the people do not
have safe drinking water, and that 115 million children do not have a
school to go to.
We need to, with this crisis out there, have a razor-sharp focus on
results, not dollars spent. We need to demand results from our aid
programs, not try to comfort ourselves by saying that we spent some
dollars on certain programs.
What this amendment does is it takes $425 million out of our
contribution for this year to the World Bank, which has a poor track
record of delivering results. The World Bank is far too much focused on
process, as opposed to performance. They might record how many schools
they built, but they are not focusing on how many children we have
really educated. They may focus on what water treatments they have
helped fund but not on how many families are really getting clean water
from them.
They already do have sufficient capital to expand their programs. We
put this money, $90 million of it, into the global AIDS initiative,
which has a proven track record. It meets this year's commitment of our
$15 billion plan that we have approved as a Congress. There are
millions of orphans throughout Africa because of the AIDS epidemic.
This is a horrible pandemic. It threatens the stability of the
continent. It must be addressed.
We also put $215 million into the Millennium Challenge Account. Today
in this bill only half of the President's request is funded. This gets
us part of the way there. The Millennium Challenge Account has criteria
that ensure results. They make sure that the countries that we are
investing in rule justly, that they invest in their people, that they
pursue free enterprise, economic freedom. There is substantial evidence
that exists that shows that countries that do this have growing
standard of livings, that they are more likely to eat better, live
longer, have children in school rather than working in the fields,
speak, assemble, worship more freely. They are three times more likely
to elect their governments democratically, and they are less likely to
fight wars.
It would be mistaken to say that this amendment reduced investments
in aid. We indeed invest in a proven AIDS initiative. It is also
mistaken to say that it is designated towards AIDS funds within IDA.
IDA can continue their AIDS program with the capital they have already,
and the MCA encourages health care spending. It is also mistaken to say
that this reduces investment in Africa. The AIDS program is for Africa,
and over half of the first 16 countries chosen for the Millennium
Challenge Accounts were part of Sub-Saharan Africa.
So I encourage my colleagues to vote to support putting our dollars
where the results are, in fighting AIDS, in

[[Page H5853]]

fighting other diseases, in fighting hunger and poverty.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman in opposition to the
amendment. Because what the amendment would do is cut $250 million from
the International Development Association and IDA funds, loans to the
poorest countries in the world, mostly African countries, at low rates
of interest and long-term repayment schedules.
IDA is the source of much of the capital that poor countries use to
rebuild vital infrastructure and deal with the chronic problems of poor
health and education systems. This amendment, if we had unlimited funds
and we can do it all, it might make sense, but in light of the good
work of the committee in trying to balance needs in all the accounts, I
do not think we can possibly deal with cutting $250 million from IDA,
and, therefore, I am opposed to this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for
yielding me this time.
President Kennedy used to say, to govern is to choose, and we all
would like to do a lot of things, but we do not have the resources to
do everything.
As we know, the World Bank is sitting on top of $119 billion in
equity, enough to make investments in the area that they need to make
investments.
What we are talking about is an additional $90 million towards the
President's own AIDS initiative. Now, he did a big signing, big
photograph, but we have got to put the resources towards that to fight
the scourge of AIDS across Africa and the Caribbean and $250 million
towards the Millennium Challenge Corporation, another initiative by the
President.
We cannot underfund these initiatives. They would go primarily to the
countries that would also receive funding from the World Bank, but we
do know by now that the World Bank has the resources. It is not shallow
on resources. It has $119 billion in equity to make the types of loans
that they need to make.
We know today that dealing with the health care crisis faced in
Africa and Caribbean countries, that we would be alleviating one of the
greatest problems for their development. That is in the area of AIDS
and other health care. The Millennium Project and the President's AIDS
initiative would attack those problems head on, and we cannot continue
to underfund the President's initiative in those areas, which is what
has happened.
By increasing the funding on the global AIDS initiative, we are
showing our strong commitment to fight against AIDS in Africa and the
Caribbean nations; and in another rare moment of bipartisanship, we are
even working to support the President's own AIDS initiative,
underfunding the administration's promise by close to $800 million this
year.
Increasing funding for the Millennium Challenge Account is a good
investment that gives impoverished families in the poorest countries
access to health care, education and welfare. This is a policy we can
all support over giving additional funds to the World Bank that has the
capital that it needs now to continue to make the loans that are
necessary for the World Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership.

{time} 1500

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on
Africa, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy amendment cutting
funds for the International Development Association which is helping
the Earth's poorest countries reduce poverty.
In 2005, a country with a gross national income per capita exceeding
$2.45 a day is not eligible for IDA loans. Imagine the poverty and the
misery of nations impacted by IDA loans. IDA serves 38 nations in
Africa that are among the world's 48 poorest nations.
This amendment is exceedingly harmful to people of the 29 African
nations that currently receive IDA support, but are not included in the
President's AIDS initiative. Millions of poor Africans are the losers.
It is foolish to fight HIV by cutting IDA funding for HIV in Chad or
cutting support for children's health in Madagascar or by cutting the
support for building peace in war-torn Sierra Leone or cutting
educational assistance to Malawi.
People living in desperation and misery on $1 or $2 a day should be
supported in this House and International Development Association, and
we should not punish the planet's poorest people.
The amendment's author mentioned, where is the accountability? I
would like to point out that two nations, Turkey and Korea who were
once recipients to this aid, are now participants in IDA. This is a
program which does have oversight, which does help the poorest of the
poor in the world; and I would urge that the Members not support this
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would just like to respond to the distinguished ranking member and
my distinguished fellow Member from Minnesota. This is not a debate as
to whether we give to the poorest countries on Earth, whether we give
to sub-Saharan Africa. In both cases IDA gives, yes, to the poorest
countries but so does the Millennium Challenge Account. In fact, the
Millennium Challenge Account is required to go to the 74 poorest
countries. If you look at the 16 countries that were included in the
initial allocation, Madagascar, one of the ones my fellow colleagues
mentioned, is a recipient of the Millennium Challenge Account as is
Benin and Cape Verde and Ghana and Lesotho and Mali and Mozambique and
Senegal. So we are addressing sub-Saharan Africa. We are addressing
AIDS. We are doing it again in a way that focuses on results, that
focuses on making sure we are making a difference for the poorest
people in the world.
I do encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for
his amendment in the sense that the support that it gives the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, I think as he knows, I am one of his
biggest champions. Indeed, it is our bill last year that carried the
authorization for Millennium Challenge Corporation. But I do have to
rise to oppose this amendment, cutting IDA to pay for addition funds
through the Millennium Challenge Corporation and for HIV/AIDS.
As I said at the very outset and as the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) has said, this bill is a bipartisan one which means none
of us could get everything we wanted. Given that the subcommittee had a
budget allocation of $1.9 billion that is below what the President
requested for all his initiatives, we simply could not fund all of
them. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is one that we were not able
to fully fund. I wanted to. I would have liked to, but the dollars
simply were not there. Already our legislation cuts the International
Development Association which, of course, is known as IDA, by $211
million below the President's request. And I can assure you this is
already giving the Department of Treasury heartburn. So I feel
compelled to resist further cuts to this funding.
Diverting these funds into bilateral programs denies six times as
much as the gentleman's cuts to the poorest nations. Now, I made this
point on the Sherman amendment earlier, because other countries put up
for every U.S. taxpayer dollar that is put up, other countries and
donors and resources provide $6 for each of those. This means a cut of
six times as much when we cut this money out of there.
Mr. Chairman, I think the ranking member and the subcommittee and I
made a difficult decision to cut the World Bank funding by $211 million

[[Page H5854]]

below the request, but another $425 million would put U.S. leadership
at risk at the bank, in addition to reducing billions of dollars of
assistance for poor countries for Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
As an appropriations chairman, I have a responsibility to manage many
requests and many priorities, Presidential and congressional. And I do
think that in this bill we have found a good balance between the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the HIV/AIDS accounts, and the IDA.
And I think we have met all of those requirements. And I look forward,
let me just say, to working with the gentleman to support the
Millennium Challenge Corporation in the years ahead.
I am excited about what it is going to do. We are at the very
beginning of that, but I am very excited about the potential for the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. I hope we can provide substantially
more funding for it in the years ahead.
I can also say that if our committee receives a higher allocation in
conference, which is possible if the Senate numbers are different, I
will certainly work my hardest to ensure that more of that goes to the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. But for now I am compelled to oppose
the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy)
will be postponed.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do so for
the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the great ape populations are declining at an alarming
rate worldwide.
The continuing destruction of habitat, in combination with the growth
in the commercial bushmeat trade in Africa and increased logging
activities in Indonesia, has led scientists to suggest that the
majority of the great ape populations will be extinct in the next 10 to
20 years.
To address this crisis, in May 2001, UNESCO and UNEP established the
Great Apes Survival Project, known as GRASP.
GRASP is uniquely placed to mobilize resources and provide a
communication platform to bring the dramatic decline of great ape
population to a halt.
But, sadly, Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us includes no
funding for the GRASP program.
While I recognize that assessed contributions to UNESCO are part of
the CJS appropriations bill, voluntary contributions to UNESCO
programs, like GRASP, are usually included in the Foreign Operations
appropriations bill's International Organizations Account.
For fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated almost $1.9 million in
voluntary contributions to UNESCO programs. It is my hope that, in the
further deliberations of this bill, both here and in the conference,
serious consideration can be given to the funding of GRASP programs to
protect the great apes from total extinction.
Could I ask my friend from Arizona, the distinguished Chair, for his
help and cooperation on this very important issue as we move to the
conference on this legislation.
Mr. KOLBE. Let me say I appreciate the gentleman calling this to our
attention, and I agree with the importance of this program. I certainly
would be happy to work with my friend from California as the bill moves
to conference.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman very much for
that.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
In title III, in the item relating to ``foreign military
financing program'', after the first dollar amount, insert
the following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
In title IV, in the item relating to ``global environment
facility'', after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $13,177,734)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today on an amendment dealing with the Global Environment
Facility. It is the primary financing mechanism for important
environmental work around the world. It helps developing countries
address environmental challenges that may impact the United States as
well as those countries. And as the world's largest donor to the
institution, our country plays a critical leadership role.
The projects of the GEF fall into four major categories, conserving
bio-diversity, expanding clean energy production and its use, cleaning
up international waters, and protecting its fisheries, and phasing out
ozone depleting chemicals. All critical priorities for this country and
citizens around the world.
Since 1991, the GEF has funded over 1,000 projects in 160 different
countries. And it is not just the investment that the United States
made. A key point I think that needs to be focused on here is that for
every dollar spent by the United States the GEF leverages $15 in
funding from other sources.
I have a wide range of examples, but the committee is well aware of
the good work; and I will conserve time by not going into that. But I
do want to make the point that it is the United States as the largest
shareholder that has a unique responsibility with this program. Two
years ago, the Bush administration committed to increase its
contribution to GEF for 4 years and to pay off our long-standing unpaid
debt that was $210 million in 3 years. This agreement served as a
catalyst for other donor governments to also increase their donations.
Now, I appreciate and I referenced earlier on the floor the
difficulty that this subcommittee has given the allocation that they
were given. But that said, the subcommittee reported out a funding
level of $107 million with no arrearage payment. The amendment that I
am offering here today would add $13.2 million in order to at least
fully fund the President's budget request of $120.7 million and at
least continue the commitment towards dealing with the arrearages even
though it would put us behind schedule.
I appreciate this difficult situation the subcommittee is in. I am
prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I would seek to ask either the
Chair or the ranking member if there is some prospect that if we are
able to work this through the process, if we might be able to continue
meeting the commitment that the administration has made in the past to
fund the arrearages.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the spirit of the gentleman's
amendment and regret that I cannot support it in this context. We have
worked hard to bring a bill to the floor under a requirement to reduce
the President's request by $1.9 billion. And so in order to accomplish
this, we were forced to make, as you know, many tough choices, and
reducing funding for the Global Environmental Facility of the World
Bank, unfortunately, was one of them.
I have always worked hard to get adequate funding for the GEF because
I

[[Page H5855]]

believe it provides a vital source of funds for environmentally sound
lending. The bill does provide $107.5 million for the GEF, which is the
amount of our annual contribution. As you know, we did not include the
additional $13 million requested for arrears and that is reflected in
the funding levels of other banks as well.
It would be my hope that we could find a way to make up these arrears
either in conference on this year's bill or next year. I know of the
gentleman's commitment to GEF. I share that commitment. And I want to
assure you of my intention to work towards this goal. I thank you for
bringing this issue to the attention of my colleagues.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his dedication
to environmental issues and raising the funding for the Global
Environmental Facility today.
As my colleague knows, the bill before the House today is bipartisan,
as the gentlewoman has indicated, and of course that means that we do
not get everything we want here. Given the priorities of the President,
the priorities of both sides of the House, we did cut funding for the
Global Environmental Facility by $13 million from the President's
request.

{time} 1515

But we did fund the entire regularly scheduled contribution of $107.5
million to the GEF so that we do not go further into arrears.
Just so my colleague understands that the GEF was not the one that
was targeted specifically. The International Development Association,
or IDA, which we just discussed in the last amendment, the concessional
arm of the World Bank was cut $211 million from the administration's
request.
So I appreciate my colleague raising the issue, and I appreciate his
withdrawing the amendment and the bipartisan spirit within which the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have worked during the
course of the year, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate both, again, the difficult situation that the
subcommittee was facing and the comments from my friend the Chair and
the ranking member.
I will withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that we
could continue to focus on trying to keep this commitment. I appreciate
that there were a number of other areas that we simply had to shut the
door on in terms of paying arrears where we were in arrears, but this I
hope, if we get to the point where there are additional resources,
bears special attention because of the global impact of these
environmental programs, how they are targeted at some of the most
desperately needy of countries and how this is an area, if we do not
continue to make progress, we are going to slide back.
But I appreciate the work that has been done and look forward to
working with my colleagues so that hopefully we will be able to restore
it and gain the benefit of those important investments.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Paul:
Title II of the bill is amended by striking the item
relating to ``millennium challenge corporation''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Millennium Challenge
Account. When this program was put in place a year ago, it was
originally thought to be a program that would replace old-fashioned
foreign aid, but because the votes were not there, instead of a
transition from one form of foreign aid to another, it was just added
on. That is the way we do things here. We keep adding on in order to
satisfy everybody.
So the foreign aid bill now is up to nearly $20 billion, and that
represents $1.25 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, and it
is a $266 million increase from 1 year ago. So we are making
``progress'', if one is a strong supporter of such programs.
The strongest argument of those who endorse foreign aid is a
humanitarian argument: We are rich, they are poor, we have empathy, we
must help, it is our moral obligation. For the most part, people go
along with that. But I have a humanitarian argument, also. Mine is that
it does not work and that, if we indeed care about people, we ought to
be encouraging free markets and individual liberty, and that is when
countries become more prosperous.
But the idea that we can promote humanitarian programs by taking
literally money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich,
influential leaders in other countries and we are going to have this
miraculous success I think is a myth. It does not work that way, and
there are people who are not benefitted.
Now, it may be said by those who have promoted the Millennium
Challenge Account, that is exactly what we are trying to address. We
want to reward countries that are moving in the direction of free
markets. Now, that is a nice notion, but it cannot work. It is
impossible because when we give money to a government, it is
politicized. It becomes bureaucratic, and it has to be handed out to
special interests.
When Paul Applegarth, the chairman of the corporation for the
Millennium Challenge Account was before our committee, I asked him a
question. I said, are there any American companies that will benefit by
this type of program? I actually was pretty shocked with his answer,
because he was very blunt. He said, I certainly hope so. In other
words, even our American corporations benefit from programs like this.
So it would be nice to think that the poor people of these other
countries are going to benefit, but I think it is a greater injury to
the poor people of this country. My colleagues say the poor people of
this country do not pay taxes. Well, that is incorrect, because the
inflation tax is borne by the poor and the middle class, and that
occurs when we spend too much money. And this is too much money spent
the wrong way, and we do not have the authority to do it. Besides, how
many of us ever get calls from our constituents saying please vote for
more foreign aid? No, they are asking for more help here, and this
distracts from it.
When we do not have the money, we run up the debt. Then we go and we
literally print the money to pay the bills. We create the inflation and
the higher cost of living, and it injures the low and middle income
people the most, and they are the ones who are losing jobs.
So this is literally money coming out of our pockets for programs
that could help us in this country.
My suggestion is, since I am a moderate here in the Congress, my
moderate approach would be when we have a program like this, whether it
is 1.25 or the whole $20 billion, my suggestion is cut it, cut the
whole thing. Let us say we cut the $20 billion of foreign aid. I would
take $10 billion and put it toward the deficit, and I would join my
colleagues on the left and say, look, let us fund some of these
programs that are needed or are coming up short. Why are we cutting
veterans benefits at the same time? Why do we cut the Corps of
Engineers? Why do we not fully fund our infrastructure?
This type of spending does not make any economic sense, and it does
not make any moral sense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5856]]

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
claim the time in opposition.
Because I am going to close, unless the gentlewoman from New York
wishes to say something on this amendment, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the amendment and in opposition
to the 2005 Foreign Operations appropriations bill. At a time when our
country is facing record budget deficits, I cannot justify voting for
the largest foreign aid bill in history. We should not give away
billions of dollars in foreign aid in the name of friendship when
everybody knows that friendship cannot be bought.
Over the past four sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, 86 percent
of the U.S. foreign aid recipients voted against the United States a
majority of the time. Now, let me give my colleagues five specific
examples.
Egypt is slated to get $1.836 billion in foreign aid in this bill,
even though they voted against us at the U.N. 86 percent of the time.
Indonesia will get $151 million in foreign aid. They voted against us
83 percent of the time.
Nigeria will get $68 million in foreign aid. They voted against us at
the U.N. 76 percent of the time.
Kenya will get $67 million. They voted against us at the U.N. 81
percent of the time.
Bangladesh will get $63 million in foreign aid. They voted against us
82 percent of the time.
Not one of these five countries contributed any money or troops to
the war effort or reconstruction of Iraq.
Now, some might say, but what about the money we are giving Israel?
Well, I fully and completely support 100 percent of the $2.58 billion
in aid to Israel. They are, by far, our best ally in the Middle East.
They are the only democracy in the Middle East, and they face
increasing terrorist threats.
But I cannot in good conscience vote for a $19.4 billion foreign aid
bill when only a tiny portion of it goes to support our valuable ally
Israel.
I cannot go home to Orlando, Florida, and look waitresses and
secretaries in the eye and tell them that we took taxpayer dollars from
their paychecks and gave it in foreign aid to countries that do not
even support the United States.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote ``no'' on the
bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me follow up on the point I made earlier about the good
intentions of a program like this to promote free market changes in
certain countries, but, unfortunately, this backfires because once the
money gets in the hands of the government we then require them to
develop partnerships or alliances with businesses, which is exactly the
opposite of free markets. This is closer to crony capitalism or fascism
when we combine government money with business interests.
At the same time, we know that our corporations will also participate
in these programs. So the money once again leaves the people of this
country, many times the poor, and goes to these foreign aid programs
which subsidize certain governments, solidifying powers of certain
politicians, which then allows fungibility of their other funds to do
other things and then encourage business partnerships between
government and business which is not free markets, which literally is
undermining the move that I think is intended and that is to improve
the conditions of other countries.
If the conditions of a country are amenable to capitalism and
investment, there is never a problem of a lack of investors. The fact
that we have to do this, that means there are flaws in the system. This
will not improve it. It actually makes it worse. Just because you have
partnership with businesses does not mean you are moving toward free
enterprise. That means you are moving toward a system of
interventionism, or crony capitalism. It is not true reform.
So a program like this actually does the reverse. It has unintended
consequences. It makes our problems worse. And, besides, we do not have
the right to do it. We do not have the constitutional authority to do
it, and we certainly do not have a moral authority to undermine the
poor people of this country by making the conditions worse here.
For this reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do rise in opposition to this amendment.
I find it ironic that a few moments ago we had an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Minnesota to take money out of IDA and put it
into the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Now we are having an
amendment to take everything out of the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, which suggests to me that maybe the subcommittee is just
in the right place here in regards to the amount of the funds that we
have.
I also find it ironic that the gentleman from Texas, who is a strong
fiscal conservative, is offering this amendment. If ever there was
anything in foreign assistance that made sense, it is the Millennium
Challenge Corporation. I believe that it is the most dramatic departure
from the way we have administered and provided foreign assistance since
the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II, and I think it has a real
opportunity to make a difference in the way that countries approach
foreign assistance. In fact, we are already finding that to be the
case, that countries that are not on the list of those who are eligible
yet for consideration for the Millennium Challenge grants are saying
what do we have to do to get on that, what kind of reforms do we have
to undertake, and this is exactly what this Millennium Challenge
Corporation, which we carried in our bill last year, does.
It is different than any other foreign assistance account that we
have. It is different for four essential reasons.
First, the MCC will act as an incentive for countries to govern
justly, to invest in their own people and create the right policy
framework for economic growth. In short, it rewards good governance. No
other development or economic assistance administered by USAID or the
Department of State currently provides that kind of incentive.
Second, the MCC will offer up a laser focus on economic growth and
poverty reduction. That is unlike current development assistance
efforts where the U.S. government and other donors try to do a little
bit of everything.
Third, the MCC recognizes that successful reforms have to be
internally led. As I said a moment ago, this goes to countries where
they have made a commitment to rooting out corruption, where they have
openness and transparency, where they have a commitment to the rule of
law, where they have a commitment to the protection of property rights.
So it has to come internally in order to make this work. These are
incentive kinds of grants, technical kinds of grants, things that will
help the country do exactly what they need in order to have
sustainable, long-term economic growth.
Fourth, the Congress has given the program the flexibility to meet
the needs of the MCC countries as presented by the countries
themselves.

{time} 1530

In other words, it offers countries the prospect of local ownership
and accountability for their own development, and that is why I believe
this is critically important. The MCC promises to be one of America's
best tools to help us address poverty, and I hope we can defeat this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a copy of the letter sent to me
by the Board of Directors of the MCC:

Millennium Challenge Corporation,

Arlington, VA.
Hon. Jim Kolbe,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As the members of the Board of Directors
of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, we greatly
appreciate your leadership and support for the Millennium
Challenge Account (MCA), a key Presidential priority. The
President's request will accelerate growth and opportunity

[[Page H5857]]

for countries that govern justly, invest in their people and
encourage economic freedom.
We are concerned, however, that the limitations on your
Subcommittee's appropriations allocation caused a reduction
in MCA levels to $1.25 billion, half of the President's $2.5
billion request. This level of funding may compromise the
Corporation's opportunity to commit to full multi-year
support to all countries that qualified to compete for MCA
assistance this year and could have an impact on the support
for countries that may qualify in 2005. For this reason, we
would strongly oppose any amendments which would impose
additional reductions, and will work with you to achieve the
necessary resources for this Presidential foreign assistance
initiative. Such amendments could call into question our
commitment to support those countries that have taken
responsibility for their own development through adoption of
sound policies.
We look forward to working with you to assure MCA is
adequately funded as we proceed with our critical mission in
the developing world.
Sincerely,
Colin L. Powell,
Chairman of the Board.
John Snow,
Vice Chairman of the Board.
Robert Zoellick,
U.S. Trade Representative.
Paul V. Applegarth,
CEO, Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Andrew S. Natsios,
Administrator, U.S. Agency of International Development.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be
postponed.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to enter into a colloquy with the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, the
subcommittee chairman, for entering into this colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I am seeking at least $3 million from the State
Department's Nonproliferation Anti-terrorism Demining and Related
Programs Account to fund demining activities in Laos.
A persistent and deadly legacy of our country's involvement in the
Vietnam War continues to kill and maim thousands of children, women,
and men in the impoverished nation of Laos. I am speaking of the
millions of unexploded cluster bombs left by a decade of bombing by the
United States during the Vietnam War. This is a human rights tragedy
for the people of Laos.
From 1964 to 1973, the U.S. flew 580,000 bombing runs over Laos, one
every 9 minutes for 10 years. More than 2 million tons of ordnance were
dropped on Laos, double the amount dropped on the European theater
during the entirety of World War II. As many as 30 percent of these
bombs dropped on Laos did not explode, leaving up to 20 million
unexploded submunitions, known as bombies, litter throughout the
country. These American bombies may be 30 years old, but they continue
to kill and maim children as well as farmers clearing the land for
farming.
In the first 5 months of 2004, 39 people died and 74 have been maimed
by unexploded ordnance. In the 30 years since the end of the Vietnam
War, an estimated 10,000 Laotian people, including thousands of
children, have died. And yet while families struggle for food and
survival, tens of thousands of acres of land cannot be put into
agricultural production because the Earth is contaminated with this
deadly cluster ordnance.
In today's dollars, our Nation spent $9 million every day for 10
years dropping millions of tons of bombs on Laos. This year, fiscal
year 2004, the State Department will spend only $1.4 million helping to
remove our Nation's deadly legacy.
We have a responsibility to help to end this ongoing human rights
tragedy. I had intended to offer an amendment to more than double the
level of the current funding in this account for Laos. However, I
understand the chairman of the subcommittee has agreed he will seek to
include language in conference with the other body that sufficient
funds be found in the Nonproliferation Anti-terrorism Demining and
Related Programs Account or from the Bilateral Assistance programs for
Laos in order to continue this important work in fiscal year 2005; and,
if possible, at $3 million in order to help provide for the expeditious
removal of the unexploded munitions from Laos.
Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree he will help to include such
language in conference with the Senate?
Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is
correct in her characterization. Assuming the availability of funds, we
will seek to include report language that, at a minimum, would continue
the program in Laos at the fiscal year 2004 level; but, if possible, at
a higher level of $3 million.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I sincerely thank him for his courtesy and also for pursuing this. I
also want to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey), for her support on this matter. I look forward to working
with both of them to address this important issue.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the intent of the gentlewoman's
amendment, and I appreciate her thoughtful comments.
The problem of unexploded ordnance in Laos is real and will be
addressed immediately. I would strongly urge a significant portion of
the funds already in the bill for demining be used to address this
problem in Laos, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this
important issue to the attention of the committee.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT 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 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

LIMITATION ON ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more
than 50 Federal employees at any single conference occurring
outside the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, while those on both sides of the aisle may disagree
exactly how we got here today, I think most of us, myself included,
would say that, as far as the Federal budget is concerned, we are
spending too much and the deficit is too high. That is why I am
offering an amendment that is, I think, a commonsense approach to help
limit spending and the abuse that our constituents at home complain
about.
I will say this: when I go home to my town hall meetings, so many
times constituents ask me, why in the world is Congress spending so
much money on this or that particular program. In short, my amendment
will limit the number of Federal employees that are able to be sent to
international conferences to 50.
Recently, there has been a trend in our government to send far in
excess of the amount of staff to these international conferences,
costing our taxpayers millions and millions of extra dollars. This
amendment would simply put a cap on that number.
Now, like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this, I
understand

[[Page H5858]]

the importance of staff in our daily routines. I am simply saying that
we should send the essential staff, those necessary in order to get the
job done. Let me just give a couple of quick examples here why I bring
up this amendment.
In this year, 2004, in a conference that was in Thailand for an AIDS
conference, over 130 Federal employees of the U.S. Government were sent
to this conference. Had my amendment been in place at that time, and
been able to limit the amount of employees, Federal employees that went
over there, we would have saved millions of dollars.
To put it in the context of dollars and cents, we could have provided
a dose of nevirapine, which is an AIDS preventive medicine which
provides benefits to babies, to over 216,616 newborns in Africa. Over
almost a quarter of a million dosages could have been provided had we
had a cap on people going there.
Another example, 2002: the U.S. sent 236 people to a conference in
Barcelona, Spain. These employees were sent at a cost of $3.6 million.
Again, my people at home, the constituents at home, ask why do we spend
so much money.
Due to the limited amount of time I have right now on this amendment,
I cannot go into more of the examples we have seen in past experience
as far as excessive numbers of Federal employees going overseas to
Federal conferences. I would simply urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support this commonsense and important amendment to make a
limit as to the amount of people we send over.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume;
and I will not take 5 minutes, but just want to say that I would have
serious concerns about this amendment. I think it is something that we
can work with and perhaps solve in conference, but I would have severe
heartburn about an amendment that is as arbitrary as this.
Let us say we were, for example, to have a major conference, like the
Camp David Accords, or what we had in the Sinai a few years ago, where
we came very close to a settlement on the peace accords. Obviously,
hundreds of people were involved in that. This would arbitrarily limit
any of the funding here from being spent to send people to a conference
of that nature.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, briefly.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I do not
believe that the amendment would address those concerns, or the points
the gentleman raises, and I share his concerns there. This applies to
those that would come under this act, and that such conferences as
those could very well conceivably be coming under the other act, like
State Department and the like.
Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I realize they could be
coming under State Department, the White House and others that are not
funded under this bill; but there are a number from USAID, Treasury,
and others that would be funded and could be affected as a result of
this. So I just have real concerns about that, and we will try to work
that out.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. 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. 20 offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), amendment No. 13 offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), amendment No. 11 offered by
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), and amendment No. 17
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

{time} 1545

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Sherman

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman)
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111,
noes 312, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 380]

AYES--111

Ackerman
Andrews
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Burton (IN)
Cardoza
Chabot
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Costello
Cox
Crowley
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Israel
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kucinich
Lantos
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Napolitano
Norwood
Oberstar
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Shimkus
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Toomey
Vitter
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--312

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chocola
Clay
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer

[[Page H5859]]

Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watson
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Carson (IN)
Collins
Cummings
Deutsch
Doggett
Greenwood
Holden
Isakson
Majette
Quinn

{time} 1611

Messrs. CANTOR, BERRY, CARTER, HOEFFEL, MICHAUD, ALEXANDER, and Ms.
SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LEWIS of Kentucky, VITTER, LANTOS, DeMINT, BARRETT of South
Carolina, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida,
HOSTETTLER, COX, LoBIONDO, MORAN of Kansas, COSTELLO, FERGUSON, BISHOP
of New York, GINGREY, PAYNE, OWENS, FOSSELLA, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of
Virginia, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Lantos

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131,
noes 287, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 381]

AYES--131

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Cardin
Cardoza
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cooper
Crane
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Evans
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hoeffel
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hyde
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Leach
LoBiondo
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McNulty
Meehan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Otter
Pallone
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--287

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bell
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeLauro
DeMint
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fattah
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matsui
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Buyer
Carson (IN)
Collins
Conyers
Deutsch
Doggett
Greenwood
Holden
Isakson
Jones (NC)
Keller
Majette
Peterson (PA)
Quinn
Stenholm

{time} 1619

Mr. TIAHRT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. SHAYS and Mr. UDALL of Colorado changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy)
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

[[Page H5860]]

[Roll No. 382]

AYES--133

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Andrews
Bachus
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bradley (NH)
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hayworth
Hensarling
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (NY)
Kline
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Mica
Moore
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Pallone
Paul
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanders
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thornberry
Toomey
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Walden (OR)
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--288

Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Grijalva
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Carson (IN)
Collins
Deutsch
Doggett
Greenwood
Holden
Isakson
Majette
Peterson (PA)
Quinn
Stenholm
Waters

{time} 1627

Mr. ROSS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Paul

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 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

[Roll No. 383]

AYES--41

Bartlett (MD)
Burgess
Chabot
Coble
Cox
Davis, Jo Ann
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hayes
Hefley
Hostettler
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kucinich
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Otter
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Rahall
Royce
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Toomey
Wamp

NOES--379

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
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
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose

[[Page H5861]]

Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Carson (IN)
Collins
Deutsch
Doggett
Greenwood
Holden
Isakson
Istook
Lantos
Majette
Peterson (PA)
Quinn
Stenholm

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.

{time} 1635

Mr. BURGESS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I missed several votes so
that I could travel back to Pennsylvania to survey damage from a
tornado strike yesterday afternoon in my Congressional District.
I respectfully request the Record to reflect that, had I been
present, I would have voted:
``Yea'' on rollcall vote 377 on agreeing to House Resolution 615;
``Yea'' on rollcall vote 378 on agreeing to House Resolution 713;
``Yea'' on rollcall vote 379 on agreeing to House Concurrent
Resolution 462;
``No'' on rollcall vote 380 on agreeing to the Sherman amendment to
H.R. 4818;
``No'' on rollcall vote 381 on agreeing to the Lantos amendment to
H.R. 4818;
``No'' on rollcall vote 382 on agreeing to the Kennedy (of Minnesota)
amendment to H.R. 4818; and
``No'' on rollcall vote 383 on agreeing to the Paul amendment to H.R.
4818.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to simply point out to the Members
that by the calculation of the majority, a calculation with which I
concur, that if everyone entitled to offer amendments uses the full
time available to them under the unanimous consent agreement, we will
finish voting sometime around 11 o'clock tonight. If Members would like
another outcome, I would ask them to see whether or not they can assist
us in limiting the time taken by Members on some of these amendments,
if Members would like to get out of here before 11 o'clock.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick

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

Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Kilpatrick:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

limitation on contracts

Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to fund any contract in contravention of section
8(d)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(6)).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I first want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe), as well as our ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey), for working with us as we put together what we consider
the best bill under the circumstances of our 302(b) allocation.
The amendment before us deals with small businesses in America.
Currently, the procedure of the Federal Government is that they work
with small businesses to get them into the procurement process so that
they can grow their business and hire the people of America. This
amendment today that will be a part of the Foreign Operations bill, and
my chairman has accepted it, and I thank him very much, and I know that
he will protect it as it goes through the process, will allow the small
businesses of America to also procure government contracts for the
international assistance that we give.
I recently met with my truck and bus owners and those who do parts on
those buses and trucks, and what they said to me was they need
assistance in getting some of the foreign contracts where we are buying
trucks and buses and the like. This is an attempt to help those
businesses and other small businesses in America who can and will
assist as we rebuild communities around the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member on the Committee on
Small Business.
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the $19 billion Foreign
Operations appropriation bill. Billions of dollars of this funding will
be spent on Federal contracts performed overseas. This amendment
ensures that U.S. small businesses have an opportunity to compete for
this work.
Large contractors in the United States are currently required to
submit subcontracting plans for work performed in the United States.
These plans must simply identify small business goals and demonstrate
that small companies have a reasonable opportunity to compete for these
subcontracts. The Kilpatrick amendment merely extends this requirement
to overseas contracts.
I cannot overstate the important role of small businesses in our
economy. Whether domestic projects or overseas work, our Nation's small
businesses deserve access to Federal contract opportunities. The
Kilpatrick amendment eliminates these double standards and gives United
States small businesses a chance to compete.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, a similar amendment like this was
included in last year's appropriation bill, only to see it stripped out
in conference. I hope that this is not the case this year. I urge its
adoption.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We do believe that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) will protect the amendment.
It is a stimulant that our small businesses need so that they can grow
their businesses and hire more of our American citizens as well as
refund their lost taxes from local communities around the country.
With that, I again would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona
(Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and
I do not rise in opposition to it. I think we all support the promotion
of small business. We certainly need to have small enterprises get a
fair shot at getting contracts and getting every business opportunity.
And one of the things we have been pushing through AID is to do more
with small businesses, both here and abroad.
The agency says that it has been essentially following the
requirements of the proposed amendment now; and since it does simply
restate current law, and in the interest of expediting business here in
the House, I would accept this amendment and ask that we

[[Page H5862]]

review it in conference. So I am prepared to vote right now.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Buyer

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Buyer:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

prohibition on use of funds to request the united nations to assess the
validity of elections in the united states

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by any official of the United States Government to
request the United Nations to assess the validity of
elections in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will be recognized.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for 10
minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment seeks to end any possible form of manipulation of our
elections in November. Article I of section 4 of the Constitution
specifies that elections, including those for Federal offices in the
United States, will be conducted by the States and the Congress, and
the States and the Congress can only regulate and oversee the electoral
process in this country.
For over 200 years this Nation has conducted elections fairly and
impartially, ensuring that each person's vote will count. When problems
have arisen over the years, by Constitution, authority was granted to
Congress and the States to address them, and we have.
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and we have
subsequently amended that act over the years. Just this last Congress,
we enacted the Help America Vote Act to strengthen the election
process.
Recently, nearly a dozen Members of this House have written United
Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan requesting ``to have election
observers to monitor the Presidential election in the United States''
on November 2.
I suppose that through this letter, Members of this body were
suggesting that we, the United States, need help, that the States
cannot ensure the integrity of the election process and, therefore, we
need the United Nations monitors to look over our shoulders to make
sure we do it right in the United States.
Now, if my colleagues can imagine on Election Day, you get up, you
have your breakfast, you grab your coffee and your Danish, and you are
going to go to the voting booth. When you show up, you are curious
because you see a white van out there that says the U.N. beside it and
little blue helmets. The United Nations has arrived; we are going to
ensure the integrity of the American electoral process.
The United Nations has sent monitors to Haiti, Nicaragua, Angola,
Mozambique, and now what, the United States? I do not think so.
This request by Democratic Members to have the U.N. supervise United
States elections is rather foolish, nonsense, and silly. If anybody
wants to come here to learn how to conduct a proper election, let them
come to the United States. We are happy to teach anybody the
foundations of our Republic and democratic values.
This amendment prohibits Federal executive officials from asking the
United Nations to come in and have any authority of our election
process to assess the validity of the United States Federal elections.
The authority to ensure the integrity of the United States elections
rests with the States and the Congress by constitutional authority, and
this amendment merely seeks to keep it that way.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for yielding me this time.
I would say to my friend, and he is my friend, that I think he is
very wrong in offering this particular measure. We in the United States
go all over the world telling people about free and fair elections and
about transparency in that regard. I, along with other Members of this
Congress, have traveled throughout the world monitoring elections on
behalf of a variety of organizations that do not necessarily come under
the aegis of the United Nations.
I would say to the gentleman, I was last week elected as president of
the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe. That
organization is one of the lead organizations in the world on election
monitoring. Members from this body under the aegis of that body have
gone to the Ukraine, to Belarus. Soon we will be going to Kazakhstan. I
have gone to Russia.

{time} 1645

I was welcomed, when Russians awakened on that morning and had their
Danish and their coffee, at the election polling place; and,
surprisingly, I found that a great deal fairer in some respects than
what I saw in my own county when you were there in 2000. I suggest that
if one were not there for any other reason other than to observe an
election, it would be foolhardy for us to not take into consideration
the importance of encouraging free and fair and transparent elections,
and what better way than to tell the world we are wide open for your
peerage into the freest and fairest system in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back and am prepared at the appropriate time to
yield to additional Members.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ney).
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today in strong support of the Buyer amendment. It saddens me,
Mr. Chairman, that some members of the body seem to think that we need
the U.N. election monitors here in the United States. I was pleased to
work with the Members on both sides of the aisle to secure passage of
the Help America Vote Act, which passed overwhelmingly in the previous
Congress. That bill is being implemented today as we speak and is
addressing many of the problems referenced in the letter to the U.N.
Three billion dollars have already been provided and been
appropriated pursuant to the bill, which provides for better voting
machines, better registration systems and for more poll worker
training. I have faith in the commissioners of the EAC Elections
Commission to carry this out.
Mr. Chairman, the U.N. has its hands full helping countries around
the world that have problems far beyond anything we have experienced
here in the U.S. For example, just a few weeks ago in Afghanistan,
Taliban forces determined to prevent the onset of democracy in that
country killed 16 Afghans, simply because they had voter registration
cards.
In India, Reuters reports that militants in Kashmir set off mines and
fired at polling stations as voting began to elect a new parliament,
killing at least seven people and wounding dozens.
In Myanmar, separatist guerrillas killed four soldiers, burned
electoral rolls and destroyed voting machines.
In Turkey, a candidate for village headman was gunned down and others
injured.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the problems in other parts of the world far
surpass anything we face in this country. The U.N. needs to focus its
attention on situations like these where people cannot even register to
vote without fear of being killed.
Of course, one of the biggest hurdles facing the U.N. election
monitors will be assisting and setting up the framework for democratic
elections in Iraq.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad the U.N. is helping other countries with
their elections, and I hope they will continue to do so. We do not need
them here in the United States, however.
I thank the gentleman from Indiana for offering the amendment, and I
strongly support its adoption.

[[Page H5863]]

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished chair of the Black Caucus.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer) say we say that we need to end possible core manipulations with
regard to our elections. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) may not
be familiar, although he visited Florida right after the 2000
catastrophe, where so many African-American people and so many others
were not allowed to vote, and their votes were simply not counted.
Our last speaker talked about how the U.N. had all this work to do
all around the world. Let me tell you something. This is a democracy in
the United States. The way this democracy is built, it is built upon
the individual's right to vote and to have that vote counted, and
basically that is what did not happen in Florida and in other places.
I would submit to you that this is not a Republican issue. This is
not a Democratic issue. This is a red, white and blue issue. I cannot
figure out anything that could be more important than making sure that
every single person in your district and in my district have that right
to vote and have that vote counted.
I do believe that if the gentleman, the sponsor of this amendment,
were to have one of his constituents to come and say, ``Mr. Buyer, I
could not vote for you,'' I believe that you would tear down walls,
build bridges, do everything you could to make sure that that person
could vote.
Just this weekend when I was down in Miami, there was a headline in
the Miami Herald talking about things that Jeb Bush is doing or had
tried to do to stop folk from being able to have their votes cast and
counted. And so the beat goes on.
That is why the gentleman thinks the Congressional Black Caucus likes
coming and saying that we want monitoring? We want to make sure that
all of our constituents have their vote.
So it is not about manipulation. It is about integrity in this
system. That is what it is all about. We want to make sure that another
person is not selected but elected.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Miami Herald report, when they did their analysis and actually
looked at the Civil Rights Commission, stated that in fact that report
was overstated. They also in the Miami Herald's report analyzed and
said there was no widespread evidence of what the gentleman just said
in the well.
In fact, the evidence points just the opposite, that the election in
Florida, the officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionists when
unregistered voters presented themselves; and, in fact, during the 18
months of litigation that followed the election of 2000, only two
people in the State of Florida testified that they were not able to
vote.
Now, of the 176,000 votes that were discarded ballots in the State of
Florida, there were 65,000 that were undervotes, meaning people who
went to vote, but they did not vote in the Presidential column. They
voted for maybe State rep or State senator or for sheriff, but they did
not vote for President. Then there were 111,000 that were overvotes.
Yes, when I was in Florida, yes, I saw thousands of ballots whereby
people actually in the Presidential column, for one reason or another,
decided that they would forget the one person, one vote. What they
actually did was vote for three, four, five, six, seven people in the
Presidential column. So, by their own hand, they spoiled their very own
ballots.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, when President Bush was campaigning for
office, he said that if we were humble and treated our allies and other
nations with respect, that they would relate well to us.
I chaired the Helsinki Commission of this Congress from 1985 to 1995
and have served as the ranking member until this past year when I
became the whip. I will tell my friend from Indiana, I went to country
after country after country and said to them, you need to accept
election monitors, because you need to ensure that the world is
confident that your elections are honest and aboveboard.
I will tell my friend from Indiana that I believe America's elections
will be aboveboard, but our Nation, I tell my friend from Indiana,
ought to be too big, too confident, too proud to say to somebody, you
cannot come to the United States and see for yourself. Because if we
ask of others that they accept monitors, are we too proud, too
arrogant, too self-satisfied to say to the world, but you cannot come
to America, the freest, most open, most democratic land on the face of
the earth?
I say to my friend from Indiana, I hope my colleagues reject this
amendment, not because as some here will assert there is wrongdoing in
America but because America ought to be proud to invite all of the
world to come to America and see how democracy works.
Do we make mistakes? We do. But are we proud of our democracy? We
are.
Come to America. See us act. See our democracy. Be proud.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds, and I would just
say to the gentleman, please do not mischaracterize the amendment. I
agree with you. We welcome people to come to this country to observe.
What this amendment says, we do not believe that the United Nations
should be here to assess the validity of the United States election
process as monitors.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not even take the 60 seconds. It
seems to me there is a lot of misconceptions about this amendment here.
Yes, we do welcome observers to our elections. We welcome people coming
into this country. We have thousands of them come in every year. We
invite them to come. They come under various plans, journalists,
politicians, all kinds of people, who look at elections at the local
level, at the State level, at the national level at our conventions. I
have hosted those people in my district on election day, on primary
day, on general election day. We should want those people to come here.
What we are talking about is whether we have people come here that
have some kind of official capacity to determine the validity of our
elections. We have a uniquely, unlike most other countries which have
national elections, a National Elections Supervisory Board. Ours are so
scattered. Every State has the responsibility for determining the
elections.
So it would not be possible or not be wise to do that, and that is
why this amendment is a very simple amendment that makes sense. Yes,
come and observe, but you are not going to be here to determine the
validity of the elections.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first
acknowledge the work that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) did on the election reform bill the
last session. I was there every day attempting to help make it pass,
but it has not been implemented. Forty-one States have asked to
implement it in 2006; and then 27, including some of those, have asked
to get a waiver. So we have not improved.
We had observers in Florida in November of 2002 requested by the
Secretary of State. They came from Russia, Bosnia, Switzerland, United
Kingdom and somewhere else; and we go all over the world observing
elections. Why cannot we follow the same rules we insist on the world
following? We write the rules. We enforce them everywhere but here. We
want a fair election that is transparent, and we have not experienced
it the last 4 years.
We are tired of making sure we vote and the votes do not get counted
or getting intimidated to keep from voting. If we cannot do that as a
democracy, we have no democracy. This is the very foundation of a
democracy.
The first amendment right to freedom of speech, that is an expression
of who they want in office, and they did not get the last one that was
elected.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

[[Page H5864]]

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and wanted to stand in support of the Buyer amendment and say
also I support this for two reasons.
Number one, I am very uncomfortable with the U.N., regardless of what
their intentions could be. It is a political body. They are very, very
anti-American and I think very ineffective. Just look at their record
on human rights, their record on peace around the world, the records on
democracy. The U.N. would not be who you want to come in and straighten
out a problem.
Secondly, let us go under the assumption there was a problem and what
did we do about it. One thing to remember, and I went down to Florida.
Twenty-five of the counties in Florida that had the highest percentage
of vote spoilage, or they were accused of it, how many were controlled
by a Republican? Zero. All of the 25 had Democrat chief election
officials.
Now, as a Republican who was asked to go down there and monitor the
recount, I was expecting the worst. I went in there, as I know the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) did, and we sat in kind of
bleachers and watched Theresa LePore and Judge Burton, two of the
Democrats. Ironically, I forget the Republican's name. And they would
hold the ballots up and look at the chads.
I expected the worst, but I want to say to my Democrat friends, they
did the right thing. They were looking it in the eye. They were
resisting all the political pressure from the outside. They were
running Palm Beach and Broward and Dade County the way it should be
run, on a local level. The Democrats were doing it, and the Democrats I
think were doing a doggone good job. I went back and told my friends,
you know what, that process is fair.
Key point being is we handled the problem, we handled it locally. We
do not need a lot of outsiders from the U.N. to come in.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson).

{time} 1700

Ms. WATSON. We need observing. I observed the election in 2000 from
Micronesia. I was ashamed. I was embarrassed because I had to go out
and interpret what had happened. I did not find those elections to be
free or fair. The spaghetti ballot, the hanging chad, and the Supreme
Court's decision, cutting off the counting of votes, so the person who
had the largest number of votes did not win. And so we need the world
to see how our elections are run because Florida cheated, and we are
not going to allow it to cheat again.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has 45 seconds
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentlewoman who spoke, who used the word
``cheating,'' I hope she would choose another word because she is
definitely impugning the integrity of a lot of her Democratic
colleagues in the State of Florida who supervised the election.
Number two, I think I must infer from that sense of outrage I am
hearing from the other side that you are just as concerned about the
systemic design to disenfranchise the absentee military vote, which I
hope you are just as outraged about. But what this amendment is about
is we welcome America to observe the integrity of our electoral
process. We do not ask, though, for the United Nations to come as
monitors at our polling stations in this country. That is what this
amendment is about.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time and for her leadership on so many issues.
What in the world are we worried about? If we have nothing to hide,
then we should not have any concern whatsoever. Yet, today's New York
Times in their article on the front page cites ``election troubles
already descending on Florida.''
I truly expect that our elections will be well maintained and done in
an honest and fair way, but no American should be ashamed or scared to
have our democratic system observed and monitored by an international
agency if voters are truly not being disenfranchised in the United
States.
We have all served as monitors elsewhere. Why not have the same
standard in our own country?

[From the New York Times, July 15, 2004]

Election Troubles Already Descending on Florida

(By Abby Goodnough)

Miami, July 14.--Three years after Gov. Jeb Bush announced
a new voting system that he called ``a model for the rest of
the nation,'' Florida is grappling with some of the same
problems that threw the 2000 presidential election into
chaos, as well as new ones that critics say could cause even
more confusion this November.
The touch-screen voting machines intended to cure many of
the ills of 2000 have raised a host of other concerns here
just four months before the election. A new state rule
excludes the machines from manual recounts, and the integrity
of the machines was questioned after a problem was discovered
in the audit process of some of them. Voting rights groups
filed a lawsuit last week challenging the recount ban, and a
Democratic congressman has also sued to request a printed
record of every touch-screen vote.
The controversy over the new equipment is just one of
Florida's challenges, which also include confirming which
voters are ineligible, training poll workers on new policies
and processing a flood of new registrations.
State officials announced on Saturday that they would throw
out a controversial list used to remove felons from the
voting rolls, acknowledging that Hispanic felons were absent
from the list. Secretary of State Glenda E. Hood, appointed
by Governor Bush last year, had earlier dismissed concerns
from lawmakers and advocacy groups about the list of 48,000
suspected felons, which the state made public only after a
judge's order.
The United States Civil Rights Commission, which issued a
scathing report on the last election here in 2001, will
examine problems with the list of felons in a hearing
Thursday in Washington.
``The most important thing is to really show the voters
that there are reasons to have confidence in these systems,''
said Bobbie Brinegar, president of the League of Women Voters
of Miami-Dade County. ``But the mantra has been `trust us.'
And that is not good enough.''
Jacob DiPietro, a spokesman for Governor Bush, said the
governor was ``taking full responsibility'' for the problem
with the list, adding: ``His No. 1 priority is to have a
seamless election and an election where people have
confidence that their vote will be counted.''
The state, whose 36-day recount after the 2000 election
stunned and divided the nation, is expected to be a major
battleground again this year, with President Bush (the
governor's brother) and Senator John Kerry, his probable
Democratic opponent, fighting fiercely for its 27 electoral
votes. Mr. Bush won Florida by 537 votes last time, but
thousands of votes were discarded because of voter error on
poorly designed ballots and other problems.
The Republican-led Legislature quickly passed an overhaul
of the voting system in 2001, banning the punch-card ballots
that caused so much trouble in 2000, giving counties money
for new voting equipment and setting recount guidelines. It
adopted two-thirds of the recommendations from a bipartisan
task force that Governor Bush appointed after the 2000
election, but stayed away from some of the more
contentious issues.
Most notably, lawmakers passed over recommendations to make
the positions of county elections supervisors nonpartisan and
to review the state's policy of permanently stripping felons
of voting rights. The package that the Legislature adopted
has played a role in the new turmoil. Tucked into the law was
a provision keeping registration records secret. A state
judge struck it down on July 2, opening the way for a close
examination of the list of suspected felons to purge from the
rolls.
Newspapers then reported that the list had a simple but
glaring flaw: it guaranteed that no Hispanics, who tend to
vote Republican here, would be purged, while thousands of
blacks, who tend to vote Democratic, might be purged.
Governor Bush moved quickly to drop it, but he was too late
to avoid accusations from Democratic lawmakers and groups.
The critics have denounced the effort to keep the list
secret, the touch-screen problems and other troubles as
purposeful efforts by Florida's Republican leadership to give
President Bush an advantage here.
Unlike her predecessor Katherine Harris, who was co-
chairwoman of President Bush's 2000 campaign in Florida even
as she oversaw elections, Ms. Hood has publicly stayed away
from politics. But critics say that Ms. Hood, a Republican
and former Orlando mayor whom Governor Bush appointed, has
sown doubt by dismissing criticism of the electoral system
and by not answering questions sufficiently.
The abrupt resignation of Ed Kast, the state's director of
elections, last month--he

[[Page H5865]]

said he wanted to pursue other interests--only deepened
public distrust, said Sandy Wayland, a member of the Miami-
Dade Elections Reform Coalition.
While previous secretaries of state were elected, Ms. Hood
was the first appointed by the governor, the result of a 2003
change in the State Constitution. She reports to Governor
Bush, who is therefore more directly responsible for her
office's successes and failures.
``She is dealing with some really sophisticated, aggressive
partisans,'' said Lance deHaven-Smith, a political science
professor at Florida State University, speaking of the Jeb
Bush administration. ``She has been a good soldier, getting
up and saying, `Everything is fine, not to worry.' And come
to find out, some of the problems that people feared were
actually there.''
The coalition asked Ms. Hood's office last month to allow
an independent review of the touch-screen machines now used
by 15 of 67 counties, including Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm
Beach. The office said that only counties were authorized to
seek such audits, and told reporters that the request was an
effort to undermine voter confidence.
Through a public-records request, the coalition obtained e-
mail messages and other documents from Miami-Date election
officials who referred to a flaw in the touch-screen
equipment's ability to audit elections results, a backup way
of recording votes. The e-mail messages date back as far as
June 2003.
Constance Kaplan, the Miami-Dade County elections
supervisor, publicly acknowledged the problem this spring.
This month, the company that makes the machines, Elections
Systems and Software, provided software to correct the flaw,
which the county and state say will not affect the machines'
accuracy.
``It is important to note that the anomaly was rare, and
all votes were counted as the anomaly did not affect the vote
itself but rather the audit after,'' Ms. Hood's office
wrote in a statement Tuesday.
Nicole de Lara, Ms. Hood's communications director, said
that Ms. Kaplan's office had ``unfortunately'' not alerted
Ms. Hood to the problem, and that she first learned of it
from an article in The Daily Business Review in late May.
Some critics suspect that Mr. Kast's resignation was related
to the malfunction, but Mr. Kast said in an interview it was
not.
Ms. Wayland is among many here who contend that counties
like Miami-Dade and Broward adopted touch-screen technology
too soon, swayed by aggressive lobbyists. The 52 counties
that do not use touch-screen equipment use optional-scan
machines, which produce records that can be manually
recounted.
A recent analysis by The Sun-Sentinel found that touch-
screen machines in South Florida failed to record votes eight
times more often than optical-scan machines in the March
presidential primary.
Nonetheless, Ms. de Lara said touch-screen machines were
wholly reliable for tabulating votes. She added that they
would never require a recount because under State law the
only reason for a manual recount is ``voter intent'' when a
voter makes too many or too few choices. Touch-screen
machines do not allow people to vote for more than one
candidate, she said. And if people do not choose any
candidate for a given office, that is their prerogative, she
said.
The rule says no manual recounts will be conducted when
votes are cast by touch-screen machine.
The election reform coalition and other groups have also
expressed concerns about a new policy on provisional ballots,
used by Floridians if poll workers cannot verify their
registration on the spot. The Legislature decided that
provisional ballots cast outside a voter's home precinct can
be thrown out, which voting-rights groups call unfair.
Florida is one of several States where people are
questioning touch-screen technology. California's Secretary
of State, Kevin Shelley, has prohibited the use of machines
from Diebold Election Systems in four counties for the
November election, and has ordered that touch-screen systems
bought after July 1, 2005, produce a paper record that is
verifiable by the voter.
``There's no question in my mind that ultimately there will
be paper trails in every county in Florida,'' said
Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat whose suits
challenging paperless voting systems are on appeal. ``The
only question is when.''

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to 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. Speaker, for those of us who were here
in this House on January 6, 2001, to challenge the election, this is, I
guess, a matter of urgency. Monitoring elections is not punishment, it
only helps our democracy. This is not a punishment. This is to say to
all of the people, thousands who did not have their vote counted in
2000, that we care and this country is a democracy. Sweet land of
liberty, that is what we know America to be. And no one should be
ashamed or afraid, including the United States military, to have
international monitors. All of us will demand that all votes are
counted, civilians and the military. None of us should be afraid to
have our election system scrutinized. Again, it is not a punishment, it
is only to provide for a consistent, fair election. It is for the
protection of the democracy that we believe in.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to turn in a copy
of the Certified Vote Organization. Over 1,700 people, that is
technologists, lawyers, political scientists, says that the technology
that we are using in the upcoming election is flawed.
I come from Florida * * * No, we are not going to get over it. And we
want verification from the world.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman's words be taken down.
She said that ``you stole an election.''
The CHAIRMAN. All Members will suspend.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) asked that the gentlewoman's
words be taken down.
The Clerk will report the words.
In the meantime, all Members will cease from conversation. The
gentlewoman will be seated.

{time} 1715

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:

I come from Florida where you and others participated in
what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make
sure that it does not happen again. Over and over again,
after the election, when you stole the election, you came
back here and said get over it.

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4818) making
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes, when certain words used in debate were objected to and on
request were taken down and read at the Clerk's desk, and he herewith
reported the same to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. As stated by the Chair in response to a
parliamentary inquiry on February 27, 1985, Members should not accuse
other Members of committing a crime, such as ``stealing'' an election.
By accusing an identifiable Member of stealing an election, the
gentlewoman's words are not in order.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the
chair. I ask unanimous consent to clarify my words.
Mr. BUYER. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

{time} 1730

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is: Shall the
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Buyer

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) to lay on the table the appeal of
the ruling of the Chair.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H5866]]

A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 187, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 384]

AYES--219

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
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
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
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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
Tancredo
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)

NOES--187

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
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
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--28

Alexander
Bell
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Carson (IN)
Collins
Davis (TN)
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Ford
Gephardt
Greenwood
Hayes
Houghton
Isakson
Kind
Majette
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Meeks (NY)
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Quinn
Roybal-Allard
Stenholm
Waxman

{time} 1814

Mr. BISHOP of New York and Mr. LIPINSKI changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. PICKERING, LEWIS of California, THOMAS, and BURR changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 384,
tabling the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Without objection, the words are
stricken from the Record.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman may
proceed in order this day.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will resume its sitting.
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. 4818, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all
time for debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Buyer) had expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Farr

Mr. FARR. 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 Mr. Farr:
At the end (before the short title), add the following:

united states military personnel in colombia

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be made available for the assignment of any United States
military personnel for temporary or permanent duty in
Colombia if that assignment would cause the number of United
States military personnel so assigned to exceed 550.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona
(Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey), for the opportunity to debate an important topic on
foreign aid to Colombia under the Plan Colombia.
The amendment that I am going to offer today would cap the military
personnel in Colombia. The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe)
knows how much Colombia means to me as a former Peace Corps volunteer
in that country, and I would like to debate this issue with my
colleagues here on the floor.
In the original Plan Colombia, Congress placed caps on the number of
personnel that would be allowed in Colombia, U.S. military personnel
and U.S. civilian personnel. Those caps were put in place to prevent
the growth of the U.S. military commitment in Colombia. I became very
concerned when I

[[Page H5867]]

heard the administration had asked Congress to increase the manpower
caps in Colombia to 800 U.S. military personnel and 600 contractors.
It has been pointed out to Congress just last week by General Richard
Cody, who told the House Committee on Armed Services that the recent
troop deployments in Iraq have taken a toll on U.S. readiness to deploy
elsewhere and even to replace troops currently deployed in U.S.-led
military combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan. To quote General Cody, ``We
are stretched thin with our active and reserve component forces right
now. Absolutely.'' Yet the administration wants to double the number of
troops allowed under the manpower caps from 400 to 800.
Even General Hill of SOUTHCOM recently said before the Committee on
Government Reform that rebuilding the social and economic system is
needed in order to solve the problems in Colombia.
But today the administration has been calling Members' offices to ask
them to oppose the Farr-Schakowsky-McGovern amendment, because the
administration is dead set on working to expand the military aid, not
the economic aid to Colombia.
After 5 years of spending almost $4 billion on Plan Colombia, is it
not time that we reassess our policy? The Committee on Armed Services
did that. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is to be
commended for his work on the Committee on Armed Services, because he
was able to get a reasonable ceiling on U.S. personnel in Colombia. He
got bipartisan support and amended the defense bill to do just that. I
am asking the same in the foreign ops bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farr-
Schakowsky-McGovern amendment. This amendment simply puts the House on
record in support of language that the House has already agreed to as
part of the defense authorization bill, and it is consistent with the
Committee on Appropriation's report language on troop levels in
Colombia.
The amendment allows for funds to support an increase in the number
of U.S. military personnel in Colombia but continues the practice of
this Congress to limit that number. The amendment allows for the
current cap of 400 U.S. military personnel allowed in Colombia to be
raised by 150, for a total of 550.
Mr. Speaker, when Plan Colombia was first presented during the 106th
Congress, we were told it was strictly for the purpose of
counternarcotics. In order to ensure that would be the case, the House
placed strict prohibitions on funds being used for purposes other than
counternarcotics.
Since enactment of Plan Colombia, the policy has changed. Now, as
many of us have warned, the Bush administration is seeking to increase
military involvement by the United States in Colombia. The
administration wants to double the number of U.S. soldiers that are
permitted to be deployed to Colombia.
This House placed caps on the number of U.S. troops in Colombia for a
reason, and we should stick to the caps. We have provided $3 billion to
Colombia over the last several years. This bill seeks to provide over
$700 million for the Andean Region, including Colombia, and now we are
being asked to commit more of our Nation's sons and daughters to the
violence in Colombia.
Make no mistake, this is no longer a counternarcotics mission, and it
is not a fight against terrorism that has anything to do with 9/11. It
is a war, and sending more troops to Colombia means risking the lives
of more Americans.
My colleagues on the other side of this argument seem to see no limit
to what is an acceptable cap on U.S. investment in Colombia in terms of
dollars and lives. As justification, they seem comfortable to toss
around terms like the ``war on drugs'' and ``fighting terrorism''
without really discussing what that means and what the implications are
for our country.
Despite our investments in Colombia so far, there have been no
improvements in the overall problem of drug consumption in this
country, and there has been no reduction in the violence in Colombia.
I have seen firsthand what a beautiful country Colombia is. I have
met people from all sectors of Colombian society and traveled
throughout Colombia. It is a wonderful nation but one in the midst of a
civil war.
I believe what the Colombian people want and need from the United
States is support to help improve the lives of its people. Sending
troops will not accomplish that goal. If we allow the administration to
double the number of U.S. troops in Colombia this year, what will next
year's request look like?
We have heard from numerous military and civilian experts about the
strains being placed on our Armed Forces as a result of the military
conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and additional homeland security
needs. Instead of sending another 400 of our service personnel to
Colombia, we should look for ways to ease the burden on our forces.
Vote to affirm the House-passed defense authorization and in support
of the Committee on Appropriations. Support the Farr-Schakowsky-
McGovern amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, which would
limit the number of U.S. military and contractor personnel in Colombia.
While I certainly can and would debate this on policy grounds, let me
instead debate it on process, which I think is just as important here.
This is an issue, and Members ought to know this, being currently
decided in conference by the House and Senate Committee on Armed
Services.
Permanent law limits the number of U.S. military and contractor
personnel in Colombia to 400 each. That was enacted in the fiscal year
2002 foreign operations appropriations bill. The House Committee on
Armed Services in their 2005 defense authorization bill included an
increase in the number of military personnel to 500 and left the cap of
400 on contractor personnel. The Senate included in their bill an
increase in military personnel to 800 and contractor personnel to 600,
as the administration requested. Then on the floor of the other body,
an amendment to limit these increases failed by a 40 to 58 vote.
This Committee was consulted by the administration on the personnel
cap increase, and the House leadership decided that the authorizers
would take the lead, which I think is appropriate.
The number of personnel in Colombia ought to be an issue of
authorization. We provide the funds, but they should decide how many
personnel may be in that country.
While my colleague may say this will allow the United States to get
more deeply involved in Colombia, if one looks at the appropriation
levels, that is not true. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative is
streamlined from last year's $731 million.
So a vote in favor of this amendment would put this subcommittee
right in the middle of the conference negotiations between the Armed
Services Committees. I do not think we should be in that position.
Let me say a word on policy. Until recently, the agencies involved
were able to work comfortably within the ceilings. The increased pace
of implementation for all the programs we support being undertaken by
the Uribe Administration offers an opportunity for real progress. The
current cap levels have recently come to hurt management efficiency and
planning and prevent full implementation of programs.
The average number of U.S. military and U.S. civilian contractors has
grown as programs have been fully implemented or as new programs have
started, such as the anti-kidnapping program started with the
supplemental funds we appropriated last year.
During 2003, the number of U.S. military varied from 128 to 396; that
of civilian contractors from 246 to 400. Requirements in our bill
requiring human rights vetting and the prohibition on combat will be
maintained.
Let me just say, in conclusion, that we have had some significant
achievements in our efforts to eradicate coca in Colombia. Cultivation
has been reduced by 21 percent in the last year on top of 15 percent in
the year 2002. We

[[Page H5868]]

have reduced potential production of cocaine by over 20 percent. The
number of communities that have voluntarily and manually eradicated
cocaine is over 8,000 hectares in the year 2003.
So these are some of the reasons, but we will hear more in a little
bit, why we ought to not support this amendment. I urge my colleagues
not to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I support the Farr amendment and would like to take this opportunity
to raise another equally important and related issue.
Colombia is a nation that has been embroiled in a 40-year civil war.
Despite this fact, as Members of Congress we must seriously question
Colombia's commitment to winning that fight. I say this because,
currently, Colombian law excludes from their military draft individuals
who are high school graduates. In other words, if you graduate from
high school in Colombia, you do not have to serve in their military.
Colombia is sending its least fortunate citizens off to fight its
civil war, but it is unwilling to require the sons and daughters of the
elite to fight. If the elite, educated Colombians will not send their
sons and daughters to fight in their own civil war, why should American
troops be sent to Colombia in their place?
Every year we hear that this issue is being addressed by the
Colombian government, but over and over again, fact remains, it has not
been corrected, and every year we get an increase for more and more
U.S. troops to fight in that civil war.
The Bush administration is willing to involve more U.S. men and women
in Colombia's civil war, while the elite of Colombia society is
protected from military service. This administration now wants to
increase the troops to 800 people, exposing more of our young men and
women to harm.
Colombia needs to reform its conscription laws to make military
service universal and fair. It needs to change its laws to do away with
the existing discriminatory practices and create a universal military
service obligation without distinction for economic, social or
education conditions.
The Bush administration wants an open policy to send as many military
troops and contractors to fight in Colombia's 40 year civil war, while
Colombia's elite has exempted itself from military service. We should
not be involved in Colombia's civil war at all.
At a time when our military is already stretched thin in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the Bush administration should not be sending yet more
American troops overseas to fight in a war that well-off Colombians
seem unwilling to fight for. I ask and urge our Members to support the
Farr amendment and limit the U.S. involvement in this unjust civil war
in Colombia.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
It is interesting, the United States does a lot of things around the
world. Some things we do very well, some things we do so-so, and some
things we do not do very well. But it seems to me, curiously, that in a
political body our history is that those things we do very well, we end
up saying, ``Well, let's stop doing it.'' Those things we do so-so, we
just kind of hold back. And those things we do very poorly, we end up
saying, ``Let's throw more money at it.''

{time} 1830

Well, I would share with the folks of this body that what we are
doing in Colombia under Plan Colombia and have been doing under Plan
Colombia for the last few years is working. We are helping a democracy
in the Western Hemisphere get on its feet and protect its institutions
with a minimum of investment.
Yes, we have spent $3 billion or $4 billion. Yes, we are going up
incrementally, a very little bit, to 800 military personnel or as many
as 600 civilian contractors under what is being discussed in the
conference committee. But the net result, I say to my colleagues, is
very positive. Let me just share a little with my colleagues.
Colombia, which has been a home for significant disruption in civil
society over the past decade, let alone the 40 years that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) reported, homicides this year are down 16
percent from last year in the first 4 months of the year. Massacre
events have dropped from 34 in the first 4 months of last year to 20
this year. Kidnappings have dropped from 820 to 447. Highway robberies
have dropped from 445 to 336. Vehicle thefts have dropped from 4,859 to
3,489.
Mr. Chairman, the assistance we are giving our friends in Colombia is
working. We are helping them protect their institutions and their civil
society from encroachment by criminals and terrorists. It is absolutely
important that we finish this job, that we help our friends protect
their democratic institutions and come join us in the Western
Hemisphere as a fully functioning democracy.
Now, I would just add that our efforts are not limited to law
enforcement or military. We are also down in the despeje, helping the
folks who used to do coca production learn other crops and
alternatives. We are in there with the justice training, helping their
justice system set up courts that function so that people have due
process, so that we have fair trials. We are in there with USAID
helping folks rebuild their country.
Now is not the time to pull the plug. Now is the time to pay
attention to the effectiveness that we have clearly implemented in
Colombia under Plan Colombia and move incrementally to improve their
prospects.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr-Schakowsky-
McGovern amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about America, about us, and about
the pressures placed on our uniformed men and women serving in the
Armed Forces. In effect, this amendment matches what the House has
already approved in the Defense authorization bill. In this sense, it
is a conforming amendment. Everyone in this House knows that America's
troops are stretched dangerously thin. Every day, there is a story in
one of the major papers about the stresses facing American troops as
more are deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world.
We are diverting troops from South Korea to Iraq, and we are placing
burdens on our Guard and Reservists just to give some small amount of
relief to our regular military units before they are redeployed into
combat once again.
Faced with these tremendous strains, the administration has come
forward and asked Congress to double the number of troops in Colombia,
offering no more compelling a rationale than Colombia needs more of our
men and women for their civil war.
The Farr amendment, like the Taylor provision in the Defense
authorization bill, offers a prudent alternative: provide a modest
increase of 150 more troops, give the U.S. military in Colombia a bit
more flexibility and relief, retain the private contractor cap at 400,
and evaluate our global military situation over the next 12 months.
I do not want any Member of this House to be fooled. This latest bid
to raise the military troop cap will not be the last. The
administration has assured Congress repeatedly that no increase to the
troop cap would be necessary; yet, now their story has changed. Will it
change again in another year or two? Let us refresh our memories on
what the administration has told Congress about the current troop cap.
On April 4, 2001, General Peter Pace, commander of the U.S. Southern
Command said, ``That troop cap, sir, is well within the limits that I
need to do the job that I have been given, and I support it.''
On October 4, 2002, Brigadier General Galen Jackman, J-3 Chief of
Operations at the U.S. Southern Command testified, ``We have a 400-
person military cap in Colombia. We do not envision that that is going
to change. Typically, we have maybe a couple of hundred people in the
country at any given time.''

[[Page H5869]]

On March 7, 2003, Mark Grossman, the Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs stated, ``There are caps on the number of people who
can be in Colombia at any one time, and there is no one who is
advocating the breaking of those caps.''
And on August 19, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
declared, ``I think it would be unlikely to be anything that would
break that cap.''
Mr. Chairman, when Plan Colombia was first launched and American
troops first sent down to Colombia, Congress was told we were only
going to fight the drug trade. Then we were asked to commit our troops
to fight not only a drug war, but to join the campaign in a
counterterrorist, a counterinsurgency civil war. Now we are being asked
to double the number of our soldiers, boots on the ground in Colombia.
There is a term for what is happening in Colombia. It is called
``mission creep.''
Mr. Chairman, Congress was right 4 years ago to impose military
personnel caps in Colombia. It was a smart and prudent safeguard
against any rapid escalation of U.S. involvement in Colombia's internal
armed conflict. We did the right thing then. The Farr-Schakowsky-
McGovern amendment is the right thing to do now.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on U.S. troop caps in
Colombia.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time
remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 13\1/2\ minutes
remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe this is mission creep,
this is more like Mission Success. But I want to say first before I get
into it, and I appreciate that the gentleman from California has agreed
to withdraw his amendment, as I have tremendous respect for the
gentleman from California who has truly been committed to Colombia, who
was in the Peace Corps in Colombia, and has worked through many of
these problems. And the gentleman from Massachusetts has shown, through
his personal visits to Colombia in a repeated way and in different
areas that he is truly and deeply concerned, as is the gentlewoman from
Illinois.
I think it is important that even when we have deep differences of
philosophy on how to approach narcotics, how to approach things like
sending our troops overseas, that we treat each other with respect here
in this body and it is very important, even in these most contentious
times, that we try to do that here; and we all need to work towards
that. But we do have some disagreements.
First, the reason I say that I believe it is Mission Success is that
one way we measure this is whether we have succeeded in reducing the
massacres which have gone down this year compared to last year by 41
percent, massacre victims by 55 percent, kidnappings by 46 percent,
executive kidnappings by 60 percent, illegal roadblocks by 66 percent,
roadblock kidnappings by 61 percent, bank robberies by 66 percent; in
addition to the statistics we are getting on cocaine and heroin
seizures which are substantially up, but which often, as we all know
are fungible, because it seems like we always discover more but, in
fact, at this point, we cannot even find in organized areas big plots
of heroin, which has been a growing problem. They have moved it into
higher altitudes; and, quite frankly, we did not understand how hard it
was going to be to continue to make the reductions. Similar in coca.
They have reconfigured. We are making progress. We believe we are at a
critical tipping point.
We have an administration in Colombia that has finally understood a
basic point, not only about the DMZ, but about going after, in a
repeated way, the coca growers.
I am a strong supporter, as the gentleman from California knows, of
alternative development. We have met down in Colombia with leaders
there and understand unless we can rebuild their justice system, it is
the oldest democracy in South America, but unless we can rebuild that
justice system, we have deep problems, and we have worked to try to
make sure funding goes both ways.
But, quite frankly, nobody will run for office if they think they are
going to be assassinated. Businessmen are fleeing the country if they
think they are going to be kidnapped. I went in Nelson Mandela Village
with many of the displaced people, and they do not want to go home
because, first, the FARC comes through and terrorizes them, then the
paramilitaries come through and terrorize them; often the kidnappings,
and what they need is some order.
We have an administration under President Uribe who is giving the
order. And, to my view, and I think to most observers, this is the
model for Iraq. By the way, we are not asking for 800; we are saying a
cap, and that way we do not have to come back. The number there of
advisors varies. These are not fighters, soldiers in the sense of them
shooting bullets like in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are advisors. In
my opinion, this is where we want to be in Iraq, this is where we want
to be in Afghanistan, where we are arguing how many advisors we have
there.
But the people on the ground in Colombia who are fighting and dying
are Colombians, not Americans. And they are fighting, by the way, over
something that is our drug habit and Western Europe's drug habit. They
did not have, and I heard them all the time here, a civil war. They
have at different points in time, like many countries, had people who
are displaced landowners or people who felt land distribution was
unfair, which it generally is in South America, and had a civil war;
but this is now a narcotics war with only a small pocket.
The total support for the FARC is less than the drug lords,
terrorists, dealers, and other terrorists groups in the United States.
We would not like it if Colombia referred to us as having a civil war
because we have drug dealers in our country or we have terrorists in
our country. The group that tried to negotiate the peace, and many of
them have come out, may have at one time been there for altruistic,
civil war motives; but this is a classic terrorism war at this point,
and Uribe is going after it. He, as much as anybody. And we can see it
in Medellin; we can see it in Putumayo and in other areas working for
alternative development.
I believe this lifting of the cap which may be only 450, may be 500,
hopefully will eliminate the need to come in, if there are times when
we need a few more, of advisors to train the Colombians and to use the
model where they are really turning the progress. Quite frankly, if we
do not reach a tipping point, we have a problem, and we need to work
together, that after these people start to move back into their
villages, after they start to rebuild their communities, we absolutely
have an obligation to help with the financial alternative development,
to help them rebuild those institutions.
I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) working in this bill to allow,
one group that I worked with was Kid Save where we have many of these
older kids who are orphaned or who have been abandoned, and this bill
now allows some money to be able through AID to help those kids in
adoption in the United States and in Colombia; and that is the type of
thing we need to be working towards. But to achieve that, we have to
have order.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member
of the committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment.
As part of the fiscal year 2001 supplemental for Plan Colombia,
Congress limited U.S. military and contractor presence in Colombia to
800 people. That bill, which first established our support for Plan
Colombia, also strictly limited our assistance to Colombia for
antinarcotic purposes.
As many of my colleagues may remember, that decision was made because
Members were concerned that our involvement would increase as time went
by and that the United States would expand the scope of its involvement
from an antinarcotics campaign to an anti-insurgency campaign.

[[Page H5870]]

As the involvement of the Colombian terrorist organizations and drug
trafficking increased, Congress approved an expansion of the authority
governing our involvement in Colombia. Essentially, we allowed our
resources and manpower to be used more broadly to pursue terrorist
organizations involved in drug trafficking. The overall U.S. manpower
caps remained in place, but were adjusted to allow 400 military and 400
contractor personnel, and this was done at the request of the
administration in the 2002 Foreign Operations bill. The expanded
authority was approved with those manpower limitations in mind; but
this year, the administration has requested an expansion of our
manpower cap to 800 military and 600 contractor personnel.
The House-passed Defense authorization bill partially grants this
request, increasing the manpower cap to 500, while the Senate version
of the bill grants the entire request to allow 800 military and 600
contractors. Today, the House should send a clear signal to the
conferees in that bill by voting to limit our military presence to 550.
Our Armed Forces, and especially the Army and Special Forces, are
stretched to the breaking point with our commitments in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

{time} 1845

It will take years for us to recover. While an increase of 400 may
not seem large, I view this as a manifestation of a long-term plan to
ramp up U.S. involvement in Colombia. Who knows what expansion will be
sought next year?
The request to increase manpower is clearly intended to expand U.S.
troop involvement in the Colombian's war against the FARC, that war
that has been under way for 20 years. Solving Colombia's problems will
not be accomplished with a few hundred additional U.S. soldiers. There
must be a comprehensive effort that includes a plan for reintegration
of former combatants back into Colombian society.
I respect the view of others. I certainly understand their point of
view. I have always supported assistance for Colombia in the context of
a plan that I thought made sense. The U.S. is now spending close to $1
billion a year in Colombia, including ever-increasing amounts found in
the DOD appropriations bill. I do not support this manpower increase,
because I believe it continues to expand U.S. involvement, and a
violent political struggle will only lead to an ever-increasing
commitment of U.S. manpower.
The amendment grants a modest increase in military manpower, reflects
the House position as contained in the House defense authorization
bill, and it is the soundest policy, in my judgment.
I urge my colleagues to support the Farr amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity
to speak, and I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) to put a cap on U.S. military
and contract personnel assistance assigned to our friend, the Republic
of Colombia.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It ties the hands of the
President, our Commander in Chief, from making military and
counterterrorism decisions. Specifically, this bill makes no exceptions
to the cap, greatly limiting Presidential action. This can be a serious
problem, should the President, Republican or Democrat, ever need to
deploy U.S. personnel to safeguard American citizens or security, since
the amendment would force all U.S. assistance under foreign operations
to be cut off. This would mean that development programs,
counternarcotics initiatives and U.S. security could be severely
damaged under this amendment.
The increased pace of implementation for programs we support being
undertaken by the Uribe administration in Colombia offers an
opportunity for real progress towards our goals, but current cap levels
hurt our efficiency, prevent full implementation of our programs.
Draft legislation to raise the military cap to 800 and the civilian
cap to 600 was included in the fiscal year 2005 DOD authorization bill,
as it was recognized it is necessary to increase the cap to ensure
continued success in Colombia.
I think it is important to recognize that the Republic of Colombia is
Latin America's oldest long-standing democracy, and it is important to
recognize that Plan Colombia is working.
Let us take a closer look at the success in Colombia in fighting
drugs in partnership with our friend, President Uribe. Coca cultivation
has declined by 21 percent in Colombia and over 33 percent in the last
2 years. The Colombia coca crop has been reduced to 127,000 hectares
from 169,000 hectares 2 years ago. Potential production has been
reduced by 20 percent for export quality cocaine, and potential pure
heroin production has been reduced by 10 percent just this past year in
2003.
Ladies and gentlemen, the elected government of Colombia is restoring
basic protections to every Colombian community, because Plan Colombia
is working. Police presence has been extended in all 158 municipalities
in Colombia that had no police before, and 87 Colombian citizens have
been extradited to the United States on narcotics-related charges. A
government presence in all of Colombia's 1,098 municipalities has been
established for the first time in the country's history.
Again, Plan Colombia is working, and Plan Colombia is a key component
of our fight against terrorism.
We must also remember the strong link between terrorism and drug
trafficking. The funds from drug sales are often funding worldwide
terrorist activities. Specifically in Colombia, desertions among
narcotrafficking terrorist groups are up 80 percent, and child soldiers
are increasingly being voluntarily repatriated.
In 2003, nearly 7,000 narcoterrorists were captured. Colombia's
murder rate has dropped by 20 percent. Terrorist incidents have dropped
by 49 percent. Terrorism cases in Colombia were down 48 percent in
2003; and in a July, 2003, poll, 65 percent of Colombians say they felt
more secure in July of 2003 than they did one year before in July of
2002, which happened to be one month before President Uribe took
office.
Again, Plan Colombia is working.
Finally, on the human rights front, kidnappings are down by 26
percent in 2003. Homicides reached their lowest level since 1987. Of
2,500 human rights allegations in Colombia over the past year, there
have been no allegations of human right abuses filed against U.S.-
trained units and only 2 percent against the Colombian military,
compared with 40 or 50 percent just 7 years ago.
Again, Plan Colombia is working. Our partnership with President Uribe
is working. It is strong. The eradication of narcotics and regional
security is a priority. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes at this time.
I want to respond to the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman
from Indiana. They say that Plan Colombia is working, and it is working
under the existing caps. My point is that, as a person who lived in
that country and worked in the economic development and the community
development as a Peace Corps volunteer, is that I believe that Colombia
has the capacity with our help to win this war on terrorism, to win
this war on drugs, and it is the obscene amount of money that drug
cartels dumped into the country that is doing it.
But you are not going to win that by putting all of the emphasis on
the military side, and that is where the mission creep is. We have the
most amount of money being spent on the military than we ever have, and
we are winning the war. Now we need to spend money on the civilian
side, on the economic side.
You cannot win this war. What you have to do is win the peace, and
the peace will not be won until the investment is in Colombians to do
the job for themselves.
My job in the Peace Corps was to work myself out of a job, and I
think what we have lost track of here or lost sight of is that we are
not really emphasizing how do we get these countries to do the job
themselves. How do we get the contractors that are being paid American
dollars, how do we get military that is our military to work themselves
out of a job? Until we answer that and see that we are moving in that
direction, I think we are asking the wrong question and we are quoting
the wrong facts here.

[[Page H5871]]

Yes, it is moving in the right direction. In fact, we would argue
that, because of the way it is moving, there ought to be a greater
emphasis, not a less emphasis, on local economic development, on
fighting the war on poverty. There is only 20 percent of the budget
that now goes to the economic side of it. That is the least amount of
money since the war in Colombia, the Plan Colombia began. So the
mission creep is on the military side, and I think the mission creep
ought to be on the other side, on the economic side. Until we win the
war on poverty, we will not win the peace, and until we win the peace,
we will not have a stable country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I basically agree with the gentleman from
California that I am disappointed that as we need more dollars, if we
do, for some military operations that they would come out of the
domestic side. Long term, you are absolutely right. We have to win the
hearts of the people, but, as the gentleman knows, we have two
variables that have complicated the final kind of push over the top.
One, they moved the heroin up higher on the mountains; and it
requires a different military capability with the helicopters and
different training. And, secondly, they moved east, into the country,
into the jungles, farther from our air bases; and we need the
capability, at least at certain periods of time, to increase the number
of advisers to address those two things.
But, long term, if we are not moving in the direction you are
talking, we will never win this war and we will not accomplish it. But
there are times when you have to have different strategies, and I
believe that is essential at this point in time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In conclusion, I would ask for unanimous consent that, at the end of
this, we withdraw the amendment to keep this dialogue going. I think we
can focus on really trying to do the right thing in Colombia, and I do
not think that there is any difference on either side of the aisle that
we want the Colombians to be able to have the capacity to govern
themselves in a peaceful fashion.
They certainly, of all the countries that we are involved in, have a
better infrastructure, a longer-running democracy, more communities
established all over the country, have well-educated people, but they
also have a massive amount of poverty. The biggest problem with the
drug war is it has displaced millions of people who just do not have an
adequate place to live or a job or the social services or the health
services and educational services that are necessary.
That is my concern, that if we are putting more emphasis essentially
into the military, we are going to have less emphasis, because there is
only so much money you can spend on what I think is so essential, to
having a lasting peace in Colombia. And that is, we have got to provide
for the infrastructure, the social, economic infrastructure of all of
the people that have been displaced, and we are moving away from that,
from the ability to have alternative crops.
Remember, the crops that are growing and are being destroyed are way
out in the boonies in the middle of the jungles. You are not going to
reestablish a market crop in the jungles. You are going to have to
reestablish a market crop in the areas.
And, remember, Colombia has been one of the leading agricultural
countries in the world. We have all been drinking its coffee forever,
and the quality of that coffee is the highest there is. We could do
more by paying more for Colombian coffee, would be the best help in
economic aid to that country of anything that I can imagine.
But I would like to make sure that, as we go into conference on this
bill and into the defense bill, that we keep in mind that the war in
Colombia is not going to be won by mission creep of the military. It is
going to be won when we start tipping the scale, as the gentleman from
Indiana said, to put more emphasis in the peace effort and less in the
war effort.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr amendment.
I am concerned about the use of U.S. funds in Colombia.
In particular, I am deeply concerned about four public statements by
the President of Colombia in which he accused domestic and
international human rights organizations of supporting armed groups and
of being allied with terrorists.
These statements are not only unhelpful but are also deeply
disturbing. Human rights organizations are working to assist with
humanitarian aid and building civil society in local communities in
Colombia that have been torn apart by the terrible violence.
The President's verbal assaults on human rights organizations do
absolutely nothing to help the Colombian people or to help bring an end
to the violence--instead his comments may cause a reverse in a recent
trend of a decrease in politically motivated violence.
Despite the fact that the above violence has decreased, there are
some areas of Colombia in which local communities continue to be
victims of terrible violence and suffering.
For example, security in the special security areas, such as Arauca,
has deteriorated under the current President.
According to Evangelical and Catholic church leaders, there have been
dozens of cases in which pastors, priests, and lay leaders have been
targeted by armed actors of the left and the right for refusing to take
up arms. According to these reports, 37 Protestant pastors were killed
in the first 6 weeks of 2003 and four Catholic clerics were
assassinated in 2003. Most of these cases were in the State of Arauca.
The numbers of politically motivated murders have not changed for the
better--in 2003, over 3,000 civilians were killed for political motives
and at least 600 ``disappeared.''
Around 2,200 people were kidnapped, more than half by armed
opposition groups and army-backed paramilitaries. Armed opposition
groups such as the FARC and ELN were responsible for repeated and
serious breaches of international humanitarian law, including hostage
taking and the abduction and massacres. They carried out attacks using
disproportionate and indiscriminate weapons that resulted in the death
of numerous civilians.
The government and security forces increased their attempts to
undermine the legitimacy of human rights defenders, peace activists and
trade unionists. This coincided with paramilitary threats and attacks
against human rights organizations. The attacks on these groups made it
nearly impossible for many to continue documenting and reporting on
human rights abuses by all armed actors--if the human rights
organizations cannot do their work, the violations are largely under-
reported.
Despite the declared cease-fire, paramilitaries were still
responsible for massacres, targeted killings, ``disappearances''
torture, kidnappings and threats. They were allegedly responsible for
the killing or ``disappearance'' of at least 1,300 people in 2003, over
70 of all attributable, non-combat, politically related killings and
``disappearances.''
Even the United Nations has noted an increase in complaints of
serious human rights violations which directly involve the security
forces themselves.
I would urge President Uribe to cease his senseless attacks on human
rights organizations that simply hurt those who are helping the people
of Colombia--instead he should vigorously pursue those who commit
horrifying atrocities and terrorize communities across the country.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill today, it is important to reaffirm our
commitment to our counternarcotics efforts in Colombia, to the people
of Colombia, and to American citizens. I led three congressional
delegations to Colombia last year and can say first hand that our
significant investment, after years of effort, is beginning to see
returns on the time, money, and resources spent in Colombia. Together
with the strong commitment of President Alvaro Uribe and historic
levels of support from the Colombian people, U.S. involvement is
beginning to hit narcoterrorists where it hurts.
This year, the Administration is seeking a modest increase in the
number of U.S. support personnel in Colombia. The existing caps on the
number of U.S. civilian and military personnel contractors allowed in
Colombia at any given time are proving too restrictive and in some
cases, the ceilings, have prevented full implementation of already
funded programs and hurt management efficiency.
An increase in the military and civilian contractor support provided
to the Government of Colombia during the next two years is essential to
maintain the current progress being

[[Page H5872]]

made by our programs in Colombia. There are also new programs developed
since the ceilings were established, such as the anti-kidnapping
initiative and the training of prosecutors and judicial police in
preparation for the constitutionally-mandated transition to an
accusatorial criminal justice system with oral trials, as well as the
re-started Air Bridge Denial program that need to be fully supported by
personnel.
Last month, several senior Administration officials, including
Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger
Noriega, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict, Thomas O'Connell, Commander of U.S. Southern
Command, General James Hill, and Assistant Secretary of State for
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Robert
Charles testified before the Government Reform Committee and conveyed
the need to reexamine military and civilian personnel caps if we are to
continue in the right direction.
Accordingly, there is draft language included in the 2005 Defense
Authorization bill that raises the number of military personnel
permitted to 800 and the number of permitted civilian contractors to
600. The Administration's request to increase the number of troops and
contractors deployable is critical to the continued success of U.S.
policy in Colombia and to help President Uribe prosecute a unified
campaign against terrorism and drug traffickers. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly support this request and urge all of my colleagues to continue
their support of our unified campaign with Colombia to fight narcotics
trafficking and terrorist activities.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I appreciate the opportunity. I am concerned, and I had an amendment
that I originally drafted to restore development assistance and child
survival and health money for Latin America to fiscal year 2004 levels.
I will not be offering that amendment, and I would appreciate this
chance to engage with you and hopefully as well as the chairman to
discuss the issue.
As the ranking member on the Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and a member of the Hispanic
Caucus, I was outraged that the President's budget proposal slashed
development funding to Latin America by an average of 11 percent. Latin
America is the only region in the world to be cut in both total
economic development aid and total narcotic and military aid.
So to make these cuts real beyond those percentages, let me just say
that, as a result of the overall cuts to Latin America, the President's
proposed budget cut the child survival and health funding in Guatemala
by almost 15 percent at a time when Guatemala's malnutrition rate for
children is extremely high, one of the highest in the world.
As for the new Millennium Challenge Account, it does little for the
over 40 percent of Latin Americans living in poverty who live in all of
the Latin American countries; and, in fact, only three of those
countries will actually benefit from MCA funding this fiscal year.
And the region is at a critical moment. Over just the past year, two
democratically elected leaders were removed from office. The region is
threatened by mob rule, from the lynching of a mayor in Peru to the
ousting of a democratically elected president in Bolivia. These
incidents only highlight the destabilizing impact of poverty, hunger
and economic disenfranchisement.
Democracy means little if you cannot feed your family, your children,
cannot get an education and you feel disenfranchised from your
government. And in that regard, I think we are losing the battle for
the hearts and minds of Latin American's democracy in that respect,
losing the battle for the hearts and minds of Latin Americans, and that
is why I asked the distinguished ranking member of this committee
whether the gentlewoman can offer us any hope that we are going to get
some relief from those cuts.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

{time} 1900

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) for
raising what I think is a very important point. Like he is, I am
perplexed; I am disappointed with the administration's budget request
for Latin America. I do not think it reflects the priorities or the
national interests of the United States.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) summarized some of the
statistics; but for all of the Western Hemisphere, the development
assistance, the child survival and health accounts were cut by 10\1/2\
percent in this year's request. And Central American countries received
an even more disproportionate share of those cuts, a decrease of 17.8
percent.
Central American countries are our strong allies. They have become
increasingly democratic. They are conducting fair and safe elections
while electing governments that I believe history will view as turning
points in these nations' future. But they do face daunting problems of
poverty and corruption.
In countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, we are
witnessing governments that are doing their best to tackle these
problems head on. And we have of course recently negotiated a trade
agreement with them that is going to require a lot of technical
assistance for them to implement that. Add to these issues the need to
get economic growth generated in Central America to provide a decent
standard of living for their people, people are looking northwards for
employment if not given any opportunities in their own country. Under
those circumstances, I think Americans would support increasing
assistance to these countries.
We do have in our report language that accompanies our bill before
the House today language that directs the administration to restore the
funding levels to last year's levels. I would prefer to see an increase
and hope that we can see that sometime in the near future. I will push
this issue further as we enter conference negotiations with the Senate,
and I thank my colleague for raising this important issue. I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding.
Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman and I want to assure my good friend,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), that I share the
gentleman's commitment to working with you to increase the dollars for
Latin America because we realize how critical this is.
The committee's recommendation to increase both the Child Survival
and Development Assistance accounts by a combined total of $328 million
above the President's request was in large part meant to restore cuts
made to Latin American countries. In addition, the committee report as
cited by the chairman contains specific directive language mandating
that the Agency For International Development restore cuts made to
Central American countries when the FY 2005 operating plans are
developed.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Frankly, it is unclear to me why the administration would
choose to reduce our commitment to our closest neighbors at a time when
overall foreign aid is increasing. Additional funding would enable
vital education, maternal and infant health, and democracy and
agricultural programs to be restored.
It is my hope that the administration's fiscal year 2006 request will
reflect the clear interests of Congress at a robust level of funding
for Latin America, as evidenced by the gentleman's amendment.
I want to conclude by saying, I share our chairman's deep commitment
to Latin America. We thank the gentleman for his comments on this
issue, and we assure the gentleman that we are going to work together
to make sure that Latin America gets the assistance that it rightly
deserves.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished gentleman both for yielding
as

[[Page H5873]]

well as for his work and commitment to the hemisphere. And I want to
thank the ranking Democrat as well for her response to our concerns. I
certainly hope and certainly agree with the chairman's comments that we
want to see this funding increase in the future, because when we take
in the consequences of inflation, the 2004 level is not enough. It is
actually a decrease. And it should be a floor, not a ceiling; but we
certainly need a floor to start with so we can build upon it. I
appreciate the efforts in the report language.
I would just close by saying I hope that the chairman and the ranking
member who have put some pretty strong report language in here, that
the USAID understands that the committee and many Members here are
serious, and that it will be followed, and that we will see these
monies going for Latin America. Otherwise, next year we intend to
pursue vigorously with the Hispanic Caucus and interested Members on
both sides of the aisle the funding that is necessary for one of the
most important parts of the world in terms of U.S. national interest on
a variety of issues.
I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his engagement, his
support and the ranking Democrat as well.
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman with his comments. I am confident
with his support and that of other Members of this body, we will get
the attention of the administration on this issue.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Otter

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Otter:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:

limitation on assistance for palistinian authority and the palistinian
people

Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) of the total amount of funds that are available in this
Act for assistance for the Palestinian Authority (or any
other Palestinian entity) or for the Palestinian people, not
more than 25 percent of such amount may be obligated and
expended during each quarter of fiscal year 2005; and
(2) none of the funds made available in this Act may be
made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority
(or any other Palestinian entity) or for the Palestinian
people during any quarter of fiscal year 2005 unless the
Secretary of State determines that the Palestinian Authority
has not provided support for acts of international terrorism
during the 3-month period preceding the first day of that
quarter.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to address what I believe to be a fatal flaw in
the way we administer our foreign aid.
We cannot truly be effective either domestically or in our role on
the world stage when our foreign policy forces us to support our
friends while at the same time indiscriminately doling out money to our
and their enemies.
All the efforts we put into promoting peace and cooperation is
meaningless without requiring accountability from the recipients of our
assistance. U.S. foreign aid should be based upon a recipient's
demonstrated willingness to support our ideals and our aspirations for
their region. When we provide aid to a country, we should be able to
expect a marked change in that country's behavior in keeping with our
goals.
Let me give a specific example of what I am talking about here. When
they were much younger, I gave my children a monthly allowance. Unlike
gifts of money or money that they earned themselves, this allowance
came with some strings attached. It came with an understanding that I
could expect certain behavior from them. On occasion they would forget
about our bargain, and their behavior would not reflect the
expectations that we had established. But when they did not receive
their allowance, the next month they were quick to fix the problem so
that we could peacefully live together.
Foreign aid is like an allowance which the United States is not
obligated to offer and which should not come without certain strings
attached. And yet we continue to treat it as if we are required to hand
out money to nations and people who actively oppose the principles that
we try to advance.
Today we have a golden opportunity to change the way we address the
issues on foreign aid.
As part of his road map to peace, President Bush recommended giving
foreign aid to the Palestine Authority for the first time in almost a
decade. In light of that request, we should act now to infuse any aid
with common sense and accountability so that we can advance the
realistic goals that the President has set for the Middle East.
In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that
any aid that we give to Palestine would only be given every quarter. In
other words, it would be broken up into four payments over a year's
period. And only 25 percent would be given in any one quarter. So
January, February and March, at the end of March, the Palestine's would
receive some aid. At the end of June, the Palestinians would receive
some aid. At the end of September, same and just before Christmas once
again.
The reason I approach it this way is because then the Secretary of
State would be required to verify that in the previous quarter there
had been no acts of terrorism, no human bombs that had ventured into
Israel or had ventured into some other area, that the Palestinians had
indeed not engaged in any acts of terrorism anywhere in the world.
And so every quarter, once every 3 months, once that is verified by
the Secretary of State, then the Palestinians would receive some money.
More like an allowance instead of alimony, that we treat it today as
though we owed it to folks. Such a commonsense approach to
accountability is the first step to reforming our foreign policy. It
will provide, I believe, a powerful incentive for the recipients of
this money in order to promote the kind of democracy and the kinds of
values that we have in hopes for them.
The President is working to achieve a lasting peace in this region,
realistically and in good faith, and I applaud his efforts. But if we
are to see a change in the Middle East, our approach to foreign aid
must change as well. What better time than now to implement a policy
based upon behavior and responsibility, with the expectations that we
offer at the same time that we offer the money.
I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to assist in
the peace process by making sure that our assistance carries with it
the same weight as our principles would.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with the sentiments expressed by the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter). We certainly should not tolerate
support for terrorism by any organization, that includes the
Palestinian Authority. Indeed, the bill that is before you prohibits
funds for the Authority, prohibits all funds for the Palestinian
Authority, and includes a number of provisions affecting West Bank Gaza
programs that would prohibit funds for any group or individual that
supports terrorism.
This year the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I strengthen
the prohibition on funding for terrorist groups by banning funding
through the West Bank/Gaza program for any individual, any individual
or group that advocates terrorism. The new provision also requires an
immediate cut-off of funds if any group currently receiving funds
advocates or engages in terrorist activities.
On the other hand, it is important to continue the West Bank/Gaza
programs because they provide important humanitarian and infrastructure
assistance for the Palestinian people. It is important to stress that
all of the funds in this program are provided through nongovernmental
organizations or through American contractors, or in some cases,
Israeli contractors for water and sewer infrastructure programs. Not
one cent goes to the Palestinian Authority.

[[Page H5874]]

I appreciate the concerns that the gentleman has expressed. They are
the concerns of this subcommittee, and they are, I can assure the
gentleman, expressed in the bill here. I understand the gentleman is
prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I will try to take less than that if
possible.
I rise in support of the Otter amendment. The question should be
should we have any aid going to the West Bank and Gaza. That should be
the question. Is it buying us pro-American values? No. Is it buying us
less violence? No. Is it buying us a more transparent government? No.
Is it buying us more democracy? No.
And to make matters worse those receiving the aid are refusing now to
sign a declaration saying that the money will not go to terrorists.
There is no reason in my eyes that we should be providing any aid at
all.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Idaho?
There was no objection.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman and I have
discussed the case of the Berhane family, U.S. citizens who had their
private businesses confiscated by the former Ethiopian government.
While this occurred in 1977, the current government has not shown good
faith in resolving this longstanding injustice. In 1999, the matter was
nearly settled when the current Ethiopian government summarily deported
Mr. Berhane to Eritrea.
Despite lip service since, the Ethiopian government has not settled
this matter. It should have been resolved years ago. Additionally, as
the distinguished chairman knows, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation has made a finding in support of the Berhane family claim
and will not do business in Ethiopia until this issue has been settled.
The CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Paul Applegarth, has
indicated that the MCC may follow suit.
Mr. Chairman, Ethiopia is eligible for more than $60 million of
funding in this bill in its present form. The government of Ethiopia
should understand that any government that refuses to deal with the
legitimate claims of American citizens is jeopardizing its eligibility
for assistance funded by the U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that until these legitimate property claims
are dealt with fairly by the Ethiopian government that the economic
assistance funds in this bill for Ethiopia in the ESF account should be
reprogrammed to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund,
specifically to the account of the ``communities severely affected by
HIV/AIDS, including children displaced or orphaned by AIDS.''

{time} 1915

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
have to say that I find that these are very troubling charges, but we
have only been recently informed of the issue. I intend to ask the
State Department for further information regarding the situation, and I
can assure the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that I will
give it serious consideration.
The way Ethiopia deals with this issue will weigh heavily in the
decisions we make in terms of policy and levels of assistance. So I
appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our attention, and I will ask
my staff to work with the gentleman to move towards a resolution.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman very much.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

limitation on provision by export-import bank of credit to entities
reincorporating overseas

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to
approve an application for a master guarantee and political
risk supplement where the applicant's charter or articles of
incorporation show that the entity is incorporated or
chartered in Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua,
or Panama.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment has widespread support
across the ideological spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans, from
progressives, conservatives to moderates. It is being cosponsored today
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich),
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). It also enjoys the support of the AFL-CIO,
the Teamsters, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizen Works and other
national organizations.
Mr. Chairman, in a very profound way this amendment deals with the
issue of patriotism, love of country and respect for the American
people. At a time when our country is at war and young Americans are
dying almost every day, at a time when our country has a $7 trillion
national debt and when veterans are unable to get the health care that
they need, this amendment asks a very simple question: Should the
middle class of this country, people who work hard, love their country
and pay their fair share of taxes, be asked to provide billions in loan
guarantees to corporate expatriates, U.S. companies who set up phony
headquarters abroad in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes? That is what
this amendment is all about.
Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The American people are growing sick
and tired of large corporations throwing American workers out on the
streets as they move to China, to India and to other low-wage
countries; and they are equally outraged by companies who come begging
to Washington for corporate welfare and taxpayer dollars while they
move to tax-haven countries in order to avoid their tax obligations
here.
Oh, they do not want to pay taxes in America, not them. That is for
the suckers of this country. That is what they say, but they sure do
want the taxpayers to help them out with corporate welfare. That is
okay.
This amendment will begin the process of putting an end to that
absurdity. I fully concede that this amendment is not going to solve
this problem completely, no question about that, but its passage will
be a shot across the bow to every corporation in America who thinks
that they will be able to continue to rip off the taxpayers of this
country with impunity. It will, in fact, make some companies think
twice before they run to Bermuda or to Panama or to the Cayman Islands
in order to avoid paying American taxes.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Export-
Import Bank from approving subsidized loan guarantees to corporate
expatriates, companies who were formerly located in the United States
but who have set up paper headquarters abroad in tax-haven countries in
order to avoid paying taxes here.
Mr. Chairman, what every Member of Congress should know is that five
out of the top 23 largest recipients of Export-Import Bank assistance
since 2003 are corporate expatriates that have set up sham headquarters
and post office boxes in places like Bermuda, Barbados and the Cayman
Islands for the sole purpose of avoiding U.S. taxes.
Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough corporate expatriates are abandoning
this country to dodge taxes, but it is unconscionable that these
companies then

[[Page H5875]]

turn around and seek U.S. taxpayer assistance through the U.S. Export-
Import Bank, forcing middle-class families to pick up the tab.
Companies that dodge U.S. taxes should not be rewarded with taxpayer
subsidies through the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about substantial dollars here. Let me
give my colleagues some examples of what I am talking about.
Tyco International, everybody will remember Tyco International, one
of the poster children for corporate greed, saved $400 million in U.S.
taxes by reincorporating in Bermuda in 1997. What was the response of
the Export-Import Bank to this deliberate attempt to avoid paying their
fair share of taxes? What did they do when Tyco moved to Bermuda? Well,
they gave Tyco $115 million in assistance since 1998. That is absurd.
In 2002, Ingersoll-Rand saved up to $60 million in U.S. taxes by
reincorporating in Bermuda. Since 2002, this tax-dodging company
received over $370 million in subsidized loans, loan guarantees and
other financial assistance from the Export-Import Bank.
In 2002, Nabors Industry saved $10 million in taxes by
reincorporating in Bermuda. Since that year, it has received over $300
million in taxpayer-backed financial assistance through the Export-
Import Bank.
Mr. Chairman, the time is now to say enough is enough. If
corporations want to move to Bermuda and disown the United States, that
is their right, but they do not have a right to then come back to the
taxpayers of this country and ask the United States Congress and the
Export-Import Bank to give them substantial sums of money.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, since I believe I will be the only one
speaking here, I reserve my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Let me note that many of the companies that leave, and this is where
I have a disagreement with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders),
many of the companies that do leave our country leave because of high
taxes, which I consider to be levels of taxation that are too high and
levels of regulation that are too high in the United States of America.
We may have a fundamental disagreement on how high taxes should be
and regulations should be on business, but where I do agree with the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is that businessmen have to make a
decision. They are a part of the American family, and we have got to
make a decision if we are going to stay part of the American family
based on the rules and regulations that we are judged by and have to
live by because we are part of the process.
If an American company does decide that taxes and regulation are too
high and decide to change their status so they are no longer being
treated and taxed or regulated as a domestic company, they should not
expect then to receive the benefits of a company that is an American
company. This makes all the common sense in the world.
I think it is a travesty, as the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
has pointed out, there are some companies that have decided to leave
this country and, thus, officially, in order not to pay the same tax
load, then expect to receive and have received the benefit of such
subsidies we are talking about tonight. This makes all the common sense
in the world.
I would hope, however, that we would, number one, pass the Sanders
amendment to make sure that companies that leave do not receive this
subsidy, but, at the same time, I would hope that we pay close
attention to our taxation and regulation policies that make it
profitable or make the businessmen who are making these decisions feel
it is profitable for them to leave this country.
We should want businesses to come here and do business because it is
profitable, our taxes and regulations make it profitable for them to be
here, create jobs, et cetera. In the meantime, let us not do the
travesty of giving people subsidies who are not paying into the system
and have gone overseas and changed their status in order to escape
their tax obligation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) assumed the Chair.

____________________