[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 98 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5875-H5895]
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. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment, and I am a
coauthor of it, mentioned that it has a broad spectrum of individuals
supporting it. He mentioned progressives and liberals and conservatives
and moderates, but he forgot the libertarians.
Libertarians support this as well and for a precise reason. A free
market libertarian does not believe in welfare for anybody, let alone
the rich, and it is particularly gnawing to see the subsidies go to the
very wealthy.
I am in strong support of this amendment, but, like the gentleman
from California, I do not support this for the purpose of collecting
more taxes, but I do think it is a message to us here that if we do not
revise our tax system and our regulatory system we will prompt more and
more business to leave this country.
So there are two issues here, but corporate welfare and subsidies
should have no part in this. There is no room for it. It is wrong.
Also, the beneficiaries outside the corporations we should not forget
either, because the biggest country that benefits from this is China.
Why do we subsidize China? People who receive the goods get a benefit
as well as the people who get to sell the goods get a benefit? China is
on the books right now currently with $5.9 billion in outstanding
loans. They receive more than anybody else. So there is something wrong
with a system like that.
There are two economic points that I want to make on this. When we do
this and we allow tax credit and special deals for some corporations,
we assume, and we will hear this in the defense of the Ex-Im Bank, and
say look at the good that we do. But what they fail to ask is, where
did it come from, who was denied the credit? The fact that we do not
finance it does not mean it would not happen. It would happen.
What it does is it distorts the market and causes people to do the
wrong thing, and some individuals do not get the credit is obviously
the case, but what we need to do is to have a much more oriented free
market. When we direct it this way, even those companies may do more
than they ordinarily would, and that participates in the economic
bubble that occurs, of course, for other reasons as well. Then there
has to be corrections. But if one is in a powerful position in a place
where they can qualify, and 80 percent of this goes to the very, very
large companies, although there are a lot of companies that receive the
big bucks, and big countries like China.
This is corporate welfare. It should be defeated; and, ultimately, if
we believe in liberty and freedom, we ought to get rid of the Export-
Import Bank.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has actually been one of the
leaders on this issue in the Congress.
{time} 1930
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join with this diverse group
of Members who may not always agree on many things, but we do agree
that taxpayer dollars should never be used to subsidize companies who
have incorporated on paper overseas in order to avoid living up to
their responsibilities to the United States of America.
Corporate expatriates cost our country $5 billion in lost tax
revenue. Any reasonable person might assume that
[[Page H5876]]
they would not also continue to benefit from government largess. But
they are wrong, because these companies continue to receive billions of
dollars in government contracts. I am pleased that the House finally
passed, as part of the Homeland Security appropriation bill, my
amendment to prevent that Department from contracting with corporate
expatriates, one small step in an effort that is far from over.
Today's amendment is another important step in that effort. It will
prohibit the Export-Import Bank from approving subsidized loans and
loan guarantees to corporate expatriates. Unbelievably, five of the
largest recipients of Export-Import Bank assistance since 2003 are
corporate expatriates. In 2002, Ingersoll-Rand saved up to $60 million
in U.S. taxes by reincorporating in Bermuda. Since that time, they have
received over $370 million in subsidized loans, loan guarantees, and
other financial assistance from the Export-Import Bank.
Ask any American, whether they be a Democrat, a Republican, an
Independent or a Libertarian, they will tell you the same thing. This
is an outrage. How can we explain this to the American people? How can
we explain it to our constituents? Corporate expatriates put good
corporate citizens, who stay in America and pay their taxes, at a
permanent competitive disadvantage. In the end, that hurts American
companies who do pay their taxes and who employ citizens all across
this Nation.
We cannot afford to reward companies who shun their responsibilities
of American citizenship at the expense of loyal American businesses and
contractors. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Stop
government subsidies of corporate expatriates. They have a choice. They
can leave this country, and they cannot pay their taxes. We have a
choice. We should set the standard, we should set the tone, we should
set the obligation that if they are going to do that and not pay taxes
in this country, then, in fact, they cannot feed at the public trough
and get government contracts.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, while I am a strong supporter of the Ex-
Im Bank, I am voting for this amendment to prevent companies that dodge
U.S. taxes from receiving U.S. taxpayer assistance. It is simple: we
should not be providing taxpayer-funded assistance to corporations that
set up shell headquarters offshore for the purpose of avoiding paying
their fair share of U.S. taxes.
The Export-Import Bank should be screening companies it funds to
prevent this type of abuse. And if it does not, we should. I have
consistently been a vigorous backer of the Export-Import Bank's mission
to provide funding for exports produced in the United States. The
bank's loans have supported American companies and provided jobs in
this country, in my district of New York, and in many others. But
giving loans to corporations, to expatriates, is an abuse of a good
program.
Not only are companies that evade U.S. taxes getting taxpayers'
money, but they are taking away dollars that should be spent helping
companies that pay their fair share of American taxes. And, of course,
if we allow this, we are encouraging other companies to move their so-
called headquarters to Bermuda to avoid taxes and abandon the American
worker. This is exactly what Senator Kerry meant when he said that we
must stop providing tax subsidies to Benedict Arnold CEOs.
Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the Ex-Im Bank from
approving subsidized loans or loan guarantees for any company that sets
up a sham headquarters offshores to dodge U.S. taxes.
Five of the top recipients of Ex-Im funding are corporations that
have set up sham headquarters in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to
avoid paying U.S. taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to cite one example, Ingersoll-Rand. They
saved $60 million in 2002 by formally incorporating in Bermuda, but
they have received over $370 million since 2003 in Ex-Im financial
assistance. This is wrong. It is a gross abuse of a good program.
In the name of American workers and taxpayers, we should put a stop
to it. I urge my colleagues to vote for American jobs, for American
companies that are responsible, for American companies that pay their
fair share, not those that dodge our country and their responsibilities
to it. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I stand in strong support of the Sanders amendment in this
matter. Our international tax rules provide far too many incentives for
United States companies to move jobs and operations offshore.
It is a growing trend. Corporations that have built their successes
through the protection of the United States laws and contracts in this
country are increasingly giving up their citizenship to move offshore
and avoid paying United States taxes. Not only are they doing that, but
they are costing hardworking Americans their jobs and are grossly
abusing loopholes in the current tax system. These corporations should
not then be able to take advantage of the taxpayers' generosity through
the Ex-Im Bank.
Particularly at a time when our country is at war and we are running
record budget deficits, Congress should take a firm stand and prevent
taxpayer money from increasing the bottom line for profitable
corporations who shirk their responsibilities here at home.
The Ex-Im Bank is intended to finance American services and products,
not the export of American jobs and resources. Mr. Chairman, I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Would the Chairman please tell us how much time is
remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the fact that
the gentleman from Arizona is so silent on this means he is going to
jump up and support this amendment, because it makes such abundant
sense.
I hear my colleagues saying why do we allow corporations to leave
America, avoid paying taxes, and yet still receive all the benefits of
being an American. It is because Congress lets them. It is time for
Congress to close this door.
Right now there are 140,000 young Americans getting shot at every day
in Iraq, paying their dues to be an American; and another 15,000 in
Afghanistan paying their dues. As I have said a dozen times on this
floor, those of us who are lucky enough not to have to fight this war,
ought to be at least willing to pay for it. And those of us who are
lucky enough to be Americans and enjoy all the privileges of being an
American, such as this program, ought to be willing to pay the dues of
being an American. And that is called paying taxes.
These folks cannot have it both ways, I would say to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). If they want the Jamaican Coast Guard to come
rescue them, let them be Jamaicans. If they want the Grand Cayman Navy
SEALS to rescue their drilling rigs if they get boarded by terrorists,
I say let the Grand Cayman Navy SEALS go rescue them, but not the U.S.
Navy. And if they want a loan, a subsidized loan from a government, if
they choose to be Jamaican or Bermudan, let them do so. But there is
absolutely no reason for the taxpayers of this Nation, who pay their
dues, whose kids serve in our military to subsidize these folks who
want to play it both ways.
They do not want to pay their dues, but they want all the privileges
of being an American. And I commend the gentleman for bringing this to
the public's attention.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, to
conclude the debate from our side, by asking for support for what
really is a very commonsense amendment.
I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) said it all. If
people want to go to the Cayman Islands, if they want to go to Bermuda,
that is their right. No one is questioning their right. But they cannot
abandon their country, go abroad, and then say, oh, yeah, by the way, I
do not want to pay
[[Page H5877]]
my taxes, but I sure do want Washington to subsidize my business.
So I want to urge support for an amendment that has broad tripartisan
support, support of the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Business and Industry
Council, the Teamsters, the United Steel Workers, Taxpayers for Common
Sense, and Citizens Works.
This is an amendment that will tell corporate America that if they
want the benefits that U.S. taxpayers provide to them, they cannot run
away and avoid their taxes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This
has been an interesting discussion from the other side. But contrary to
what the gentleman from Mississippi may have thought I would do, I do,
indeed, rise in opposition to this amendment.
First of all, let me begin by saying I do not condone companies
relocating overseas for tax purposes, but I will come back to that in a
minute.
This is an interesting issue we are dealing with here today. We had
this in the full committee not long ago as it related to outsourcing,
but here we are talking about supporting U.S. exports and jobs. With
this amendment, we are talking about punishing companies that are
creating jobs here in the United States. We are going to punish them
because they are creating jobs here.
Mr. Chairman, I will not yield. The gentleman from Vermont had 20
minutes. I am not going to use but a fraction of that, so I want to get
my thoughts in here and do them all together here.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Why in the world are we talking about
punishing companies that are creating high-paying export jobs, and
giving that away to foreign competition by eliminating Export-Import
Bank financing? But that is exactly what the amendment would do. It
hurts workers in this country. It hurts the economy in this country.
And yes, of course, it hurts the shareholders in this country. But
most of all it hurts the workers, because this only goes to companies
that are exporting. We are talking about companies that are creating
jobs here in this country in order to export.
Now, the gentleman named some companies in particular in his
argument. Ingersoll-Rand I heard. I think we heard Nabors Industries,
Noble Drilling Corporation, Weatherford International. But this
amendment would prohibit any Ex-Im Bank loan or guarantee to any U.S.
company, any U.S. company that is registered offshore.
Now, I do not have any percentage of how much U.S. Export-Import Bank
loans would be affected by this amendment, but characterizing Ex-Im
loans as corporate welfare and a giveaway from U.S. taxpayers is
certainly not correct. I am not sure why the sponsors of this amendment
do not recognize that exports means U.S. jobs. It is the exact opposite
of outsourcing.
The fiscal year 2005 funding for the Ex-Im Bank would support U.S.
exports valued at $12 billion. For every $1 of taxpayer money invested
in Ex-Im's program, there have been historical returns, and this is not
just this year, there have been historical returns of $15 in credit
support for export transactions. Since Ex-Im Bank supports 85 percent
of most transactions, this means that the actual export value is about
15 percent higher, raising the ratio to about $18 in total value of
exports supported by every $1 we put into the Ex-Im program.
I do not think this is corporate welfare. The bank has an
exceptional, I would say exceptional, repayment record, with losses
running at 1.4 percent of disbursements over the 70-year history of the
Ex-Im Bank. And while the Ex-Im Bank has done more and more each year
for small businesses, even large companies cannot get private bank
financing to go to some parts of the world or to compete with
aggressive foreign financing.
While businesses may be able to exist without making that extra sale,
Ex-Im Bank is here for that very reason, to keep U.S. exports strong,
to hopefully grow them, and to help sustain U.S. jobs through exports.
Eighty-six percent of the transactions of the Ex-Im Bank directly
benefit small businesses, and that is because many small businesses
benefit from the larger transactions of the bank.
{time} 1945
Let me give a statistic that alone ought to cause Members to give
pause about this amendment. Ex-Im Bank's top 13 users have over 35,000
suppliers in this country, most of which are small businesses. The
reality is that small businesses benefit directly and indirectly from
Ex-Im Bank-financed transactions.
By law, Ex-Im Bank finances only goods and services made here in the
United States. Under this bill, if a U.S. company is cut off from using
Ex-Im, the company would be confronted with either losing the export
sale or being forced to use foreign financing and sourcing. In either
case, the impact would be to reduce U.S. exports and jeopardize the
jobs that are associated with those sales. Shutting off Ex-Im would
remove one of the few government programs to help U.S. exporters and to
keep export-related jobs here in the United States.
One more statistic. I have been able to find information on two of
the companies that were mentioned.
Ingersoll-Rand has 28,000 employees here in the United States, not
overseas. These are employees here in the U.S. Nabors Industries has
14,000 employees here in the United States. This amendment cuts off
financing that helps to keep those jobs secure.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which I know is not an organization
that perhaps my colleague on the other side would put too much stock
in, but I think they made a very important point in the letter that
they wrote about this a couple of days ago to the Speaker. They made
this statement, and I quote:
Measures such as Representative Sanders' amendment are poor
substitutes for needed reforms of the U.S. Tax Code's archaic
international provisions which currently put our corporations at a
competitive disadvantage internationally and provide great incentive
for them to leave this country.
That brings me back to my final point that I said at the beginning.
The real issue here is the archaic Tax Code that the United States has.
We are not even talking about 20th century. We are talking about 19th
century. We have a Tax Code that is so archaic, we are virtually the
only country in the world that taxes all income whether or not it has
anything to do with being produced here in the United States. So, of
course, it encourages companies to go offshore, to locate offshore
their corporate headquarters. They are still paying the taxes on
everything they make here in the United States, Ingersoll-Rand, Nabors,
all of those pay the taxes on all the income that is made here in the
United States, but they do not want to pay the taxes on a subsidiary
they may have in South Africa or a subsidiary they may have in Japan or
elsewhere, and so they locate their corporate headquarters offshore. It
is because of the archaic Tax Code that the United States continues to
have.
That is what we really need to be doing. That is what we really need
to be reforming, is the Tax Code. We are in the 21st century, not the
19th century. That would make us more competitive in the world. Why do
we have DaimlerChrysler and not ChryslerDaimler? We have
DaimlerChrysler because of the Tax Codes of the United States. In order
to avoid paying taxes on production done in Germany, it was necessary
for them to become DaimlerChrysler, not ChryslerDaimler. Otherwise,
they would have been paying taxes on everything they produced, every
car they produced in Germany.
That is why this is so important that we continue to have Ex-Im Bank.
It is a crutch, if you will, but it is something that we can do to help
U.S. corporations export, and it helps American workers keep their
jobs. Ex-Im Bank only goes to corporations for doing business producing
here in the United States.
I urge my colleagues, in conclusion, to oppose this amendment. It
hurts U.S. workers. It jeopardizes U.S. jobs. Now is not the time to
further cut, to eliminate one of the few tools the U.S. Government has
to support exports and export-related manufacturing jobs. I urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
[[Page H5878]]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. 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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) who chooses to comment on a very important area of the bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman
and ranking member. I appreciate their work in crafting this bill. It
is a good bill, and I will support it. I understand that the bill is a
delicate balance, negotiated down to the last dollar. It is a good
example of bipartisanship and what we can accomplish when Members of
both parties work together.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice to those who support
increased funding for the Child Survival and Maternal Health programs.
Currently, 30,000 children under the age of 5 die every day, more than
10 million per year, from easily preventable or treatable diseases each
year. Millions of children die in their first month or even year of
life from malnutrition, diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, and other common
childhood diseases. Such high rates of child mortality have a
devastating impact on families and communities in countries around the
world.
These 10 million deaths are not inevitable. The health conditions
that often prove fatal for young children can be treated and prevented
with inexpensive interventions that have proven to be effective.
Millions of children today are already benefiting from these
interventions, many as a result of programs implemented by USAID or the
United Nations Children's Fund, using the resources provided by the
Child Survival and Maternal Health Fund.
In 2000, the United States joined 188 other member nations of the
United Nations pledging to reduce child deaths worldwide by two-thirds
and maternal deaths by three-fourths before 2015. An increase in the
Child Survival Account will help us get there.
As the chairman and ranking member know, I had considered offering an
amendment that would have raised funding for this account. At the
request of the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from New
York, I did not offer it, but I want to say that the child survival
programs are critical to our Nation's leadership on global health
issues, and I would urge them to support the highest possible
allocation for child health programs as this bill moves through the
rest of the legislative process.
I thank them for the opportunity to engage in this colloquy.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good colleague from
Connecticut for her discussion on this very important subject; and
certainly as the chairman and I were crafting this bill, we acknowledge
how important these issues are. I want to assure the gentlewoman that
if there were more money to distribute, a good deal more would have
gone to that very important effort. As we work towards conference, if
we can possibly find some additional funds, we certainly will heed her
important remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for talking about
this issue. As the gentlewoman knows, both the gentlewoman from New
York and I feel very strongly about the Child Survival and Health
Account and the good work that is done by this account in helping save
children's lives and families and the poor people around the world. The
vaccination programs, the health programs, the clinics, the education
programs that are run through this are extraordinarily important.
I quite agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut. Everything we
can do to increase the amount in this account is certainly something
that we intend to do. I appreciate her bringing it to our attention. We
will do everything that we can to try to increase this account.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. 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. Deal of Georgia:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
governments that have failed to permit certain extraditions
Sec. 576. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide assistance to the government of any
country with which the United States has an extradition
treaty and which has failed to permit the extradition to the
United States, for trial or sentencing in the United States,
of individuals accused of committing criminal offenses for
which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole, or a lesser term of imprisonment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that provides as follows: that
none of the funds made available in this act may be used to provide
assistance to the government of any country with which the United
States has an extradition treaty and which has failed to permit the
extradition to the United States for trial or sentencing in the United
States of individuals accused of committing criminal offenses for which
the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole or a lesser term of imprisonment.
This is foreign operations appropriations. Normally, most of the
discussions that we have relate to activities that occur in other
countries and the amount of money that we are going to send from
taxpayers in this country to another country. The heart of this
amendment, however, relates to things that are happening here in our
own country.
The classic example that I would cite to this body to illustrate the
magnitude of this problem occurred a little over 2 years ago when Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy David March pulled over a Mexican
national named Armando Garcia, a twice-deported illegal alien who had
been convicted of drug activities and who had currently two outstanding
warrants for attempted murder. Garcia knew that if he were arrested, he
would probably be deported for a third time and perhaps go to prison.
As Officer March approached the automobile, Garcia pulled a handgun and
shot Officer March; and as he lay on the ground, Garcia exited his
vehicle and shot Officer March again to make sure that he was dead.
Garcia then immediately fled to Mexico where he apparently remains free
today.
Several months after this incident occurred, the Supreme Court of
Mexico ruled that they would not allow extradition for anyone who faced
imprisonment of life without the possibility of parole. Most
extradition treaties that we have around the world already exclude the
extradition of individuals who would face capital punishment. In the
State of California in this case, the mandatory or optional sentence
would be life without parole or the death penalty for the killing of a
police officer in the line of duty. So what we have is a police officer
who has been executed by a foreign national in our country who has now
fled back to his home country, who cannot be brought back to trial in
this country for that murder and who will not be tried in his own
country for that murder.
That is an outrage. It is an outrage for this Congress to continue to
send the tax dollars of Deputy David March's widow to a country that
refuses to bring her husband's murderer to justice. This is an example
that has occurred in our relationship with Mexico, but there are
numerous similar examples with other countries around the world.
I think it is time that this Congress faced up to this ever-growing
problem, because I am told that there are hundreds of other families in
this country
[[Page H5879]]
whose loved ones have been murdered and who likewise cannot have those
murderers brought to justice.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia
bringing this amendment tonight. I am a little distressed that it needs
to be an amendment, frankly. This is a problem that must and has to be
dealt with.
I am happy that this amendment does deal with any country that will
not extradite nationals to the U.S., but I am particularly concerned
about the one I know of particularly from Mexico, David March, one that
a lot of us have been concerned about, frankly, for a long time. We do
not really understand why the United States Government does not deal
with this.
At the first of the year, we had written the President and asked why
in the world do we not deal with a problem like this, the extradition
back into our country. We really do have a formal agreement with them
for extradition. It was not something that I could understand why you
would put a family through this.
The White House sends it to the State Department, the State
Department works overnight and gets us an answer back 6 months later to
say that, gosh, we're sorry we can't help with that. President Fox is
not in the judiciary in Mexico. We couldn't possibly bother him because
he is in the executive branch.
None of that makes any sense to me, but what does make sense to me is
that we tell any country but in this case and in particular we tell
Mexico that if you want to be our friend, act like our friend. If you
do not want to be our friend, there has to be some penalties; and in
this case and in this bill we simply say that we are not going to fund
the Mexican government. Is it $40 million a year, I believe, that we
send down there or there is $40 million in this bill? You just do not
get that this year.
I know we are going to hear a lot of concerns about that. I really
need to ask the gentleman from Georgia a question or two, if I may,
about the effects of this bill and the $40 million. I am told, and I
think I am told correctly, that Mexico, that country, sends more
illegal drugs into this country than any other. Of course, that does
not sound very friendly to me, as if they are real friends, but the
fact that they do send so many drugs into our country, we have to send
them $40 million or we cannot possibly stop. That may not be the best
use of $40 million, but I would like to hear your response to that, the
maker of the amendment, why this is or is not such a bad thing.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. In response to the gentleman's inquiry, I think
it is certainly an appropriate inquiry. I would suggest that if we
really want to stop the flow of drugs from Mexico, rather than sending
that $40 million there, we could use it on our border to beef up our
DEA, our Customs and others to try to stop it here.
The real irony of the argument that we cannot deal with the lack of
extradition is that, first of all, if we really want to deal with
Mexican drug problems, under the current status of affairs if a Mexican
drug dealer comes to our country and in the process of his illegal
activity of selling drugs in our country he kills either an officer or
a private citizen and then returns back to his own country, a drug
dealer cannot be brought to justice because Mexico will not allow it.
{time} 2000
That to me is the greatest irony of all. I would suggest that if we
really want to do something about the Mexican drug traffic, I
understand their cartels are the leading distributors and manufacturers
of drugs in our own country. So I would suggest that we can use the
money better here at home.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so the gentleman is
telling me that when Mexico does not cooperate with us on a treaty that
we have with them, we are not going to send them that $40 million to
try to stop the illicit drug trade, but we could use that $40 million,
for example, in other places to stop that illicit drug trade.
Does the gentleman have any idea, and I do not know, the 40 millions
of dollars we were sending down to Mexico in the past to work with
International Narcotics Control, are they doing any good? Do we have
any proof that that money is working?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to
yield, I am sure there are arguments that can be made that it does some
good, but Mexico continues to be the main source of illegal drugs into
this country. And if we are doing something, it has not been as
effective as it should have been.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if, in fact, Mexico
was sending us 5,000 metric tons of marijuana, 50 metric tons of
amphetamine, and 10 metric tons of heroin, we are not doing really good
stopping it with that $40 million. I will tell the gentleman that.
Maybe we need to tell them if they do not want to work with us in
sending murderers back to our justice system, perhaps we need to keep
our $40 million and put it in American hands to stop the illegal
traffic.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is
left on my side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. 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 believe that Mexico is making very tiny
progress, but a little progress. But there are not very many ways to
address this. And the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), both as vice
chairman of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
Subcommittee and in general, has been very active in bringing awareness
to this subject.
We held a hearing, and we need to understand that it was not just
Deputy Sheriff March who was killed. The Los Angeles County District
Attorney told us at that hearing over 200 murder suspects in Los
Angeles County alone have fled to Mexico.
We have to address this question. It is tough enough with the death
penalty; but if we cannot even do life imprisonment, how in the world
are we going to enforce our law in the United States, and how can we
not have a double standard, actually a triple standard, on our
citizens? They can get the death penalty. They can get life in prison.
But if they can get across the border, there will be no penalty. It is
a travesty, and we have to figure out some way to make this stick.
And I appreciate the gentleman's leadership. We need to continue to
work at this and make sure that the government of Mexico understands
this cannot stand. This has to change, or we will be out of control on
our borders as we see murderers flee across and we cannot get them
back.
I rise in support of the Deal Amendment. On October 1 of last year,
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
addressed the status of the extradition process, an area of growing
concern for lawmakers and law enforcement officials throughout the U.S.
The most significant problem with the extradition process today is
the conditions imposed by foreign nations on extradition. This problem
is not new. For many decades now, certain nations that ban the death
penalty within their own borders have refused to extradite any criminal
who could face the death penalty in the U.S. Other countries refuse to
extradite any fugitive who was convicted in absentia. Prosecutors in
the U.S. have generally dealt with this problem by agreeing to seek
life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, or by agreeing to hold
a retrial.
In October 2001, however, the Mexican Supreme Court issued a decision
banning the extradition of anyone facing life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole, on the grounds that the Mexican constitution
gives all criminals the right to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into
society. Thus, no matter how heinous the crime or how dangerous the
criminal, Mexico will refuse to extradite anyone facing life
imprisonment--which in most of our states is the minimum punishment for
first degree murder. If Mexican authorities officially refuse an
extradition request, they will then proceed to prosecute the fugitive
under their own law--which often results in much lesser penalties.
American prosecutors thus face a
[[Page H5880]]
dilemma. They must either agree to charge a murderer with manslaughter
or another lesser offense that does not match the seriousness of the
crime; or they must trust to the Mexican justice system. Many
prosecutors have simply refused to request extradition under such
conditions preferring to hope that the fugitive will sneak back into
the U.S. and be apprehended.
The case of Deputy Sheriff David March illustrates this problem.
Deputy March, a seven-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, was murdered while making a routine traffic stop in April
2002. His suspected killer, Armando Garcia, a Mexican national and
violent drug dealer who had been deported three times from the U.S.,
immediately fled to Mexico. Mexican authorities have refused to
extradite Garcia, on the grounds that he faces, at a minimum, life
imprisonment.
This is indeed not an isolated case; the Los Angeles district
attorney's office estimates that over 200 murder suspects in Los
Angeles County alone have fled to Mexico. In response, several Members
of Congress have offered legislation calling for changes to the
existing extradition treaty.
Other issues surrounding the extradition process must also be
examined by Congress. For example, in March 2002 the Justice
Department's Inspector General released a report criticizing the
Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs, the main Justice
Department agency responsible for extradition matters, for its
management of extradition cases. Questions have also been raised about
how vigorously other federal agencies with potential influence are
pursuing extradition cases.
It is important the concerns Mr. Deal raises be addressed at the
highest level of the government. We need to send a signal to the
Government of Mexico and other nations that cop-killing drug dealers
must be extradited to the United States for prosecution.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I certainly will not take the 10 minutes. Let me just quickly make a
couple of comments.
I appreciate the comments that have been made here by the gentleman
from Georgia, the other gentleman from Georgia, and the gentleman from
Indiana here. I share the outrage that people feel about somebody who
is a murderer of a law enforcement officer in this country getting away
to a country like Mexico and then being able to escape justice. That
should not happen. We have extradition treaties with a number of
countries; and almost all of them in many cases, I should say, since
most other countries prohibit death penalties, they do prohibit
extradition if death is an option as a penalty.
But this is a new wrinkle. This is a new wrinkle that was put in by
the supreme court in Mexico, which ruled that if an individual faces
life in prison without possibility of parole, that is equivalent,
apparently is what the supreme court said, and I have not read the
complete ruling. I am a little sympathetic to the government of Mexico,
which I do not think anticipated this. They certainly did not suggest
to us or to the State Department that they anticipated this ruling by
the supreme court, and I think they are willing and trying to work with
us to resolve that.
We want to see that all crimes that are committed on our soil are
brought to justice. We want to see them brought to justice particularly
when it is a law enforcement officer who is the victim of this kind of
terrible crime. So I intend to work with the gentleman to encourage the
State Department to make every possible effort in these cases.
But before I close, let me just make one other comment, that is, I
think there is a danger here of mixing some apples and oranges here
when we talk about this punishment of Mexico and then we talk about
whether or not they are having any effect in solving the drug problem.
I would point out that this bill also contains $731 million for the
Andean Counter-Drug Initiative, that is, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia,
Ecuador. Those are the countries where most of the raw materials for
our drugs that are consumed in this country come from. But I am sure
that the three gentlemen that have spoken here would not suggest we
would today cut off that money because we have not been effective. That
argument has been made by some on this floor, and I do not think it is
a good argument. We should do that. The $40 million that we provide to
INL, the international narcotics force that we have overseas, goes
largely in Mexico to support the helicopter program, that is, to
maintain and supply the helicopters that are used both in chasing down
drug smugglers, that is, in small planes, and in eradication efforts.
So I think it is money that is probably well spent, and I would
suggest it is not money we would really want to cut off here. And with
that I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
to me.
I will tell the chairman I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I
will, however, say that even though I do support our efforts to
interdict drugs overseas, that until those governments recognize that
when someone comes into our country either legally or illegally, kills
a law enforcement officer or any other citizen, or engages in major
drug trafficking in our own country that under the provisions of their
own laws or constitutions it prohibits them from being prosecuted for
it that they have to understand if they want to be a partner in these
efforts, that is the first step they should begin to take to show their
good faith.
I would suggest if they want to show good faith, they should allow
the murderer of Officer March to be brought to justice in the United
States.
I do thank the gentleman for his indulgence. I would urge him to
press this issue forward as we go forward with further funding issues.
And I, quite frankly, would urge our administration to reexamine the
extradition treaty not only with Mexico but with any other country that
throws up these impediments. It is a double insult to the American
public to have someone come into our country, kill our law enforcement
officers or our citizens, and then be able to escape back to their own
country and not be brought to justice.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I appreciate the opportunity to spend 5 minutes on an issue that I
wanted to bring up in the form of an amendment, and that deals with the
$300 million that will be going to Pakistan. And I call this to
attention because I think it is a very unwise expenditure. But I want
to make my case for this in the context of overall foreign policy.
Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of
Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our
responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just
exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot
of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well
engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and
the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is
in the best interests of our country to follow this.
The advice of the Founders was that we should be more balanced in our
approach and not favoring special nations, not giving money or weapons
or getting involved in any alliances with the different nations of the
world and we would all be better off for it.
I believe that this policy is a failure and has been very costly. If
we think about the last 100 years how many lives were lost, how much
blood has been spilled, how many dollars have been spent in this effort
to make the world safe for democracy, the world is probably as unsafe
now as it has ever been. And here we are. We are proposing that we send
$300 million under this policy to Pakistan.
We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a
military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just
seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup
in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well
be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited
from really
[[Page H5881]]
going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the
government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to
us.
There is quite a bit of difference between the foreign policy of
neutrality and friendship with everyone versus giving money and support
to everyone. And if we look at our history, it has not worked very
well. We have in the past given money to both sides of a lot of wars,
and right now we try to be friends and we give money in support to both
India and Pakistan. I do not bring this amendment up here to be pro
either one or anti either one. I want to have a pro-American foreign
policy and not say, well, I want to punish Pakistan and help India or
vice versa.
We have helped people who have been arch enemies for years. Take
Greece and Turkey. We helped both sides. But not only do we help both
sides of a lot of these fights that have been going on for a long time,
we literally help our enemies. Just think of the support we gave Osama
bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and just
think of our alliance with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when we did
provide him with a lot of destructive weapons. That type of policy does
not add up. It does not make a lot of sense. It is not in our best
interests, and my suggestion here is hopefully somewhere along the way,
we will take a serious look at this and redirect our foreign policy.
But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into
the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting
democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young
men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it
suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures
and some of our motivations around the world.
In the past we have been arch enemies of Libya, but now we have
decided they will be our friends. And I am not against that in
particular, but I am against giving them subsidies and helping them
out.
There is such a difference between neutrality and friendship and that
of giving weapons and arms and promoting antagonisms.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on economic support fund assistance for certain foreign
governments that are parties to the international criminal court
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act in
title II under the heading ``economic support fund'' may be
used to provide assistance to the government of a country
that is a party to the International Criminal Court and has
not entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant
to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the
International Criminal Court from proceeding against United
States personnel present in such country.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
{time} 2015
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to say congratulations to the chairman of
the subcommittee. He has done a fine job and has worked very hard to
get this bill through. As a Member of the Committee on Appropriations,
I will support this bill.
I do want to have a discussion about this amendment, because, 2 years
ago, we enacted the Armed Service Members Protection Act as part of the
fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act. ASPA was a response
to the International Criminal Court entering into force, creating the
very real possibility of unconstitutional, extraterritorial and
politically motivated prosecutions against military service members.
The U.S. is not a party to the ICC, but our troops could face
prosecution under the treaty.
As a result, the administration has understandably been very
concerned about committing troops to support U.N. peacekeeping
operations around the world without some assurance that our troops
would not face ICC prosecution. For the last 2 years, we have operated
under Security Council resolutions blocking ICC prosecutions.
Unfortunately, 3 weeks ago, lacking the support of the Security
Council, the U.S. was forced to drop its request for a third extension
of this waiver, meaning that our troops are now subject to ICC
jurisdiction. At the end of June, the administration pulled out of two
small peacekeeping missions because of this concern.
ASPA created a powerful tool for protecting our troops by prohibiting
military assistance to countries that had not signed bilateral Article
98 agreements with the United States, agreeing not to surrender U.S.
nationals to the ICC. The Act also included all of the necessary
waivers to protect the President's foreign policy prerogatives.
My amendment today would simply give the President an additional tool
to protect our troops by prohibiting Economic Support Funding as well
as military assistance to the government of countries that are both
parties to the ICC and have not signed Article 98 agreements.
This distinction is important because traditional development
assistance through ESF typically is administered by a USAID contract to
an NGO. Such assistance would not be restricted. Similarly, funding for
the international Fund for Ireland and the Walsh Visa Program could
continue, as funding goes to non-governmental entities.
I want to see the U.S. engaged around the world supporting
international efforts to keep the peace. That is our responsibility and
obligation as a superpower. But we should not have to risk the
unconstitutional prosecution of our troops in the process.
A vote for my amendment is a vote for continued U.S. engagement and
the continued protection of our personnel deployed around the world in
support of multilateral peacekeeping efforts.
Signing an Article 98 agreement, as 90 other nations have done, is
not too much to expect from nations receiving millions of dollars in
U.S. assistance. We have an obligation to protect our Armed Forces from
unconstitutional extraterritorial prosecution.
Moreover, this amendment sends a powerful message to the world
community that when we commit U.S. troops overseas we will insist that
they be protected by Article 98 agreements, if the Security Council
will not do its part.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) claim the
time in opposition?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agree with the motivations of
this amendment, but I absolutely have to oppose the substance of it.
The reason I do so is because I think it is going to accomplish exactly
the opposite of the intent of this amendment.
Proponents of this amendment are, as the gentleman suggested, upset
at opposition the U.S. faced at the United Nations Security Council in
getting an extension of a U.S. exemption under the jurisdiction of the
ICC. We were successful for some time in getting that, but now it has
failed because we have faced a public relations nightmare in the United
Nations and elsewhere around the world.
Do we have a right to be angry and upset and outraged that we have
not gotten this extension? Yes, I think we should be; and we should
continue to press for an extension.
Many times this Chamber has supported the American Servicemembers
Protections Act, and I have been among its strongest supporters. I
believe it is crucial that the U.S. negotiate Article 98 agreements
with as many countries as possible to prevent the possibility that they
may be tried in an international criminal court, with little or no
political accountability.
[[Page H5882]]
However, conditioning ESF assistance and cutting it off to nations
that do not sign Article 98 agreements is not, in my opinion, the right
response. It is a very, very heavy hand to the problem.
We have conditioned foreign assistance through FMF and IMF accounts
to encourage countries to sign Article 98 agreements. The result of
this amendment, if it were to pass, would be to cut off all aid to some
of these countries: Jordan, at $250 million; Kenya, at $25 million;
Lebanon, at $32 million; Ecuador, at $13 million; Cyprus, at $13.5
million.
I believe most of us believe trying to get a Cyprus agreement is very
important. I think all of us believe that Jordan is extraordinarily
important in our war against terrorism. But it would cut off our ESF
assistance and I think it would do extraordinary damage to our
relationship with Jordan. How are we going to explain to them what we
are really trying to do in getting them to cooperate in the war on
terrorism?
At a time when we are fighting the war on terrorism, reducing this
tool of diplomatic influence is not a good idea. Nothing would make the
opponents of the U.S. in the Security Council and the U.N. General
Assembly happier than if we were to do that. They do not like us using
foreign assistance to support U.S. strategic interests. So if we were
to cut it off, it makes them happy on two accounts: It will have denied
the U.S. the exemption in the first instance, and it will have reduced
our influence around the world.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. If we accept
it, the U.S. will be hamstringing itself, placing a straitjacket on its
diplomatic tools, when we have a lot of U.S. national security
objectives that must carry the same or equal weight as securing Article
98 agreements. I urge a ``no'' vote on this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point
out that ASPA exempts Jordan, and my argument to the chairman would be
that we can exempt Jordan in conference. If this amendment passes, we
can exempt Jordan in conference, as I would agree we should.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Let me see if I have got this straight: The United Nations has
created an International Criminal Court, a shady amalgam of every bad
idea ever cooked up for world government.
The United States, its President, this Congress and the American
people has categorically, unequivocally and completely rejected the ICC
and its insistence on threatening the American people with prosecution.
We reject its laughable legitimacy, we reject its U.N.-American denial
of civil rights, and we reject its anti-American politics. And yet the
ICC still asserts jurisdiction over the American people, including
American soldiers fighting the war on terror and still salivates at the
prospect of prosecuting one of us for anything the U.N. does not like.
Now, some nations who receive economic support from the United States
may use the money we give them to arrest and hand over American
citizens to the U.N.'s kangaroo court?
I do not think so.
President Bush has shown great leadership by removing the United
States from the treaty creating the ICC, and Congress has passed
legislation, the American Servicemembers Protection Act, to ensure our
soldiers and peacekeepers around the world are protected from
prosecution in it. Federal law now requires all countries who seek
American military assistance sign an agreement assuring us they will
not hand over our soldiers to the ICC; and, since its enactment, more
than 90 countries have signed such an agreement.
The ASPA has proven to be a valuable tool in the war on terror, and
the Nethercutt amendment takes that leverage to the next step, making
American economic support contingent on a promise not to turn over our
troops to the ICC. The Nethercutt amendment will forestall any attempt
by a foreign country that receives American economic aid to arrest and
extradite American soldiers to Kofi Annan's kangaroo court.
Now, let us be real clear: The ICC presents a clear and present
danger to the war on terror and Americans who are fighting it all over
the world. The United Nations just last month refused to extend
protection from the ICC to American troops abroad. This was at once an
ominous sign of things to come and an urgent call for Congress to do
its duty and protect our men and women in uniform.
That is exactly what this vote is. If you want to go home to your
constituents and tell them that you think that their tax dollars should
go to foreign countries who allow American soldiers to be imprisoned
and shipped off to Brussels without their constitutional rights, then,
by all means, vote no on the Nethercutt amendment.
If, however, you think American troops should retain their human and
constitutional rights even when they step on foreign soil and if you
think American economic support should only go to countries who
guarantee such protection for our soldiers, then stand with the
American people, the President and the men and women winning the war on
terror and vote yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has 30
seconds remaining and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The
gentleman's amendment and all the discussion may sound good, but it
would have a sweeping and potentially devastating impact. It would cut
off, and I want to make it clear, if you read this amendment, it would
cut off economic assistance to a long list of countries in the Middle
East and Asia of vital strategic importance to the United States in
fighting the war on terrorism, and that includes Jordan, Indonesia,
Turkey and Cyprus. It would end economic assistance to South Africa, as
well as a number of other African countries such as Angola, Ethiopia,
Kenya and Sudan. The amendment would also cut assistance to Peru,
Mexico and Ecuador, where U.S. counter-drug programs are attempting to
stem the flow of narcotics to our country.
I could go on. But, in conclusion, I would like to make one final
point: The American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 prohibits
military assistance to countries that have not entered into Article 98
agreements with the United States. Although I opposed the bill, it
became a law. But that bill, however, gave the President waiver
authority for national security reasons. He has exercised that waiver
for at least 16 countries so far. The Nethercutt amendment does not
even allow the President that waiver authority and would result in the
immediate cessation of economic assistance to many of the important
allies to which I referred.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to the arguments on both sides. I think the
most compelling argument is that if these countries want to receive
money from the United States, it is simple: Sign an Article 98
agreement, and then you can receive the money.
But in these very dangerous times in which we find ourselves, I think
the bottom line is we have to protect our American servicemen and women
overseas on peacekeeping missions.
It worked in one case. I am informed Eritrea has agreed to sign an
Article 98 agreement as we decided to remove our peacekeeping force
from that country. So it works, and this is a logical and appropriate
conclusion for us to take as a country.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me, in conclusion, just say that the majority
leader made the point that we should be protecting our servicemen, and
he is absolutely correct. And he made the point that we have provisions
in the law that says countries cannot get military financing or
military support if they do not give us an exemption to Article 98. But
he also pointed out that we have an exemption in there. We have an
ability that the President can have a waive for those countries.
This takes it, as the majority leader said, another step to economic
support, and there is no waiver in there. This
[[Page H5883]]
means one of our key allies, and I keep coming back to Jordan, because
I think Jordan is absolutely one of our key allies in this fight
against terrorism, that we would have to cut off all the economic
assistance to Jordan, because, for whatever reason, they have seen it
in a different way and they have chosen, at least at this point, not to
give us this exemption. I do not see how that helps us in the war
against terrorism.
I hope we will defeat the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. 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 Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 12, line 10, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 18, line 22, insert after the dollar figure the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I start, I want to acknowledge the very hard work
and I believe a commitment of the chairman of this committee to the
point that I am about to make, as well as the historic commitment of
the ranking member, because I have worked with her over the years on
this question of sustainable development, the opportunity for many who
are undernourished and struck by famine to sustain themselves.
{time} 2030
Many of my colleagues are aware of the relationship of my
congressional district to Congressman Mickey Leland. Many of my
colleagues knew of his passion and commitment to Ethiopia and the
famines that occurred in the 1980s. In fact, Mickey Leland lost his
life in 1989 when he died on the side of an Ethiopian mountain trying
to carry food resources to the famine-stricken individuals in Ethiopia.
Ethiopia, along with other sub-Saharan nations in Africa, have suffered
famine now for many, many cycles since his tragic death.
What we see here is an example of a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa
trying to survive. He is not asking for food; but as we look at this
arid background, he is working with a sickle, if you will, dealing with
lack of irrigation, all representing the crisis of famine in sub-
Saharan Africa.
So each time we have a cycle of a drought, lack of water, what we
will find is teams and teams of teeming groups of Ethiopians and others
going to feeding stations simply to survive.
In my most recent visit to Ethiopia, the cycle of drought and famine
were again very present. We went into many parts of the country and
visited enormous, large sites of families who had left their farming
sites because they could not farm, there was no water, there were no
tools, and they were not able to survive. They simply were in sickness-
infested feeding camps with volunteers and USAID workers and others
doing the very best that they could; but they kept coming, because we
have not been able to provide the necessary resources for sustainable
development.
This amendment is small in nature, but it is $5 million being put
into the development assistance to help those in sub-Saharan Africa. It
is to help them with small-scale irrigation, water and drainage,
postharvest storage, crop intensification, crop and livestock
diversification, and rural infrastructure such as in the special
program for food security of the food and agriculture organization of
the United States.
It is shameful that we have not authorized the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 since 1987. So these dollars will simply help put life, water
in the ground, irrigation resources, so that we can follow that old
admonition that if we give a person a fish, they eat for a day; if we
give them a rod, a fishing rod, they eat for a very long time.
We realize that through the FAO our distinguished colleague, Eva
Clayton, has been working with the FAO now, and we realize that part of
the problem is a lack of infrastructure. Constraints to agricultural
development in Africa, says the President, and the continent's poor
agriculture performance is water. Africa uses only 4 percent of its
renewable water reserve for irrigation as compared to 17 percent in
Asia. Only 7 percent of Africa's arable land is irrigated, against 37
percent in Asia. We need to have USAID have a separate and enhanced
resource for food security. It is important to note that we can make a
difference, and this amendment simply attempts to do so.
So I would ask my colleagues to take a hard look at this farmer in
this picture. He represents and is symbolic of many others throughout
the various countries in sub-Saharan Africa. My colleagues will find
out that famine goes hand in hand with the drastic conditions of
drought. Drought comes in a very frequent time frame in this area.
In speaking with the President of Ethiopia, speaking with USAID, they
declared that Ethiopia, for example, only had $4 million set aside to
help a farmer farm better, to get more enhanced farming skills and
tools, to irrigate the water. So I believe that this mere attempt to
respond to FAO, the works of Tony Hill, the chairman and president, and
our colleague, Eva Clayton, and in the memory of Mickey Leland to
realize that sustaining the farmers will help to stamp out hunger.
I would hope that we would be prepared to support such an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by simply saying Ethiopia's famine
threat continues to increase. I simply hope that we will find in our
hearts the ability to support this amendment in order to save lives.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the current bill and to applaud
Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey for their hard work and
leadership in crafting an effective piece of legislation. However, in
making appropriations for the entire Nation, it is virtually impossible
to have a complete assessment or to profess a complete breadth of
knowledge of the regions that need the most assistance--because this is
an ever-changing issue.
I have an amendment at the desk. Again, I rise to support the current
bill and offer an amendment that speaks to the problems of sustainable
development and subsistence farming in Africa and other needy regions.
I urge that $5 million be appropriated for agricultural development in
sub-Saharan Africa and taken from the Economic Support Fund found in
Title II.
Funds requested in this amendment to be administered by USAID are
clearly authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
This money would not only provide assistance to needy farmers and
villages, but it would also strengthen infrastructure and encourage
sustainable growth.
Mr. Chairman, developing and developed countries around the world are
experiencing food shortages. There are an estimated 842 million
undernourished persons, 798 million of which live in developing
countries, 34 million of which live in countries in transition and 10
million of which live in industrialized countries.
Africa is undeniably the hardest hit of all continents, which claims
24 of the 34 countries experiencing food emergencies. The sub-Saharan
African region, though, is facing the brunt of this crisis with some
207 million people in 1999-2001. That amounts to nearly 26 percent of
the population facing inadequate access to nutritious food supplies.
Those living in poor, rural areas are the most vulnerable. They
comprise 70 percent of the continent's population and are the most in
need of agricultural development because their livelihoods are
depending on agriculture.
Small farmers produce the food that feeds the men, women, babies, and
the elders living in the small villages scattered across the arid
landscape of Africa. If we neglect Africa's rural population, we
neglect Africa's backbone. If we provide these farmers with the
necessary resources to shore up inefficient and antiquated
infrastructure we open the door to alleviating a host of other problems
that plague almost \3/4\ of Africa's population.
My proposal would allow for the development of small-scale
irrigation, water and drainage, post-harvest storage, crop
intensification,
[[Page H5884]]
crop and livestock diversification, and rural infrastructure. Such
improvements to infrastructure would encourage sustainable development
and lead to a decrease in food shortage in the short and long run.
Right now, only 7 percent of arable land is irrigated, and groups
like FAO is working with governments and U.N. and NGO partners to
protect and restore agriculture-based livelihoods in crisis countries
through the supply of essential inputs, including improved seeds,
tools, fertilizer, veterinary medicines and vaccines, livestock feeds
and irrigation, fishing and agro-processing equipment, as well as
through crop and livestock pest and disease control campaigns, the
immediate rehabilitation of essential agricultural infrastructure, and
putting in place natural disaster prevention mechanisms.
In addition, members of the House International Relations
Subcommittee on Africa have recognized the importance of the issues to
be addressed by this proposal.
We must help these people whose lives depend on the fruits of
subsistence farming. Furthermore, these farmers are severely under-
trained and lack proper irrigation technologies and other resources to
create more arable land options. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, for the
reasons stated above, I ask that my colleagues support the Jackson-Lee
Amendment.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add the following for
the Record:
background on ethiopia
Over 80 percent of Ethiopia's 57 million people live in
rural areas, where most of them are engaged in subsistence
farming or pastoralism. Altitudes in Ethiopia vary greatly.
The lowlands are characterized by dry, sometimes drought-
stricken, areas occupied mainly by nomadic or semi-nomadic
pastoralists. In the mid-altitude areas such crops as maize,
cotton, sorghum and legumes grow. The high-altitude areas are
most suited to wheat, barley and coffee cultivation. The
staple cereal crop in Ethiopia--teff--grows in mid- to high-
altitude areas as does chat which is grown for commercial as
well as domestic use. Ethiopia has the highest cattle
population in Africa, with large herds providing status to
their owners.
Since the 1970s, Ethiopia has been periodically struck by
drought, and many areas consistently suffer from erratic and
unpredictable rainfall. Pressure on the land is very high,
with an average landholding per household in mid- to high-
altitude areas of only about 0.2 to 0.6 hectares. Households
are typically large with an average of seven members. The use
of family planning is not yet widespread in the country, and
in rural areas, especially in Muslim communities, early
marriage is very common. Girls are often married or committed
to marriage at between eight and 12 years of age. Health
facilities are limited and sparse and many people die of
preventable diseases such as malaria, cholera and typhoid as
well as malnutrition.
____
Presentation by the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to the U.S. Congressional
Black Caucus, Congressional Hunger Centre, Human Rights Caucus,
International Relations Committee and Subcommittee on Africa, June 16,
2004
food security, water and agricultural productivity in africa
I wish to thank you all for your interest in Africa's food
security. I am especially grateful to the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Congressional Hunger Centre for organizing
this Roundtable discussion, and for inviting me to give this
presentation. I am greatly honoured to be here.
Honourable Members of the House, Ladies and Gentlemen
1. Current food security situation in Africa
FAO estimates that there are about 842 million persons in
the world today that are undernourished, 798 million in the
developing countries, 34 million in countries in transition
and 10 million in industrialized countries. Progress in
cutting the incidence of hunger remains painfully slow. At
the current rate of progress, the World Food Summit's
objective of halving the number of hungry by 2015 will only
be achieved in 2150.
While Asia is home to the largest number of the hungry
people in the world, it is Africa that has the highest
prevalence of hunger--26 percent, some 207 million people in
1999-2001.
In Africa, agriculture accounts for 17 percent of GDP, 57
percent of employment and 10 percent of export earnings. Over
70 percent of the continent's poor live in rural areas, and
are primarily dependent upon agriculture for their
livelihoods. And yet Africa is the only region in the world
in which average per capita food production has been
constantly falling for the past 40 years. If current trends
persist, the number of undernourished persons on the
continent will increase between now and 2015, in contrast to
the other developing regions.
In the coming decades, Africa will have to feed a
population that is expected to increase from 832 million
people in 2002 to over 1800 million in 2050. Because hunger
is concentrated mostly in rural areas, growth in small-farm
agriculture must be a central element of any effective food
security programme. It will have to raise agricultural
productivity if it is to meet this challenge.
2. Constraints to agricultural development in Africa
The continent's countries suffer the consequences of
variability of output, relatively low yields and heavy
dependence on the export of primary commodities, in a context
of low elasticity of supply and high volatility of price.
Africa's agriculture is undercapitalized, underperforming and
uncompetitive. There are many reasons for this. There is, for
example, the insignificant use of modern inputs, with only 22
kg of fertilizer applied to each hectare of arable land
compared to 144 kg in Asia. The level is even lower in sub-
Saharan Africa, which uses 10 kg per hectare.
The seeds that spurred the success of the Green Revolution
in Asia and in Latin America are barely used in Africa.
Another factor strongly influencing the continent's poor
agricultural performance is water. Africa uses only 4 percent
of its renewable water reserves for irrigation as compared to
17 percent in Asia. Only 7 percent of Africa's arable land is
irrigated against 37 percent in Asia. Yields from irrigated
crops are three times higher than yields from rainfed crops,
but agricultural activity on 93 percent of Africa's arable
land is dependent on extremely erratic rainfall and therefore
seriously exposed to the risk of drought. Eighty percent of
food emergencies are linked to water, especially water
stress.
The serious shortage of rural infrastructure (rural roads,
storage, processing and transport facilities and markets)
place present-day Africa on a par with India in the 1950s.
This inadequacy of water control and lack of infrastructure
constitute the structural limitations that largely explain
why Africa's agriculture is unproductive and uncompetitive.
During the past ten years, Africa's fish production has
stalled and per capita fish supply has only diminished.
Apparent supply has dropped from 9 to 7 kg per person per
year. At the world level, fish supplies are increasingly
sourced from aquaculture, which now accounts for almost 30
percent of global output, but in Africa aquaculture's
contribution is insignificant.
Diseases (in particular malaria and HIV/AIDS) and natural
disasters, such as droughts, floods, windstorms, earthquakes,
livestock epidemics and locust outbreaks exacerbate the food
insecurity.
Conflicts and food insecurity are closely related. The
proportion of food emergencies that are man-made has
increased over time. Indeed, conflict and economic problems
were cited as the main cause of more than 35 percent of food
emergencies between 1992 and 2003, as compared to around 15
percent in the period from 1986 to 1991. More than half of
the countries where undernourishment is most prevalent
experienced conflict during the 1990s.
3. Spotlight on the crisis countries
As I speak, 35 countries in the world are experiencing
serious food emergencies, 24 in Africa, where a large number
of people depend on food assistance.
The food situation in Eritrea, Somalia and pastoral areas
of Ethiopia and Kenya is of particular concern. In Southern
Africa, prospects for the 2004 cereal crops are generally
unfavourable due to prevailing drought conditions. In Sudan,
the civil conflict in Darfur has resulted in the displacement
of over a million people, and access to food has been sharply
curtailed. In West Africa, internally displaced people and
refugees continue to need food assistance in Cote d'Ivoire,
Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone where.
FAO is working with governments and UN and NGO partners to
protect and restore agriculture-based livelihoods in crisis
countries through the supply of essential inputs, including
improved seeds, tools, fertilizer, veterinary medicines and
vaccines, livestock feeds and irrigation, fishing and agro-
processing equipment, as well as through crop and livestock
pest and disease control campaigns, the immediate
rehabilitation of essential agricultural infrastructure, and
putting in place natural disaster prevention mechanisms.
FAO, in collaboration with UNICEF and WFP, has embarked
upon an innovative global programme starting in selected
countries in Africa to protect and improve food and nutrition
security among populations heavily affected by the HIV/AIDS
epidemic. In the vast majority of cases, good nutrition is
the only treatment available to people living with HIV/AIDS;
even when anti-retroviral medicine is available, a good diet
is essential for making the drugs most effective.
4. Water and infrastructure development: key elements
Getting rid of hunger in Africa and elsewhere in the world
does not depend on any leap in technology. In the short-term,
the focus must be on solutions which lie largely within the
reach of Africa's small-scale farmers, including small-scale
irrigation, water harvesting, soil conservation and tillage
practices which cut rainfall run-off and maximize moisture
retention in the soil and short-maturing crop varieties which
fit well within the rainy season.
Successful examples exist in countries implementing the
FAO's Special Programme for Food Security, an initiative
launched in 1994 and now operational in 101 countries (42 in
Africa), which aims at assisting mainly low-income food-
deficit countries to improve their household and national
food security through reduction of year-to-year variability
in agricultural production and improvement of people's income
and employment, and thus access to food.
[[Page H5885]]
It is estimated that the WFS objective cannot be attained
without new water control over 16 million hectares and an
upgrading of 4 million hectares distributed throughout all
African countries. With an average cost of US$ 2,500 per
hectare, it should be possible to rapidly double the
irrigated area to 14 percent.
The programme of water control and management needs to be
supplemented with a package of investment covering also other
areas of rural infrastructure. Mobilizing local labour for
these infrastructural works should make it possible to cover
40 percent of the cost.
5. Agriculture and food security under NEPAD and AGOA
Africa has the capacity to enhance agriculture and ensure
food security. But this requires that political commitment
translates into coherent and effective programmes.
Agriculture is one of the priorities of the New Partnership
for Africa's Development (NEPAD), a vision and strategic
framework for Africa's renewal, conceived and led by African
countries. At their Summit in July 2003, the Heads of State
and Government of the African Union adopted the Maputo
Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, under
which they called for the urgent implementation of the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
(CAADP), prepared by the NEPAD Secretariat with FAO
assistance of FAO; and agreed to allocate at least 10 percent
of their national budgets, within five years, to agriculture
and rural development.
African governments must now implement this decision; they
also need to see that agriculture receives an appropriate
allocation of resources from poverty reduction and debt
alleviation programmes and programmes of the 9th and
successive European Development Funds, as well as from the
concessional funds of the World Bank and the African
Development Bank, in particular.
Apart from the formulation of the CAADP, FAO has also
assisted African countries in updating national strategies
for food security and agricultural development towards 2015,
and preparing National Medium-Term Investment Programmes and
bankable projects. The CAADP foresees a total investment of
US$ 251 billion for the period up to 2015. While the
resources must come primarily from the national budgets, the
developed countries and the international development
community must invest in and support these countries.
As African countries make the required agricultural
development investment and appropriate policy reforms, fair
and open trade opportunities are essential. The value of
African agricultural products, including forestry products,
entering the US market duty-free under the (US) African
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) amounted to US$ 122 million
in 2003 up from $60 million in 2001, corresponding to about
10 percent of total African agricultural exports to the US in
2003.
Although the value of African agricultural exports to the
US under AGOA is small and has grown only modestly, it is
reported to have significant impact in certain parts of
Africa and holds promise for other areas.
6. The International Alliance Against Hunger
The right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious
food is affirmed in the opening statement of the Rome
Declaration on World Food Security. We do not have an excuse
for delaying action; off-the-shelf technologies to increase
food and agricultural production under different
agroecological systems are widely available. The WFS Plan of
Action has provided the road map for reducing and eventually
eradicating hunger. What is needed most is political
commitment, especially at the national level, to give the
problem the priority it deserves supported by a vibrant and
strong International Alliance Against Hunger (IAAH), as
called for by the World Food Summit: five years later
(WFS.fyl) in 2002. World leaders explicitly recognised at
both World Food Summit in 1996 and the WFS.fyl that, while
the responsibility for national food security lies with the
national governments, the battle against hunger and poverty
can only be won in partnership with civil society, the NGOs,
the private sector, bilateral donors and international
organizations.
The International Alliance Against Hunger builds on the
many existing initiatives and institutions that are already
successfully engaged within their respective mandates in the
fight against hunger and poverty and offers a framework for
all of them to join forces in giving the hungry a stronger
voice and responding to it. One of the objectives of the IAAH
is to advocate greater resource flows into developing
countries' agriculture. In the context of the Anti-Hunger
Programme, unveiled at the World Food Summit: five years
later, FAO estimates that, world-wide, some USD 24 billion
per year is required to achieve the World Food Summit goal of
halving the number of hungry people by 2015: USD 8 billion
for food aid and commercial loans, USD 8 billion from
developing countries, and another USD 8 billion through
concessional loans from international financing institutions
and bilateral assistance from developed countries, which
themselves provided US$ 318 billion to support their farmers
in 2002.
On the occasion of World Food Day 2003, the Rome-based food
and agriculture agencies--FAO, IFAD, WFP and IPGRI--together
with NGOs, issued an important joint statement to promote the
International Alliance Against Hunger. We agreed to join
forces, and to bring on board other partners, to eliminate
the scourge of hunger. So far, about 78 countries have
created or indicated their interest in creating national
alliances. The United States ``Alliance to End Hunger'',
bringing together Bread for the World, Second Harvest,
advocacy groups, foundations and the private sector, was
among the first alliances to be organized internationally.
The US Alliance is reportedly ready to assist National
Alliances in Africa.
In Africa, there are 26 National Alliances Against Hunger.
Burkina Faso and Cameroon, for example, have very vibrant
alliances.
7. What the US Congress and National Parliaments can do to
address world hunger
Both developed and developing countries have a stake and
self-interest in ensuring that the world is free of hunger.
Hunger has moral, economic and security dimensions. While
hunger reduction alone will not eradicate terrorism,
enhancing human dignity, ensuring better health and
enabling people to have greater freedom of choice will
reduce risks of extremism. Greater global stability is
clearly in the interest of all people, rich and poor
alike.
What can the US Congress and Parliaments do to address
world hunger?
First, understand the breadth of issues affecting hunger;
there is no silver bullet, but there are several affordable
tools available that can make a huge difference to the scale
of the global hunger problem.
Secondly, ensure that there is a generous response by the
US Government, National Governments and civil society to the
calls for assistance of developing countries which are
strongly committed to eradicating hunger by allowing them to
produce food efficiently for their own consumption and for
export.
Thirdly, create better trading conditions by opening up
markets for farm produce from developing countries,
especially for commodities which depend on heavy labour
inputs, such as cotton and sugar.
Fourthly, help African countries build their capacity to
improve the quality and safety of their food products, thus
allowing them to be more competitive.
The problem of hunger in Africa is immense and deeply
rooted in history, but it is also soluble within our lifetime
if we put our collective minds to it. We know what to do to
end hunger. Many positive examples exist throughout Africa
which show how rural livelihoods and nutrition can be
improved. Countries like Mozambique have succeeded in turning
the tide against hunger. In May 2002, President Alhaji Kabba
of Sierra Leone pledged to eradicate hunger within his
current 5-year term of office, and set in motion a
comprehensive food security programme providing very
practical training to farmers, with assistance from FAO and
major donors.
What is needed now is to move with boldness from successful
pilot programmes to broader food security programmes on a
scale commensurate with the size of the food insecurity
problem.
I appreciate this opportunity to begin a dialogue on this
important subject and look forward to your comments and
observation.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes. Let me just say that the
substance of the amendment really does not accomplish, as I think the
gentlewoman knows, does not accomplish what she would hope to do,
because if we read the amendment, it adds money in one spot and takes
it out of the other spot. So it really has no impact at all on the
amount of funding that would go to sub-Saharan Africa.
The gentlewoman wants to increase the amount of money from
development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. I think by and large we
do very well in this bill on sub-Saharan Africa. It is a balanced bill.
I think we have some very good increases there. Many of the things that
the gentlewoman talks about that I fully subscribe to about the need
for greater water resources, for helping farming in those areas, those
are the things that we support and that are done in our legislation.
But I think that this would not be the right amendment, since it
simply does not do what the gentlewoman would try to accomplish. So I
would hope that she would withdraw her amendment; if not, I hope that
we will defeat this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this does place $5 million
into developmental assistance, and I think that with the statement on
the record, it makes it very clear that it can be used for sustainable
development.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just point out
that the $5 million that goes into development assistance comes out of
[[Page H5886]]
ESF, which also does the same kinds of things. So the Economic
Stabilization Fund does the same kinds of things. So it really is just
transferring it from one hand to the other, doing the same kinds of
programs.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. 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. Weiner:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
prohibition against direct funding for saudi arabia
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended
to finance any assistance to Saudi Arabia.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is a simple one. It simply says that no money in this
bill shall go to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To many of those watching
this debate, they would be surprised to learn that any money goes to
Saudi Arabia at all. It should not, and there are reasons it should
not.
First of all, the Saudis are shielding known terrorists. This is not
a theory of mine; this is a fact. Just yesterday, the person who was
standing to the right of Osama bin Laden as he presented a chilling
videotape shot after September 11 showed up at a Saudi airport and gave
credit to the Saudi Government for taking him in and offering him
amnesty for his crimes. ``Thank God, thank God,'' he said. ``I called
the embassy and we were very well received.''
Saudi security forces allowed kidnappers to escape after killing 16
Westerners at a Khobar residential compound on May 29 of this year. Al
Qaeda terrorists who kidnapped and killed American contractor Paul
Johnson say they used official police uniforms and vehicles received
from sympathetic Saudi police. Saudi Prince Abdullah responded with a
1-month amnesty for any terrorist who surrendered voluntarily.
In an October of last year interview in ``The Voice of Jihad,'' Abu
Hajjer, an al Qaeda member ranking high on Saudi Arabia's most wanted
list, commented with the following quote: ``It is true that we must use
the country of Saudi Arabia, because it is the primary source of funds
for most Jihad movements. It has some degree of security and freedom of
movement.'' This is what members of al Qaeda say about Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis have famously also failed to crack down on terror. Last
October when I offered a similar amendment, I heard some of the
opponents say, oh, they are getting their act together. As of last
month, not a single arrest or prosecution had come from the U.S.-Saudi
Joint Terrorist Financing Task Force, which is supposed to cut down on
the financing of terror coming out of Saudi; not a single one.
Since September 11, not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist
groups has been publicly punished, despite Ambassador Bandar's
assertion that Saudi Arabia would ``prosecute the guilty to the fullest
extent of the law.'' Since September 11, not a single one.
Last month's report by the Council of Foreign Relations on Terrorist
Financing says: ``Saudi Arabia has not fully implemented its new laws
and regulations and, because of that, opportunities for the witting or
unwitting financing of terrorism persists.''
This is not some fringe element of Congress; this is the Council on
Foreign Relations.
The Saudis finally are exploiting Wahabism. This is not even a
question that the Saudis dispute. In March of 2002, an official Saudi
magazine, Ain al-Yaqueen, wrote that the royal family wholly or partly
funded some 210 Islamic centers, 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, and 2,000
schools in countries without Muslim majorities to spread Wahabism.
So why is there any money in this bill going to the Saudis at all?
Why is this amendment even necessary?
The most telling is from the President's own budget request. In the
President's budget request, they explain why it is necessary to keep a
small amount of money for the Saudis in our budget, with taxpayer
dollars. Here is what it says. The modest amount of IMET funds
requested permit the Saudi Government to purchase military training in
the United States at a considerably lower cost than is charged
countries that are not eligible. And get this: it says, the President,
while Saudi Arabia controls the world's largest oil reserve, it faces
increasing budget pressure.
This is why the United States taxpayer is providing funds to Saudi
Arabia. Well, they are not going to after tonight if we vote ``yes'' on
the Crowley-Israel-Berkley-Weiner amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley).
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), for being one of
the leaders on this most critical issue.
For too long, the United States has been sending foreign assistance
and aid to a country that, quite frankly, has not been honest or
trustworthy. Time and again, the Saudis have shown that they are not
our allies in the war on terror. In fact, they are soft on al Qaeda
terrorists operating in Saudi Arabia. Their efforts to prosecute
terrorists have been fruitless and devious, and their financing of
terror groups has been all but well documented.
Saudi blood money does not only threaten the United States, but it
also threatens our good friend and ally, the State of Israel. More than
50 percent, 50 percent of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia, as
Ambassador Dore Gold testified in the House Committee on International
Relations.
The Saudis impede American efforts in fighting our war on terror.
They have denied U.S. officials access to several suspects in custody,
including one Saudi who had knowledge of extensive plans to inject
poison gas into the New York City subway system.
The Saudi connection to al Qaeda is undeniable. In fact, al Qaeda has
an implicit deal, an implicit deal with the Saudi royal family to
desist from violence in the kingdom in exchange for Saudi financing.
These inexcusable actions by the Saudi Government make them unworthy
of any foreign assistance or aid from our country. As the U.S. is
deeply engaged in this global war on terror, we need all the honest
allies we can get; and, quite frankly, we simply are not getting that
out of this government in Saudi Arabia.
I thank the gentleman from New York for offering this amendment on
keeping the foreign aid from Saudi Arabia.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I especially want to thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner) for introducing this amendment which I have
supported year after year. I rise in strong support of this amendment.
The very idea that we are giving any funding to the Saudi kingdom
with all of its oil, with all of its wealth, is nothing short of
astounding. It boggles my mind. Not only is this a regime that allows
terrorism to exist, they have exploited it worldwide. Not only have
they exploited terrorism, they are the leading financiers of terrorism.
The thought that one cent of American money is being spent in Saudi
Arabia is an insult to the memory of those who
[[Page H5887]]
died in the attack on this Nation of 9/11.
{time} 2045
Let us never forget that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Knowing this, knowing this fact, did the Saudi Government express one
word of remorse, of regret to the families of the 9/11 victims? Not one
word.
The Saudis are constantly declaring to the United States that they
are our partners in peace. Partners in peace? Are we talking about the
same Saudis that support and encourage and finance terrorism, the same
Saudis that exude racist and antiSemitic hatred, the same Saudis that
allowed terrorists to escape after killing 16 westerners at a Khobar
resident tower compound, the same that have the worst record on the
planet when it comes to religious intolerance and discrimination? These
are our partners in peace?
The Saudis claim that they are vigorously prosecuting and persecuting
terrorists. Who are they kidding? Saudi efforts to prosecute terrorists
are inept at best and, more accurately, practically nonexistent.
Since 9/11 not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups has
been punished, not a single one. Is supporting the Saudi royal family
the best use of American taxpayer dollars? Absolutely not. I do not
want my taxpayer dollars going to the Saudis, and I do not want anyone
else's. Let us pass this and send a strong message to our so-called
partners in peace that they are with us, or they are against us.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am the only speaker on this side, so I will speak at
the end.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership on this vitally important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, after 9/11, the President of the United States came to
this Chamber, stood behind where I am standing now, and said that there
is a line in the sand. He said the line divides democracy and
dictatorship, liberty and tyranny, education, indoctrination, schools
that teach kids how to put things together and schools that teach kids
how to blow things up, ballots versus bullets.
This amendment, very simply, enforces that line in the sand. It is
absolutely unfathomable to me, Mr. Chairman, that we would even
contemplate rewarding a regime with U.S. tax dollars that blame
Zionists for the May 1 attacks on a Saudi oil facility that killed two
Americans, that blame the West for the attacks on our country on 9/11
and that went so far as to blame the Barbie doll for undermining values
around the world, calling the Barbie doll a Zionist conspiracy.
Mr. Chairman, now faced with a terrorist threat in Saudi Arabia, a
terrorist threat that confronts all of us around the world, the Saudi
regime's response to that threat is to boldly say we will offer a one-
month pass, we will offer a one-month amnesty to those people who are
plotting and planning our demise, a regime that continues to fund
madrassahs around the world that teach the most virulent hatred without
any sense of modernity.
Mr. Chairman, it was the President who drew that line in the sand.
This amendment enforces that line in the sand. We should not be giving
U.S. tax dollars to a regime that has not demonstrated consistently and
credibly that they are with us in the global war on terror, and that is
why I support and urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, and the hour is getting late and there
are no further speakers on my side, I just want to once again clarify
the record of the Saudis.
Every time we have this discussion in this Chamber, we hear about how
the Saudis have changed their ways, that they finally decided they do
not want to fund terror, they do not want to export terror, they do not
want to be terrorists themselves, that if only we in the House of
Representatives allow them a few more years of funding, a few more
years chasing the fantasy that there are moderate friends in that
region, that maybe things would turn around.
Well, the gentleman that is sitting here talking to Osama bin Laden
shortly after September 11, it would be just great if somehow we can
capture that guy, that guy who is laughing on the tape while Osama bin
Laden took credit for the heinous acts of September 11.
Well, this is a picture from yesterday's newspaper at a Saudi Arabian
airport of that fellow being wheeled into Saudi Arabia under an amnesty
program by the Saudis.
If we think for a moment that U.S. authorities are going to have a
chance to interview this person, think again. We learned from the
explosion at the Khobar Towers years ago, when to this day the FBI has
not been granted access to the crime scene, that we do not get Saudi
cooperation. We learned from the Council of Foreign Relations, who just
put out a report, that we do not get cooperation cutting down on the
funding that the Saudis provide for terror.
So this person, the right hand to Osama bin Laden, is now somewhere
in Saudi Arabia, our so-called ally that we with taxpayer dollars are
funding in this bill.
Frankly, it is inexplicable. It is inexplicable. You can no longer
live by the fantasy that somehow they are going to be helpful, that we
are going to solve the problems of the Middle East if only we embrace
the Saudis. We can no longer follow that fantasy thinking.
Every year when I bring this amendment up, I hear the same protests
from the distinguished chairman and those that support the Saudi
regime. They say, this is the wrong time, things are getting better,
things are getting better. Sure it has been hundreds of years of
exporting terrorism, but now it is getting better. We are right on the
precipice. If only we give them a few more dollars in taxpayer funds,
things will get a little bit better. It is not happening.
According to the United States Government, not a single arrest has
come as a result of this vaunted U.S.-Saudi task force on the financing
of terrorism; and this person, who is no doubt involved in the attacks
of my city on September 11, the attacks in Pennsylvania and here in
Washington, is now in the possession of what he calls his family in
Saudi Arabia.
It is not a coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11
came from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence that, according to the
State Department, more than half of every single dollar for terrorists
comes from Saudi Arabia. It is not a coincidence, because that is what
the Saudi government is all about.
What is remarkable is that we keep going along with it. We provide
funding, we embrace them, and we do not seem to learn.
Let us make this the year that we finally say not a single taxpayer
dollar will go to Saudi Arabia in this bill. Let us take the
explanation in the budget request that this will allow them to save
money on military training, because, ``While Saudi Arabia controls the
world's largest oil reserve, it faces increasing budget pressure.''
It is hard to even read with a straight face. Vote yes on the Weiner-
Crowley-Israel-Berkley amendment. Finally end funding of U.S. tax
dollars to Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full time, but I do rise in
opposition to the pending amendment. It is the wrong amendment.
Especially, it is the wrong amendment at the wrong time.
I am a little bit reminded of the earlier amendment that we had by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), where I rose to say the
timing could not be worse for this sort of amendment, and I think in
this case the timing is very bad for this amendment.
There is no question that elements of the Saudi government in the
past have not been helpful to the United States in the global war on
terrorism, but I do not think anyone can deny that, with the targeting
of the Saudi Government by Osama bin Laden, it now knows and
understands that it is a prime target of international terrorism as
well.
The government of Saudi Arabia has greatly increased its efforts to
root out
[[Page H5888]]
terrorism. It has greatly increased its cooperation in intelligence
matters and others with the United States.
During the current fiscal year, the United States has been involved
in training security services of Saudi Arabia to meet the threat to
both them and to us, and that gets us to the heart of what we are
talking about. By declaring them a terrorist state, we cut off the aid.
The gentleman from New York has said, let us cut off every single
dollar. Well, it is precious few dollars we provide here. It is $1
million in one account and $25,000 in another. A million dollars is
spent through the Antiterrorism Assistance Program funded in this bill
to provide courses in such areas as terrorist crime scene
investigation, explosive incident countermeasures, investigation of
terrorist organizations.
These are the things that our law enforcement specialties do and do
very well, and we are in Saudi Arabia helping to train them or to bring
them here in order to train them in just exactly these kinds of
techniques, of how to go after a bomb investigation, how to do the
counterintelligence kinds of work that has to be done.
It seems to me, given the targeting that has been done in Saudi
Arabia of some Americans, as well as other European individuals and
assets, that it is in our interest to have a Saudi Arabian police
force, law enforcement agencies that are trained in these very special
kinds of techniques.
I would argue that these small sums are well spent. The more that we
can engage the security services of Saudi Arabia, the more that we can
build a relationship between our antiterrorist organizations and those
of the Saudi Government.
Now, the other amount that we provide is a very small sum of $25,000
through the International Military Education and Training Program, or
IMET as it is called, to help train and increase military contacts with
the Saudi military. Some would say, why not charge the Saudi government
for this training? But, in fact, that is precisely what we do. By
providing the relatively modest sum of $25,000, which allows for the
training of one single officer in this country for one program, we
allow them access to the program. The results in Saudi Arabia is that
Saudi Arabia has spent $13 million of its own funds here in the United
States to train over 400 students at U.S. military schools. This is
training that exposes Saudi officers to U.S. military doctrines, to
training regimes, to assistance and most importantly, yes, to U.S.
values.
In the global war on terrorism, now is not the time for us to turn
away from the cooperation and the efforts that we are getting with the
government of Saudi Arabia. Yes, albeit belatedly, but they have turned
to us for assistance and cooperation, and I think we all understand we
need all of the friends and allies that we can get.
This may not be the perfect ally. I would acknowledge freely that it
is not. But I do think in these areas where this funding is involved we
are getting some very substantial cooperation from the Saudis. To
reduce or eliminate this funding by putting them on the list of
terrorist states seems to be absolutely counterproductive to everything
that we are trying to do.
I would acknowledge that the Saudi Arabian government has been remiss
in the past in its commitment to combating terrorism, but I think, as I
said a moment ago, that is changing, and I think we need to encourage
that change, not discourage it.
The administration does strongly oppose this amendment, and I would
ask that a letter from Assistant Secretary William Burns in opposition
to this amendment be placed in the Record at this point.
United States
Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Kolbe,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Chairman: It is our understanding that the United
States House of Representatives is considering a provision to
the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs Appropriations bill which would add the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Section 507, the list of countries
prohibited from receiving direct assistance from the United
States.
Saudi Arabia was among the first countries to condemn the
September 2001 attacks and has worked closely with the United
States since then in the global war against terrorism. Since
the May 2003 al-Qaeda bombings in Riyadh, our cooperation
with Saudi law enforcement and intelligence agencies has been
increasingly effective and mutually beneficial. Saudi Arabia
is now taking aggressive steps to combat terrorists at home,
and to choke off financing for terrorist entities being
channeled through charities overseas.
The Administration strongly opposes efforts to add the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to this list of state sponsors of
terrorism and urges that the House reject the amendment
offered by Representative Weiner, which would severely
undermine our counterterrorism cooperation with Saudi Arabia
at precisely the moment when it is moving to a new level of
effectiveness. This amendment would also undermine our
important interests in cooperation with Saudi Arabia on other
critical issues in the region, including the stabilization of
Iraq and the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace.
We would appreciate your support in defeating
Representative Weiner's amendment.
Sincerely,
William J. Burns,
Assistant Secretary of State.
The adoption of this amendment would only hearten those who seek to
drive a wedge between the United States and Arab regimes that are
cooperating with us on the war on terrorism, and for that reason alone,
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is for the purpose of a question. The
gentleman talked about how the cooperation helps us in the war on
terror. The Council on Foreign Relations issued a report recently that
said that we are not getting that cooperation. The FBI has said that
they are not getting cooperation in investigating crimes against U.S.
citizens. Where does the gentleman derive the idea that we are getting
cooperation with this money?
Mr. KOLBE. Well, I think if one talks to U.S. law enforcement
agencies they will find that we are getting cooperation. We are not
getting as full cooperation as we would like, it is not perfect
cooperation, but that could certainly be said of a lot of other
countries that we are providing assistance to.
I think there is no doubt that we have been getting cooperation,
particularly on sharing of intelligence information with the Saudi
Arabian government. So I do believe that we are getting that kind of
cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WEINER. 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 New York (Mr. Weiner)
will be postponed.
{time} 2100
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis) for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this appropriations bill
includes an authorizing provision that would allow the inspector
general from the Coalition Provisional Authority to continue to oversee
the rebuilding effort in Iraq. This provision is within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on Government Reform, and I want to thank the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his interest in this issue.
The Committee on Government Reform will hold its fourth hearing
overseeing the rebuilding of Iraq next Thursday. My committee has made
this oversight a priority. As part of the overall oversight of the
$18.6 billion of the supplemental funds, we created the CPA Inspector
General. I have met with the CPA IG. I believe with his help, we can
expect the thorough oversight we need from his office.
My committee has jurisdiction over inspectors general, and because of
our
[[Page H5889]]
staff expertise we work closely with other committees and the executive
branch to make sure that the various IGs have the tools to conduct the
mission that the public expects of them. The inspectors general for
DOD, USAID, the Department of State and the CPA, with the help of the
Office of Management and Budget and my committee's oversight, have
negotiated a memorandum of agreement to maintain appropriate oversight
over the rebuilding efforts in Iraq. There is also a similar provision
in the Senate Defense authorization bill that addresses the continuing
oversight of the Iraqi rebuilding effort.
I will work with all involved to address the issue from the
authorization side. I would ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
if he would work with the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee
on International Relations, and the Committee on Armed Services to
ensure that our efforts are coordinated and built constructively on the
existing agreement.
Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform,
for his comments here tonight and for the work that he has done with
the inspectors general.
Let me just say that, as he pointed out, the inspector general here
for what was then the CPA, or Coalition Provisional Authority, was
created as part of the legislation last year which authorized the large
expenditure in the supplemental for the rebuilding of Iraq. And what we
have done in this legislation is not something new, but simply to move
it over as we have moved all the funding, as we moved all the programs
from CPA over to the State Department. We have moved this jurisdiction
over there.
Now, the gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct in saying his
committee not only has jurisdiction but has done yeoman's work in
providing oversight. The hearings they have held have, I think,
effectively brought attention to the problems we have had, particularly
with the contracting in our rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq. And I
really appreciate the work his subcommittee has done. So my answer is
an unequivocal, yes, to the gentleman from Virginia that we will work
with him as we proceed with this bill to make sure that we build
constructively on the existing agreement that we have.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to engage in colloquy with the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, my good friend, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
As my colleagues may be aware, the administration is expected to
announce soon that for the third year in a row it will deny U.S.
funding for the life-saving programs of the United Nations Population
Fund. In my view, the administration's justification for this denial is
flimsy at best. UNFPA has a long-standing program in China which aims
to help introduce voluntary family planning into that country and
change China's destructive and coercive one-child policy. The basis of
denying UNFPA our support is precisely this: UNFPA is being punished
for working within the Chinese government to change a policy we all
agree is wrong.
Contrary to assurances from the administration and the leadership of
this House since 2002 that the decision to de-fund UNFPA would not
negatively affect the U.S. commitment to international family planning
programs, the funding Congress originally intended for UNFPA has not
all gone to support USAID's bilateral family planning program. A
significant portion of it has been diverted to combat trafficking.
While I certainly do not take issue with anti-trafficking programs, I
would urge the administration to request adequate funding for this
priority instead of relying on transfers of funding that should have
gone to UNFPA. It is our understanding that the administration will
propose to Congress the UNFPA's fiscal year 2004 funding be diverted
for anti-trafficking programs instead of going to support USAID's
family planning programs.
I certainly hope that we can include language in the conference
report indicating that the FY 2004 money meant for UNFPA can only be
used for bilateral family planning programs. I would like to ask the
chairman if he agrees with this sentiment, and if he will support such
an effort.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me say I share
the disappointment that the gentlewoman has that we have been unable to
reach a resolution of this issue with regards to the funding and the
use of funds by the UNFPA. I feel very strongly, as the gentlewoman
does herself, that we should continue to invest in multilateral efforts
to improve the health of women and families in the developing world.
And that is exactly what the programs of UNFPA go for.
I have been a long-time supporter of family planning programs and
specifically of the United Nations Family Planning Agency. I feel that
the administration's position has hurt our efforts to support valuable
life-saving programs. Nonetheless, that is a position that has been
taken, and that is the reality of where we are.
As we take this bill to conference, however, if there continues to be
no resolution of the U.S. contribution to UNFPA, I want the gentlewoman
to know I will be happy to work with her in an effort to make sure that
the increased resources that would not be available to UNFPA are set
aside for bilateral family planning programs.
Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with
him.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff
Mr. SCHIFF. 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. Schiff:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert
the following:
prohibition on use of funds for certain purposes
Sec. 576. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Government of Turkey to engage in
contravention of section 1913 of title 18, United States
Code, (relating to lobbying with appropriated moneys), with
respect to H. Res. 193, Reaffirming support of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and
anticipating the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the
Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (the Proxmire
Act) on November 4, 2003.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment, and I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes on his
amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), for their outstanding work on the bill. I think they
both have done a great job in advancing America's foreign policy
priorities at an especially difficult time in our history.
I was particularly please to see the committee wisely provides $65
million in economic aid for Armenia, $3 million more than the
administration's request, and that the committee wisely restored the
parity in security assistance between Armenia and Azerbaijan by funding
military aid and education assistance to both Armenia and Azerbaijan at
$6 million.
Today, I offer a simple amendment that will honor the 1\1/2\ million
Armenians who perished in the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923. I
consider this a sacred obligation, to ensure that the men, women and
children who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire are not lost
to history and that this Congress not fund shameful efforts to deny
that the genocide occurred.
Time is the ally of those who would deny or change history. Such has
it been, regrettably, by those who would continue to deny the
undeniable facts of the murder of 1\1/2\ million people, the first
genocide of last century.
My amendment tonight seeks only to prohibit the use of funds to lobby
[[Page H5890]]
against H. Res. 193, the resolution which includes a reference to the
Armenian Genocide and reaffirms the support of Congress for the
genocide convention and commemorates the anniversary of our becoming a
party to this landmark legislation. It will not deprive countries of
funding that they need for legitimate purposes, but no appropriations
under this bill or any other bill should be used by other governments
to lobby this Congress against legislation, and particularly
legislation that reaffirms our commitment to the convention on genocide
and the recognition of the victims of the Armenian Genocide as well as
the victims of many other genocides in the history of mankind.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
It is time for the United States to properly recognize the Armenian
Genocide, which is fully documented in the U.S. Archives and through an
overwhelming body of firsthand governmental and diplomatic evidence.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Turkish government and its
paid lobbyists have through threats and blackmail sought to prevent the
United States from properly commemorating the Armenian Genocide.
Morally it is wrong for the American people to be complicit in the
Turkish government's efforts to deny the suffering and death of 1.5
million people. I would also like to point out that Turkey's
recognition of the Armenian Genocide would represent a meaningful step
towards its acceptance into the European family of nations.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is time for this body to stop defending and
funding a government that continues to deny its own history and refuses
to break with the pattern of intolerance established by past Turkish
governments which dealt with minority issues by committing genocide
against Armenians, massacring and driving Greeks from its shores,
restricting the rights of Christians to worship, and denying the
existence of its Kurdish citizens.
I would like to add that I am joined in my support of this amendment
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) wish to
make his point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will not make a point of order on the
amendment. I will conclude the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Among historians there is no dispute about what happened to the
Armenian people. There is no dispute that it was genocide. Thousands of
pages of documents sit in our National Archives, newspapers of the day
were replete with stories about the murder of Armenians: ``Appeal To
Turkey To Stop Massacres,'' headlined the New York Times on April 28,
1915, just as the killing began.
On October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000 Armenians
had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December of 1915,
the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile.
In 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the international community
responded to Nazi Germany's methodically orchestrated acts of genocide
by approving the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. It confirms that genocide is a crime under
international law and defines genocide as actions committed with intent
to destroy a nation, ethnic, racial or religious group.
The United States under President Truman was the first nation to sign
the convention. Last year marked the 15th anniversary of President
Reagan signing the Genocide Convention Implementation Act.
Just over a year ago, I introduced H. Res. 193 with my colleagues,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg),
and other Members of this House. This should have been an easy
resolution for all of us now to support on the House floor. Genocide is
the most abhorrent crime known to human kind; and, unfortunately, it is
happening in the Sudan as we speak.
The reason we have not yet succeeded in passing this resolution is
simple. The government of Turkey refuses to acknowledge the genocide,
and the strongest nation on Earth fears their reaction if we do.
110 of my colleagues have co-sponsored this resolution, and I expect
it would pass overwhelmingly if given the chance. At the very least we
should not fund efforts to silence our voices.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is most unfortunate. We have just been handed this
amendment. It is a completely new amendment, quite different than the
one we had seen before. So we do not really know what the implications
of this are. I am trying to read it and think it through.
I am inclined to accept this and deal with its ramifications in the
full committee. Looking at it, let me say that it appears by saying
relating to lobbying with appropriated monies, but not having any way
of making that determination as to what that is, it does not have any
real impact. Nonetheless, I understand the symbolism of this, and I am
concerned about that in terms of our ally, Turkey. But I am prepared to
accept this amendment at this time. And as I said, we will deal with
its implications and ramifications at a later time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my friend and colleague from California Adam Schiff.
This is an amendment to ensure that we never forget the struggles of
the Armenian people or that we never forget . . .
Ever since I was elected to the State Assembly and now in Congress, I
have been a strong supporter of the Armenian American community.
However, my strong support is not only because I represent a large
Armenian community in Queens but also because I see the strategic
importance of Caucasus region for the United States.
The contributions of the Armenian community to this great city cannot
be fully appreciated quantitatively.
It can only be realized by those who walk the streets of New York
every day.
I had the opportunity to travel to Armenia last summer.
Through meetings and discussions with elected officials and even
regular citizens, I have a clearer understanding of Armenia's needs and
challenges.
I believe that as a nation Armenia is growing and with the support of
the United States and the Diasporan Armenian community--Armenia will be
able to overcome the economic and security challenges in the region.
I have continuously supported and encouraged closer ties between the
United States and Armenia because of the strategic position and also
because of the similar values of democracy and freedom.
The thorny path to liberty is a concept with which the people of
Armenia have been forced to contend for many years.
From the Armenian Genocide, to the republic's absorption into the
Soviet Union, to the current struggle for Nagorno (NA-GORE-NO)-Karabakh
(KAR-AH-BAH), the path has not always been smooth.
I am pleased to say that the nation of Armenia does not need to
travel that thorny path alone.
I am proud to stand alongside them in an effort to reach their goals.
I assure you, it will never be forgotten.
Armenia remains a major focus in American foreign policy.
The United States recognizes the need to cultivate and support the
development of Armenia.
The United States has looked to Armenia to take the lead in bringing
peace and prosperity to the Caucasus.
The people of Armenia have overcome tremendous obstacles on the path
to liberty.
But again we can never forget the genocide and we must commemorate
it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
[[Page H5891]]
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 2115
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the last word. I do so for
the purposes of yielding to the gentlewoman from New Mexico for the
purpose of a colloquy.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding to me.
I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to enter into a colloquy
with me, and I wanted to commend him for all his work on funding for
global efforts to fight tuberculosis. This bill will allocate $185
million for infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, from the
United States Agency For International Development, $46 million more
than the President requested. This is in addition to the roughly $68
million for TB in the Global Fund and $17.5 million from other
accounts. In a bill where several other programs received cuts in
funding, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to continue our
commitment to combat global TB at a level at least equal to last year.
I am concerned about funding for the Global TB Drug Facility. The
United States contributed $3 million to the Global TB Drug Facility
last year and would do so again next year in this bill. The STOP TB
partnership, which includes 50 world organizations, including the WHO,
recommended a commitment by the U.S. of $50 million each year to reach
the most people possible. The Global TB Drug Facility has successfully
treated 3 million people in three years for tuberculosis. Funds from
the facility can successfully treat tuberculosis for just $10 per
person.
I would ask that the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) who has worked with me so hard on tuberculosis issues
work together as this bill goes to conference to try to increase the
funding for the Global TB Drug Facility to try to help get vital
medicines out to the people who need them most.
Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from New Mexico for her statements and concern that she has
expressed, along with the gentleman from Ohio, about the impact of
tuberculosis worldwide. It is one of the world's worst killers, causing
up to 2 million deaths every year.
Our foreign assistance has a strong emphasis on programs to fight
this disease. Our bilateral TB programs lead the world in helping
developing countries set up treatment and pharmaceutical management
systems. Supporting the Global TB Drug Facility is another important
component of our strategy. Through the GDF, the U.S. helps populations
in need around the world gain access to life-saving tuberculosis drugs.
I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman from New Mexico and
other colleagues on this important issue as we move into the
conference, and I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to our
attention.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, 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 by Mr. Buyer of Indiana; amendment by Mr. Sanders of Vermont;
amendment No. 6 by Mr. Nethercutt of Washington; amendment by Ms.
Jackson-Lee of Texas; amendment by Mr. Weiner of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Buyer
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243,
noes 161, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 385]
AYES--243
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--161
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
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
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
[[Page H5892]]
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--29
Aderholt
Bonner
Carson (IN)
Collins
Cramer
Crenshaw
Deal (GA)
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Greenwood
Hayes
Houghton
Isakson
Jefferson
Jenkins
Kaptur
Majette
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Quinn
Radanovich
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Stenholm
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2143
Messrs. TIERNEY, MURTHA and BACA changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. KIRK, Ms. DUNN, and Messrs. ALEXANDER, LEWIS of California,
SPRATT, and BEREUTER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 385,
the Buyer Amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 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 270,
noes 132, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 386]
AYES--270
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burton (IN)
Camp
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--132
Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Cole
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Istook
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Putnam
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Ryan (WI)
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--31
Bonner
Capps
Carson (IN)
Collins
Cramer
Deal (GA)
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Greenwood
Hayes
Houghton
Isakson
Jefferson
Jenkins
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Majette
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Meeks (NY)
Quinn
Radanovich
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Stenholm
Watson
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2150
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina and Mr. GINGREY changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 386,
the Sanders Amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 386, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt) 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 241,
noes 166, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 387]
AYES--241
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Costello
Cox
Crane
[[Page H5893]]
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
LaHood
Langevin
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NOES--166
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney
Markey
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Bonner
Carson (IN)
Collins
Cramer
Deal (GA)
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Frelinghuysen
Greenwood
Hayes
Houghton
Isakson
Jefferson
Jenkins
Kaptur
Majette
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Quinn
Radanovich
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Stenholm
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2158
Mr. CALVERT and Mr. ROSS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 387,
the Nethercutt Amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) 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 164,
noes 243, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 388]
AYES--164
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--243
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
[[Page H5894]]
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--26
Bonner
Carson (IN)
Collins
Cramer
Deal (GA)
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Frelinghuysen
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hayes
Houghton
Isakson
Jenkins
Kaptur
Majette
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Quinn
Radanovich
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Stenholm
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 2204
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 388,
the Jackson-Lee amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 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 217,
noes 191, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 389]
AYES--217
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Coble
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kirk
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norwood
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Porter
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
Wynn
NOES--191
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Etheridge
Fattah
Feeney
Foley
Fossella
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ruppersberger
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spratt
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--25
Bonner
Carson (IN)
Collins
Cramer
Deal (GA)
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Frelinghuysen
Greenwood
Hayes
Houghton
Isakson
Jenkins
Kaptur
Majette
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Quinn
Radanovich
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Stenholm
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 2218
Mr. SWEENEY and Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. PASCRELL, BLUMENAUER, BOYD and UDALL of Colorado, Ms. WATERS
and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 389,
the Weiner Amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4818)
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 715, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
[[Page H5895]]
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 365,
nays 41, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 390]
YEAS--365
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
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, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
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
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NAYS--41
Akin
Bartlett (MD)
Berry
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Duncan
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Gutknecht
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Hulshof
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kucinich
Lucas (OK)
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pombo
Rahall
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Smith (MI)
Stearns
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Toomey
Whitfield
NOT VOTING--27
Bonner
Carson (IN)
Collins
Cramer
Deal (GA)
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Feeney
Frelinghuysen
Greenwood
Hayes
Houghton
Isakson
Jenkins
Kaptur
Majette
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Miller, George
Quinn
Radanovich
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Stenholm
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 2236
Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 390,
the Foreign Operations Appropriations, H.R. 4818, Final Passage, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________