[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.''

                          ____________________