[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5302-H5355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 341 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3057.
{time} 1638
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) had
been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 6, line
20, through page 12, line 9.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
the amendment printed in the Record and numbered 4;
the amendment printed in the Record and numbered 6, which shall be
debatable for 60 minutes;
an amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding Export-Import Bank loans for
nuclear power plants in China, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
an amendment by Ms. Lee regarding excess property transfers to Haiti,
which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
an amendment by Ms. Lee regarding the U.S. fund to fight AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria;
an amendment by Mr. Schiff regarding funding for the Human Rights and
Democracy Fund;
an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding for the Global
HIV/AIDS Initiative;
an amendment by Mr. Beauprez regarding assistance to countries that
refuse to extradite certain individuals;
an amendment by Mr. Deal of Georgia regarding assistance to countries
that refuse to extradite certain individuals;
an amendment by Mr. Bonilla regarding an Inspector General at the
Export-Import Bank;
an amendment by Mr. Weiner or Mr. Ferguson regarding limiting funds
for Saudi Arabia;
an amendment by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire regarding limiting funds
for Romania;
an amendment by Mr. Otter regarding assistance to the Palestinian
Authority;
an amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding funding for
pediatric HIV/AIDS centers;
an amendment by Mr. Simpson regarding Export-Import Bank loans to
China;
an amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding Federal employee
participation in overseas conferences;
an amendment by Ms. Waters regarding sense of Congress on Haiti
elections;
an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding employment of
minors in the military of other countries;
an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for
Sudanese refugees in Chad;
an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for water
security improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa;
an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for
children in developing nations;
an amendment by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California regarding IMET
funding for Vietnam;
an amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut;
[[Page H5303]]
an amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding renewable energy;
an amendment by Mr. Capuano regarding Darfur;
and an amendment by Mr. Kolbe regarding funding levels.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the
request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in
the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be
subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs each may
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. 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. Lee:
Page 12, after line 9, insert the following:
In addition to the amount provided in the preceding
paragraph for a United States contribution to the Global Fund
to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, $600,000,000 for
such purpose, to remain available until September 30, 2007:
Provided, That such amount is designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first start by thanking the chairman, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and our ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their hard
work on this bill and for making sure that it is a bipartisan bill. I
also thank them for their very difficult work in establishing the
priorities in terms of our foreign policy funding priorities. I know
that every year they are given, I believe, an inadequate allocation and
that they both wish that they could do more to meet our foreign
assistance priorities.
But, Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to come to the floor today and
offer this amendment because every year the global HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria pandemics kill over 6 million people combined.
Just imagine that, over 6 million every year. That is more than the
number of people who die from war, famine, terrorism or natural
disasters each year combined. That is really quite mind-boggling. What
is worse, each of these three diseases is completely, completely
preventible and treatable; and in the case of tuberculosis and malaria,
they can be completely cured.
So while we have begun to focus our efforts and funding with regard
to this pandemic, I believe that we cannot afford to drag our feet and
just let 6 million people die like this year after year. When do we
draw the line and say enough is enough and we are going to escalate our
efforts and put more resources into this pandemic?
We cannot in good conscience, Mr. Chairman, ignore this human tragedy
that unfolds around us each and every day. We must act, and we must act
in a bold fashion.
That is why today I am offering an amendment to add $600 million in
emergency funding to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria, adding to the $400 million already in the bill, and bringing
our total contribution to $1 billion.
Unfortunately, last week $100 million was actually cut from the
Global Fund in the Labor-HHS bill by this body. The Global Fund is one
of the most powerful tools that we have as an international community
to combat these three diseases. In fact, we created the framework for
the Global Fund back in 2000 with the passage of the Global Aids and
Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, which was signed into law by President
Clinton.
{time} 1645
And we provided the very first contribution in 2001 to help attract
further financing from other donor nations.
Today, the Global Fund is a model for what the future of
international development may look like. Designed strictly as a
financing instrument, the Global Fund seeks to attract, manage,
leverage, and disburse funding to support locally-driven strategies to
combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. To date, the Global Fund has
approved $3.4 billion for over 300 grants in 127 countries.
However, this year the Global Fund faces one of its biggest
challenges: renewing over the $1.8 billion in existing grant agreements
and approving upwards of $1 billion in new contracts, and this is still
not enough. With the renewing of these contracts, there is just not
enough money.
Without increased support from the United States and other donor
nations, the fund may be forced to cut back on funding new grants and,
worse, may be forced to cut crucial funding for people already on anti-
retroviral therapy. Mr. Chairman, that would quite frankly just be
totally disastrous.
Around the world, momentum is building in support of increased
funding for the Global Fund and other international development
initiatives. Two weeks ago, France announced it that would double its
Global Fund contribution through 2007. Last week, Japan pledged $5
billion in new funding to help Africa combat AIDS, TB, and malaria,
with a sizable contribution going to the Global Fund. And, with the
upcoming G-8 summit taking place in Scotland next week, and with the
British Prime Minister's focus on a huge new development initiative for
Africa, the United States can and must do more. By providing $600
million in emergency funding, my amendment would take that first step.
Mr. Chairman, because my amendment is an emergency spending request,
it will exceed the foreign operations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation
and, therefore, I know that that is subject to a point of order. But I
would hope that given the gravity of the pandemic, that my colleagues
would consider this as a moral effort, strictly a moral effort to those
who desperately need our help. Given the magnitude of the deaths and
the pain and the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, and the
devastation that these diseases leave behind, I would ask the Chair to
reject the point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's commitment
and passion, and I certainly share her commitment about the need to do
something about HIV/AIDS. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I must make a
point of order against the amendment because it does propose to change
existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and
therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment does include an emergency designation and, as such, it
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mrs. LOWEY. I wish to be heard on the point of order.
I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on the issue. I am
pleased that the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I were
able to double the President's request for the Global Fund in the bill
from $200 million to $400 million, and, as the gentlewoman probably
knows, given the allocation, it was simply the best we could do.
However, I understand the urgency of the situation, and I look
forward to working with the gentlewoman as we move the bill forward to
continue to
[[Page H5304]]
meet our responsibilities, and then some, because of the tremendous,
tremendous impact of HIV/AIDS in every part of this world.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency
designation. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
development assistance
For necessary expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development to carry out the provisions of
sections 103, 105, 106, and subtitle A of title VI of chapter
II, and chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, $1,460,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2007: Provided, That $214,000,000 should be allocated for
trade capacity building, of which at least $20,000,000 shall
be made available for labor and environmental capacity
building activities relating to the free trade agreement with
the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic:
Provided further, That $365,000,000 should be allocated for
basic education: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading and managed by the United
States Agency for International Development Bureau of
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, not less
than $15,000,000 shall be made available only for programs to
improve women's leadership capacity in recipient countries:
Provided further, That such funds may not be made available
for construction: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading that are made available for
assistance programs for displaced and orphaned children and
victims of war, not to exceed $37,500, in addition to funds
otherwise available for such purposes, may be used to monitor
and provide oversight of such programs: Provided further,
That funds appropriated under this heading should be made
available for programs in sub-Saharan Africa to address
sexual and gender-based violence: Provided further, That up
to $15,000,000 should be made available for drinking water
supply projects in east Africa.
International Disaster and Famine Assistance
For necessary expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development to carry out the provisions of
section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for
international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction assistance, $356,000,000, to remain available
until expended of which $20,000,000 should be for famine
prevention and relief.
Transition Initiatives
For necessary expenses for international disaster
rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance pursuant to
section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$50,000,000, to remain available until expended, to support
transition to democracy and to long-term development of
countries in crisis: Provided, That such support may include
assistance to develop, strengthen, or preserve democratic
institutions and processes, revitalize basic infrastructure,
and foster the peaceful resolution of conflict: Provided
further, That the United States Agency for International
Development shall submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations at least 5 days prior to beginning a new
program of assistance: Provided further, That if the
President determines that is important to the national
interests of the United States to provide transition
assistance in excess of the amount appropriated under this
heading, up to $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated by this
Act to carry out the provisions of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 may be used for purposes of this
heading and under the authorities applicable to funds
appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That
funds made available pursuant to the previous proviso shall
be made available subject to prior consultation with the
Committees on Appropriations.
Development Credit Authority
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees provided
by the United States Agency for International Development, as
authorized by sections 256 and 635 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, up to $21,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008, may be derived by transfer from funds
appropriated by this Act to carry out part I of such Act and
under the heading ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the
Baltic States'': Provided, That such funds shall be made
available only for micro and small enterprise programs, urban
programs, and other programs which further the purposes of
part I of the Act: Provided further, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such direct and guaranteed
loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That funds made available by this paragraph may be
used for the cost of modifying any such guaranteed loans
under this Act or prior Acts, and funds used for such costs
shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of
the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the
provisions of section 107A(d) (relating to general provisions
applicable to the Development Credit Authority) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as contained in section 306
of H.R. 1486 as reported by the House Committee on
International Relations on May 9, 1997, shall be applicable
to direct loans and loan guarantees provided under this
heading: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize total loan principal, any portion of which is to be
guaranteed, of up to $700,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out
credit programs administered by the United States Agency for
International Development, $8,000,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development: Provided, That funds made
available under this paragraph shall remain available until
September 30, 2007.
Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund
For payment to the ``Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund'', as authorized by the Foreign Service Act
of 1980, $41,700,000.
Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for International
Development
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$630,000,000, of which up to $25,000,000 may remain available
until September 30, 2007: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated under this heading and under the heading
``Capital Investment Fund'' may be made available to finance
the construction (including architect and engineering
services), purchase, or long-term lease of offices for use by
the United States Agency for International Development,
unless the Administrator has identified such proposed
construction (including architect and engineering services),
purchase, or long-term lease of offices in a report submitted
to the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days prior to
the obligation of these funds for such purposes: Provided
further, That the previous proviso shall not apply where the
total cost of construction (including architect and
engineering services), purchase, or long-term lease of
offices does not exceed $1,000,000: Provided further, That
contracts or agreements entered into with funds appropriated
under this heading may entail commitments for the expenditure
of such funds through fiscal year 2006: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act may be used to open a new
overseas mission of the United States Agency for
International Development without the prior written
notification of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That the authority of sections 610 and 109 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be exercised by the
Secretary of State to transfer funds appropriated to carry
out chapter 1 of part I of such Act to ``Operating Expenses
of the United States Agency for International Development''
in accordance with the provisions of those sections.
Capital Investment Fund
For necessary expenses for overseas construction and
related costs, and for the procurement and enhancement of
information technology and related capital investments,
pursuant to section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, $77,700,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That this amount is in addition to funds otherwise
available for such purposes: Provided further, That funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available for
obligation only pursuant to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That of the amounts appropriated under this heading,
not to exceed $55,800,000 may be made available for the
purposes of implementing the Capital Security Cost Sharing
Program: Provided further, That the Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development shall
assess fair and reasonable rental payments for the use of
space by employees of other United States Government agencies
in buildings constructed using funds appropriated under this
heading, and such rental payments shall be deposited into
this account as an offsetting collection: Provided further,
That the rental payments collected pursuant to the previous
proviso and deposited as an offsetting collection shall be
available for obligation only pursuant to the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That the assignment of United States
Government employees or contractors to space in buildings
constructed using funds appropriated under this heading shall
be subject to the concurrence of the Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development.
Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for International
Development Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$36,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007,
which sum shall be available for the Office of the Inspector
General of the United States Agency for International
Development.
Other Bilateral Economic Assistance
Economic Support Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II, $2,558,525,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2007: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not less than $240,000,000
shall be available only for
[[Page H5305]]
Israel, which sum shall be available on a grant basis as a
cash transfer and shall be disbursed within 30 days of the
enactment of this Act: Provided further, That not less than
$495,000,000 shall be available only for Egypt, which sum
shall be provided on a grant basis, and of which sum cash
transfer assistance shall be provided with the understanding
that Egypt will undertake significant economic reforms which
are additional to those which were undertaken in previous
fiscal years: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading for Egypt, not less than
$50,000,000 shall be used for programs to improve and promote
democracy, governance, and human rights and not less than
$50,000,000 shall be used for education programs: Provided
further, That with respect to the provision of assistance for
Egypt for democracy and governance activities, the
organizations implementing such assistance and the specific
nature of that assistance shall not be subject to the prior
approval by the Government of Egypt: Provided further, That
in exercising the authority to provide cash transfer
assistance for Israel, the President shall ensure that the
level of such assistance does not cause an adverse impact on
the total level of nonmilitary exports from the United States
to such country and that Israel enters into a side letter
agreement in an amount proportional to the fiscal year 1999
agreement: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
under this heading, not less than $250,000,000 should be made
available only for assistance for Jordan: Provided further,
That $20,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading
should be made available for Cyprus to be used only for
scholarships, administrative support of the scholarship
program, bicommunal projects, and measures aimed at
reunification of the island and designed to reduce tensions
and promote peace and cooperation between the two communities
on Cyprus: Provided further, That $40,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading should be made available for
assistance for Lebanon, of which not less than $6,000,000
should be made available for scholarships and direct support
of American educational institutions in Lebanon: Provided
further, That funds appropriated under this heading that are
made available for a Middle East Financing Facility, Middle
East Enterprise Fund, or any other similar entity in the
Middle East shall be subject to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That not more than $225,000,000 of the funds made
available for assistance for Afghanistan under this heading
may be obligated for such assistance until the Secretary of
State certifies to the Committees on Appropriations, that the
Government of Afghanistan at both the national and local
level, is cooperating fully with United States funded poppy
eradication and interdiction efforts in Afghanistan: Provided
further, That with respect to funds appropriated under this
heading in this Act or prior Acts making appropriations for
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs,
the responsibility for policy decisions and justifications
for the use of such funds, including whether there will be a
program for a country that uses those funds and the amount of
each such program, shall be the responsibility of the
Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of State and this
responsibility shall not be delegated.
international fund for ireland
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$13,500,000, which shall be available for the United States
contribution to the International Fund for Ireland and shall
be made available in accordance with the provisions of the
Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
415): Provided, That such amount shall be expended at the
minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects
and activities: Provided further, That funds made available
under this heading shall remain available until September 30,
2007.
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States
(a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East
European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $357,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2007, which shall be
available, notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries and section 660 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for assistance and for
related programs for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
(b) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be
considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the
administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use
of economic assistance.
(c) The provisions of section 529 of this Act shall apply
to funds appropriated under this heading: Provided, That
local currencies generated by, or converted from, funds
appropriated by this Act and by previous appropriations Acts
and made available for the economic revitalization program in
Bosnia may be used in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States to
carry out the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act
of 1989.
(d) The President is authorized to withhold funds
appropriated under this heading made available for economic
revitalization programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if he
determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations
that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not
complied with article III of annex 1-A of the General
Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
concerning the withdrawal of foreign forces, and that
intelligence cooperation on training, investigations, and
related activities between state sponsors of terrorism and
terrorist organizations and Bosnian officials has not been
terminated.
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union
(a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
chapters 11 and 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the
Independent States of the former Soviet Union and for related
programs, $477,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2007: Provided, That the provisions of such chapters
shall apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding any provision of the Freedom
Support Act of 1992, funds appropriated under this heading in
this Act or prior Acts making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs, that are
made available pursuant to the provisions of section 807 of
Public Law 102-511 shall be subject to a 6 percent ceiling on
administrative expenses.
(b) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less
than $52,000,000 should be made available, in addition to
funds otherwise available for such purposes, for assistance
for child survival, environmental and reproductive health,
and to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and other infectious
diseases, and for related activities.
(c)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that
are allocated for assistance for the Government of the
Russian Federation, 60 percent shall be withheld from
obligation until the President determines and certifies in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations that the
Government of the Russian Federation--
(A) has terminated implementation of arrangements to
provide Iran with technical expertise, training, technology,
or equipment necessary to develop a nuclear reactor, related
nuclear research facilities or programs, or ballistic missile
capability; and
(B) is providing full access to international non-
government organizations providing humanitarian relief to
refugees and internally displaced persons in Chechnya.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
(A) assistance to combat infectious diseases, child
survival activities, or assistance for victims of trafficking
in persons; and
(B) activities authorized under title V (Nonproliferation
and Disarmament Programs and Activities) of the FREEDOM
Support Act.
(d) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply
to--
(1) activities to support democracy or assistance under
title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public
Law 104-201 or non-proliferation assistance;
(2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development
Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421);
(3) any activity carried out by a member of the United
States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his
or her official capacity;
(4) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee or other
assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);
(5) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act
of 1945; or
(6) humanitarian assistance.
Independent Agencies
Inter-American Foundation
For necessary expenses to carry out the functions of the
Inter-American Foundation in accordance with the provisions
of section 401 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969,
$19,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
African Development Foundation
For necessary expenses to carry out title V of the
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of
1980, Public Law 96-533, $20,500,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2007: Provided, That funds made available
to grantees may be invested pending expenditure for project
purposes when authorized by the board of directors of the
Foundation: Provided further, That interest earned shall be
used only for the purposes for which the grant was made:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of
the African Development Foundation Act, in exceptional
circumstances the board of directors of the Foundation may
waive the $250,000 limitation contained in that section with
respect to a project: Provided further, That the Foundation
shall provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations
after each time such waiver authority is exercised.
Peace Corps
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612), including the purchase of not
to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for administrative
purposes for use outside of the United States, $325,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
used to pay for abortions: Provided further, That the
Director may transfer to the Foreign Currency Fluctuations
Account,
[[Page H5306]]
as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2515, an amount not to exceed
$2,000,000: Provided further, That funds transferred pursuant
to the previous proviso may not be derived from amounts made
available for Peace Corps overseas operations.
Millennium Challenge Corporation
For necessary expenses for the ``Millennium Challenge
Corporation'', $1,750,000,000 to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this
heading, up to $75,000,000 may be available for
administrative expenses of the Millennium Challenge
Corporation: Provided further, That up to 10 percent of the
funds appropriated under this heading may be made available
to carry out the purposes of section 616 of the Millennium
Challenge Act of 2003: Provided further, That none of the
funds available to carry out section 616 of such Act may be
made available until the Chief Executive Officer of the
Millennium Challenge Corporation provides a report to the
Committees on Appropriations listing the candidate countries
that will be receiving assistance under section 616 of such
Act, the level of assistance proposed for each such country,
a description of the proposed programs, projects and
activities, and the implementing agency or agencies of the
United States Government: Provided further, That section
605(e)(4) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 shall apply
to funds appropriated under this heading: Provided further,
That funds appropriated under this heading may be made
available for a Millennium Challenge Compact entered into
pursuant to section 609 of the Millennium Challenge Act of
2003 only if such Compact obligates, or contains a commitment
to obligate subject to the availability of funds and the
mutual agreement of the parties to the Compact to proceed,
the entire amount of the United States Government funding
anticipated for the duration of the Compact.
Mr. KOLBE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 29, line 12, be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that section of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Department of State
Global HIV/AIDS Initiative
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the prevention, treatment,
and control of, and research on, HIV/AIDS, $1,920,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not less than $200,000,000
shall be made available for a United States Contribution to
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Turberculosis and Malaria (the
``Global Fund''), and shall be expended at the minimum rate
necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities:
Provided further, That not more than $12,000,000 of the
funds appropriated under this heading may be made available
for administrative expenses of the Office of the Coordinator
of United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS
Globally of the Department of State.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. King of Iowa:
Page 29, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by
$1,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order, I ask for
clarification as to which of the two amendments the gentleman is
offering to the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, to clarify that point of order, again, this is the
amendment that takes $1 million out and puts $1 million back in, and it
is for the purposes of raising the issue to discuss some of the things
that I think we should be doing, particularly in Africa with regard to
AIDS.
I recall back in this Chamber in January of 2003 when the President
gave his State of the Union address. I had been reading the articles
about ABC for AIDS prevention in Africa, and particularly and directly
in Uganda, the ABC program being abstinence, being faithful, and, with
a small ``c'' of using condoms in the event that abstinence and being
faithful is not utilized.
As the President called for the $15 billion, 5-year AIDS initiative,
I saw a standing ovation in here, and that standing ovation was started
over in this region, and I want to give credit that it appeared to me
to be a lot of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus that stood
for that ovation. I stood too, because I had been getting a sense of
how bad it was, and this is an international crisis. Millions of people
are dying, and we do need to address this. We have a moral obligation
to address the AIDS.
So I believe also in ABC. I continue to believe in abstinence, being
faithful, and condoms as a last resort.
I went to Africa, Mr. Chairman, last July, late July and early
August, visited Morocco, then Namibia, Botswana, and South Africa. In
Morocco, the AIDS is less than 1 percent. When you get to Namibia and
South Africa it is around 23 to 25 percent and, in Botswana, the HIV/
AIDS infection rate is 38.8 percent. When you realize that four out of
every 10 people you meet on the street are staring into a death
sentence, you realize that something has to be done. Economically they
have been destroyed.
As I went there, I asked the questions of the people who were
implementing this multi-billion dollar policy, and it has become not an
ABC policy, not a little ``c'' policy, it has been become a big ``C''
policy, a hand-out of condoms policy; when I asked, what you are doing
to address the promiscuity, they told me, you do not change the
culture. You cannot change the culture. Well, they are establishing a
condom culture. If you can change it to a condom culture, you can
promote the elimination of promiscuity and abstinence until marriage
and monogamy after that.
The other question that I asked, and it is a question that Congress
needs to ask is, are we saving more lives, or are we costing more
lives, or are we putting people into maybe 30 more years of an active
sex life, and are they going to use a condom right every time for the
next 30 years, or are they going to infect more people. Some of the
answers I got back was yes, condoms are the answer. They work 100
percent of the time according to the doctor from the CDC. I do not
accept that. One of their other solutions was to delay the young
ladies' sexual debut for perhaps another year, as if that made a
statistical difference; and another one of those real good ideas was,
and I say that facetiously, expedite the travel of trucks through the
borders so that the prostitutes do not have as much opportunity to
market themselves to the truck drivers. These were shallow approaches.
I think we need to put the drugs in there, the anti-retroviral drugs,
we need to get the high-protein food there, and we need to keep people
alive. I held some of those babies. We need to have a whole policy, one
that is planned, an approach to save the maximum number of lives. One
that puts the responsibility back on the individuals and changes the
culture in that part of the world. That is the best thing we can do. I
am asking that by next year we take a look at that, we get a report,
and that is my initiative for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am
not in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have looked at this amendment and I think the gentleman has made
some very good points. It does not change in any substantive way the
bill, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I withdraw my
reservation, because I understand from the chairman that this does not
have any substantive changes being made in the bill. But I certainly
think that the content of the gentleman's amendment deserves greater
discussion at another time. The chairman and I were also in Botswana,
we were also in South Africa, we were in Tanzania as well, and there is
progress being made in some parts of the country, and some not. It is a
tremendous challenge, but I think
[[Page H5307]]
it is simplistic to say that only one area deserves further funding,
and that the ABC approach may not be as successful as one may think.
So I think we need to discuss this further, and I would like to enter
into dialogue with the gentleman at another time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I appreciate
the chairman's work on this, and the comments that I have heard, and I
look forward to that dialogue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $437,400,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That during
fiscal year 2006, the Department of State may also use the
authority of section 608 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, without regard to its restrictions, to receive excess
property from an agency of the United States Government for
the purpose of providing it to a foreign country under
chapter 8 of part I of that Act subject to the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall provide
to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act and prior to the
initial obligation of funds appropriated under this heading,
a report on the proposed uses of all funds under this heading
on a country-by-country basis for each proposed program,
project, or activity: Provided further, That $10,000,000 of
the funds appropriated under this heading should be made
available for demand reduction programs: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not more
than $33,484,000 may be available for administrative
expenses.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
and extend my appreciation to the Chair and Ranking Member for the work
they have done. I feel, considering the modest allocation that they
were given, they have managed to fashion a solid piece of legislation.
Ironically, we only give 0.16 percent of our Gross National Product
to development assistance, even though ironically, most Americans think
we give far more.
I wanted to make four brief points, if I could. I wanted to thank
them for earmarking $50,000 for increasing access to clean water in
Africa. We are going forward tomorrow in the Committee on International
Relations to explore opportunities to increase this in terms of
authorization, but I think we are making an important step in the right
direction.
I also appreciate the report language explaining concern over USAID's
urban programs.
Mr. Chairman, the CIA's Outlook 2015 that looked at threats to the
United States pointed out that the rapid urbanization in the developing
world was one of the top seven security concerns for our country. For
the first time in human history, a majority of people live in cities,
with a million people a week moving to cities in the developing world,
a million new people a week in areas that are greatly stressed.
{time} 1700
Yet despite this, our country's USAID investment in urban programs is
in continued decline. I appreciate the committee's spotlighting this,
and I hope that we can work together to reverse this unfortunate trend.
I appreciate the colloquy that occurred earlier on the Global
Environmental Facility, the GEF, that has funded over 1,000 projects in
160 countries. I think these innovative approaches to environmental
challenges that can be replicated elsewhere and financed on a larger
scale by non-GEF sources is very important.
I appreciate the difficulty. I know we have got a long way to go with
this bill. I appreciate your efforts and would do anything I could
because every dollar that we spend on GEF leverages 15 in funding from
other sources in some of the most vulnerable areas of our country.
I appreciate your work. I appreciate the courtesy in permitting me to
speak on this. I opted not to offer up amendments because, frankly, I
could not see ways to repackage what you have done. I hope in the
future we will have more leverage, more running room. But in the
meantime, I appreciate your efforts; and I will support the bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for his
comments on the bill. And I hope the gentleman will work, certainly,
with the chairman and myself and many of us who would support increased
funding to address the critical issues that the gentleman mentions.
However, within this allocation, the gentleman knows it was very
difficult; and I feel very strongly that in terms of our international
policies, nothing is more important than expanding our support in the
country for all the important initiatives included in this bill and
increasing the dollars that we can spend on them.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Andean Counterdrug Initiative
For necessary expenses to carry out section 481 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to support counterdrug
activities in the Andean region of South America,
$734,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That in fiscal year 2006, funds available to the
Department of State for assistance to the Government of
Colombia shall be available to support a unified campaign
against narcotics trafficking, against activities by
organizations designated as terrorist organizations such as
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the
National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense
Forces of Colombia (AUC), and to take actions to protect
human health and welfare in emergency circumstances,
including undertaking rescue operations: Provided further,
That this authority shall cease to be effective if the
Secretary of State has credible evidence that the Colombian
Armed Forces are not conducting vigorous operations to
restore government authority and respect for human rights in
areas under the effective control of paramilitary and
guerrilla organizations: Provided further, That the President
shall ensure that if any helicopter procured with funds under
this heading is used to aid or abet the operations of any
illegal self-defense group or illegal security cooperative,
such helicopter shall be immediately returned to the United
States: Provided further, That the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act and prior to the initial
obligation of funds appropriated under this heading, a report
on the proposed uses of all funds under this heading on a
country-by-country basis for each proposed program, project,
or activity: Provided further, That funds made available in
this Act for demobilization/reintegration of members of
foreign terrorist organizations in Colombia shall be subject
to prior consultation with, and the regular notification
procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That section 482(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 shall not apply to funds appropriated under this
heading: Provided further, That assistance provided with
funds appropriated under this heading that is made available
notwithstanding section 482(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 shall be made available subject to the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That no United States Armed Forces
personnel or United States civilian contractor employed by
the United States will participate in any combat operation in
connection with assistance made available by this Act for
Colombia: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
under this heading, not more than $19,015,000 may be
available for administrative expenses of the Department of
State, and not more than $7,800,000 may be available, in
addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes,
for administrative expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McGovern
Mr. McGOVERN. 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. McGovern:
Page 31, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
[[Page H5308]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-McCollum-Moore
amendment to cut military aid to Colombia by $100 million.
For the past several years, we have debated Colombia policy here in
the House. We are always being told that things are getting better; but
they are not getting better, Mr. Chairman.
This policy has failed as an antidrug policy. It has failed as a
human rights policy, and it has failed to have any impact whatsoever in
reducing the availability, price or purity of drugs in the streets of
America. In fact, illegal drugs are cheaper today than they were 6
years ago and $4 billion ago. And yet we will hear again today from
supporters of Plan Colombia that everything is just rosy in Colombia,
that we are winning the drug war, and respect for human rights is
flourishing. Not true, Mr. Chairman.
It makes no difference whether you are looking at the United Nations
numbers, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy numbers, the
Colombian National Police, or the CIA's. It all adds up to the same
picture. Compared to where we were in 1999, right before the start of
Plan Colombia, coca cultivation in Colombia has declined by only 7
percent and in the Andean region by only 9 percent. And the growing of
coca did not decrease at all in the year 2004.
On top of that, the U.N. and the Colombian National Police agree that
opium growing in Colombia did not decrease at all in 2004.
You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make something good out
of these numbers. You do that by deliberately ignoring where we were 6
years ago before Plan Colombia and picking and choosing bits and pieces
of statistics, like starting your comparisons in 2003. Well, that only
works because you ignore the huge increases in coca production in 2000,
2001, and 2002.
But, ultimately, the most damning numbers come from our own
Department of Justice, which states that cocaine remains readily
available on the streets of America, with wholesale and retail prices
for cocaine and heroin at an all-time low and purity at or near
historic highs.
Congress was told that we had to support Plan Colombia. We had to
pour billions and billions of U.S. tax dollars into the Colombian
military to stop the surge of drugs in America.
Well, what a waste of money it has been. Six years ago, the Rand
Corporation told us that every dollar we spent trying to wipe out coca
in remote areas of Colombia would be 23 times more effective if we
spent it right here at home on drug treatment, prevention, and
education and on local law enforcement.
But Congress chose to ignore that good advice; and here we are, 6
years and $4 billion later. Now, we may have thought our policy was
tough on drugs, but it sure was not very smart.
So how about human rights? Is Colombia's human rights situation any
better today? Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world
to be a trade union leader. It is the second most dangerous place to be
a religious pastor or lay leader.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees calls the issue of
Colombia's internally displaced a great humanitarian crisis second only
to Sudan. Death threats against human rights defenders have increased
significantly over the past 18 months.
Abuses by the Colombian military are on the rise and the armed forces
commit crimes with impunity, with no high-level Colombian military
officer ever having been successfully prosecuted for human rights
crimes.
Even our own State Department has not been able to certify any human
rights progress in Colombia since March because the situation is so
untenable. But has Colombia tried to improve their human rights
situation at all so that the State Department could have something,
anything that will allow it to certify? Not at all.
But so much pressure from the Pentagon and the Colombian Government
and even from some members of Congress is building on the State
Department to go ahead and certify anyway that I hear that the State
Department is likely to certify right after this Congress breaks for
the Fourth of July recess.
But the most galling thing of all is this: while U.S. taxpayers have
sent over $4 billion of their hard-earned money to Colombia over the
past 6 years, the wealthy elites of Colombia have hardly contributed a
dime. Out of a population of 42 million people, only 740,000 Colombians
pay any income tax at all, and even that is a pitiful amount. So
Colombians are not paying to fight their own war, and they are not
paying to improve the conditions that keep so many of their own people
in poverty.
It is time that this House stood up and decided to stop sending a
blank check to Colombia, year after year. It is time that we demand
real progress on human rights as a condition to our aid. It is time
that we stop being a cheap date.
We are not walking away from Colombia. We are just sending a long
overdue message that it is time to take a cold hard look at our current
course and change it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any
attempts to cut funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. I think
this is a time to reaffirm, not dismantle, our commitment to this
program, to the people of Colombia and to American citizens who want
illegal drugs off their streets.
How can we cut funding when we are seeing tremendous results in
illegal crop eradication? Coca cultivation in Colombia has been reduced
by 33 percent since 2002, and opium poppy cultivation dropped 52
percent in 2004 alone.
As a result of ACI funding, we have seen unprecedented levels of drug
interdiction. And interdiction is what this amendment goes to, cutting
$100 million.
From January to May of this year, 71.7 metric tons were seized from
traffickers and destroyed before reaching our neighborhoods. Each week
brings news of new seizures of cocaine and heroin, interdictions that
are usually the result of U.S. supplied intelligence.
In fact, just last month, Colombian authorities seized 13.8 tons of
cocaine worth about $350 million in what was one of the largest drug
busts in history. Interdiction efforts like these would not be possible
if the gentleman's amendment passes.
The Colombian Government is reestablishing state presence in areas
where the country has lacked it for a century. Criminals who have
remained at bay for years are being captured and extradited to the U.S.
for prosecution. Colombia has extradited 271 Colombian citizens to the
United States since August of 2002, mostly on narcotics related
charges.
How do we justify pulling the plug on ACI funding when we are seeing
record numbers of extraditions to the U.S. of FARC and drug cartel
members?
In 2004 alone, more than 11,000 narcoterrorists were captured. More
than 7,000 terrorists have deserted their organizations since President
Uribe took office. Thousands of weapons and rounds of ammunition have
been surrendered. The demobilization and reincorporation of illegal
armed groups are part of a process that is providing stability to the
entire region.
Colombians are finally beginning to feel safer. The murder rate
dropped 14 percent in 2004. It has dropped 25 percent thus far this
year.
Plan Colombia is working. I have been down there several times. I
have seen firsthand just a month ago the devastation that drug
production and trafficking has on that country. But to those who
question our investment, I would ask them to visit Colombian soldiers
who have lost their limbs or their eyesight or sustained permanent
disabilities in their battle to return peace to their nation and keep
drugs off American streets.
On a recent trip, we accompanied Colombian National Police to a
manual eradication site in the mountains and helped them pull the coca
crop from mountainous terrain that helicopters cannot reach. These are
dedicated people giving up their lives to destroy the drug trade and
rid their country of drugs and violence and prevent their illegal
importation to the United States.
Our travels have shown how critical U.S. assistance is to their
government.
[[Page H5309]]
Of course it is not all rosy and a lot of obstacles remain. But the
Uribe administration is committed to this war.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, that now is the time not to turn our backs on
the progress we are making. We cannot win this war on drug-supported
terrorism without the proper tools.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the McGovern amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman I have
been to Colombia several times and have gone well beyond the areas that
the embassy has recommended me to go, and I assure the gentleman things
are quite bad.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota
(Ms. McCollum), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the McGovern amendment to
cut $100 million from Plan Colombia is about accountability and sending
the message that cutting deals with narcotic traffickers who pose as
politicians will not be tolerated by the American taxpayer.
After 6 years and over $400 billion, Plan Colombia is not reducing
the supply of cocaine on our streets. But it has succeeded in making
cocaine in America cheaper, more available, and more potent than ever
before.
The drug war in Colombia is failing, failing the people of Colombia
and the American taxpayer. Spending another $735 million to stay the
wrong course and to continue to finance failure is irresponsible.
Let us send a message to Colombia that there are no more blank checks
in the American taxpayers' checkbook.
Unfortunately, Plan Colombia has not made the Colombian people safer.
More than 2 million Colombians have been forced to flee their homes.
Ninety percent of the violent crime, murders, and rapes go unpunished.
Human rights abuses among Colombia's military and law enforcement are
all too common.
These are deeply disturbing trends: cheaper cocaine on American
streets, millions of innocent people fleeing for their lives,
lawlessness. This is hardly what we would call good governance.
In return for the narcoterrorism and corruption, the American
taxpayers are being asked to reward the Colombian Government.
Now, a law passed by Colombia's congress and supported by President
Uribe provides immunity and protection for right wing death squads and
narcoterrorists.
For ending their participation in death squads, Colombia will be
giving virtual immunity and protection from extradition to
narcotraffickers, many who are sought by the United States.
One paramilitary death squad, the AUC, earns 70 percent of its income
from narcotics trafficking. And the AUC is listed as an official
terrorist organization by the U.S. Government.
The AUC's leader, Diego Murillo, is described as a brutal
paramilitarian warlord who made a fortune in the drug trade. Under the
plan for disarmament supported by our allies in Bogota, Murillo and
terrorists like him who have committed massacres, kidnappings, drug
trafficking, and murders of elected officials received freedom from
prosecution. They get to keep their possession of riches.
In Colombia, if crime pays, if drug trafficking pays and terrorism
pays, let us not have the American taxpayer pay for it. Congress needs
to cut funding to Plan Colombia and save the American taxpayers $100
million and send a message that Colombia cannot protect narcoterrorists
with our tax dollars.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the McGovern amendment.
{time} 1715
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kirk) may yield time on behalf of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe).
There was no objection.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a former FBI agent.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is well-intended
but horribly misguided.
If you have spent time in Colombia, then you know that incredible
progress is being made. This is absolutely the worst time to turn our
backs on the great efforts that these folks are making against narco-
terrorism, the FARC, the AUC, other militia groups. They are making
progress.
Let me tell you a little bit about it. Kidnappings from 2002 to 2004
are down 52 percent. That is because they are on the offensive.
President Uribe, 18 assassination attempts and maybe even climbing, has
stood tall for democracy and said he will not tolerate the FARC, and
the AUC, and narco-terrorist groups trying to control Colombia and
sending death to America by cocaine paste and cocaine kilos and
everything that we know is bad and killing our children in the streets
of America.
We have a true partner who is willing to take and literally risk his
life and his presidency to stop this in Colombia. This is the wrong
time, Mr. Chairman.
Right now, we have three United States citizens hostage to the FARC.
What message would we send to our friends in Colombia who are risking
their lives to rescue these citizens from the FARC and other AUC groups
by cutting this funding. This is not the time, Mr. Chairman.
This is the chance that we stand up and say, We are making progress.
We will support an aggressive attitude toward narco-terrorist
trafficking in not only Colombia, but all of Latin America and make
that difference, not only for the three United States citizens that
deserve our support, but every American who fights to keep drugs out of
their family, out of their schools, out of their community.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I compliment my
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)
for this amendment, which is also co-sponsored by the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
This amendment is important because it will force this body to look
hard at American policy in Colombia. Since Congress began funding
support in Colombia under the Plan Colombia in fiscal year 2000, we
have spent approximately $4.5 billion in counterdrug and military
support. That is a lot of money, a lot of money under any circumstance,
and it is certainly at a time when we are fighting two wars elsewhere.
Given the magnitude of what we have spent and the fact that Plan
Colombia will expire this year, we should be asking some really tough
questions. Such as, is the amount of money spent in line with the
benefits to the United States and to our national security, and are the
Colombians doing enough to provide for their own security?
Funding for Colombia was initiated in order to stem the flow of drugs
to our country. Yet, the United Nations figures show that decreases in
cultivation in Colombia have been more than matched elsewhere in that
region. There has been no decrease in drugs coming into the United
States.
Funding was also intended to promote peace in Colombia. Certainly on
that front, there is some progress. I believe President Uribe is trying
to do the very right thing for his country, and we should support his
efforts, which we are. The question is whether we should support it at
the cost at a time when our military and our foreign aid dollars, our
defense dollars are spread so thin across the globe.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, with this modest cut to overall aid to
Colombia, should force a rethinking of our strategy in Colombia on
whether we are achieving goals important to our own national security.
At the same time, we need to ask whether the Colombians are doing all
they can to provide for their own future security. Let me say that
again. At the same time, we should ask whether the Colombians are doing
all they can to provide for their own future security.
Their tax revenue continues to be at very low levels. Fewer than
750,000 Colombians contribute to their national defense through the tax
base of a population of 42 million. Many Colombians with high school
educations continue to avoid military service. The Colombians should be
taking on more of a responsibility for their own effort. This amendment
does not cut all funding for Colombia. Far from it. But it does send a
clear signal that the American dollars invested are not yielding the
results we need to.
[[Page H5310]]
At a time when we are engaged in two wars globally, we must even be
more careful about where we are spending our resources, our dollars. We
must urge our colleagues to support the amendment. I compliment the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. I believe it would undermine the efforts to eradicate
production and trafficking of cocaine in Colombia which is the primary
source of narcotics entering our Nation.
We have heard some level of debate today about is the amount of
cocaine down coming into the United States or not? But the real issue
is, how much higher would it be if we did not have this program in
place?
Operations under the Andean Counterdrug Initiative have been
instrumental in reducing the cultivation of coca 33 percent since 2002
and cultivation of poppies 52 percent last year.
Are those exactly the percentages and which years do you compare? The
point is not the exact numbers. The point is the trend and the trend is
that there is less being grown because we know we are eradicating it
every year. If we are eradicating it, if we are ripping this stuff out,
if we are spraying it, if we are making sure it is not growing, that is
that much more is not available. That seems pretty obvious on its face.
But this program is doing more to help improve the stability of the
country of Colombia and the people who live there, particularly the
realm of violent crime in Colombia. Kidnappings are down 34.5 percent
in 2004 and almost 61 percent through May of this year. Homicides are
down. Terrorist attacks are down. Internal displacement of people, also
down by more than 50 percent. Over 200 Columbian narco-traffickers have
been extradited to the United States in the last 2 years, including the
leader of the Cali Cartel, an important FARC commander, and an AUC
commander.
The point is we are taking these narco-traffickers out of the
business of trafficking in narcotics, of bringing this terrible stuff
to our borders and to our people. This is a good program that has done
well and we need to continue to fund it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke.
Maybe he has not been reading the newspapers but the Colombian
government just passed an amnesty law that gives narco-traffickers and
the paramilitaries and people who have been guilty of crimes against
humanity a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is one of the reasons why I
am here today expressing my outrage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment to H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations
bill for FY 2006. This amendment recognizes the critical problems that
need to be addressed in Colombia.
Six years ago, Plan Colombia was implemented with the goal of
reducing the flow of cocaine into the United States and to improve
respect for human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. Based on the
administration's own target indicators and data, the drug eradication
effort in Colombia has been an across-the-board failure.
Plan Colombia has not significantly deterred coca cultivation, curbed
cocaine availability, forced price increases or reduced cocaine use.
After 6 years and an investment of more than $4 billion in taxpayer
dollars, net coca cultivation in Colombia is only 7 percent below the
1990 level. The total area under coca cultivation is estimated to be 36
percent higher than in 2000. Furthermore, reports indicate that cocaine
remains readily available on the U.S. streets. The cocaine and heroine
problems in the United States are more acute today than they were 6
years ago with lower prices, higher drug purity, and increased usage.
Tragically, what we have seen in the past 6 years is an increase of
human rights abuses, including violations by the army, unchecked
government collusion with abusive paramilitary forces and violence
against trade union members. We cannot be seen as condoning the ongoing
human rights abuses in Colombia. We must be seen the world over as
defending human rights. By supporting the McGovern amendment, we would
be sending a strong signal to the international community that, yes,
the United States does indeed value human rights.
For genuine, lasting and positive changes in Colombia, the Colombian
government and Colombian people must take an active role in initiating
and sustaining those changes.
Plan Colombia is not working and given the inexcusable ongoing human
rights violations and military abuses in Colombia, reducing the
allocation for Plan Colombia by $100 million is not only the
responsible thing to do with taxpayer dollars, it underscores our
Nation's standing as an advocate of human rights. Vote yes on the
McGovern amendment.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on
the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have heard what they are
against. What are you for?
We have got a drug problem that we are trying to deal with. Plan
Colombia, according to the statistical data that has been quoted time
and time and time again by my colleagues, and I am quoting a little bit
about that, shows that we are making progress. You are against it, but
what are you for?
I mean, we have got a war against drugs and you are standing here
saying, okay, let us not do this, let us not do this, but the drug
problem exists so what do you want to do about it?
Unless you have got some constructive alternative, I think you ought
to take a hard look at what has been talked about here today by the
colleagues on our side of the aisle.
Now, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) sent out a ``Dear
Colleague'' to my colleagues and I would like to read you a little bit
about what is in his ``Dear Colleague.'' Aerial eradication has reduced
coca cultivation by 33 percent. That is a plus. Reduced coca
cultivation by 16 percent in the Andean region in 2003 and by an
additional 5 percent in 2004. That is a plus.
Opium poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped 52 percent in 2004, the
third straight year of decline. That is a plus. They have got
alternative development programs. Since 2000 we have supported and they
have supported more than 63,000 hectares of legal crops, some
substitutions. That is a plus. Resulted in the manual eradication of
23,200 hectares of illicit crops, coca and opium. That is a plus.
Security. Police presence is extended to all 158 municipalities in
Colombia that did not have any police protection before. That is a big
plus.
Colombia has extradited 271 Colombian citizens to the U.S. since
August of 2002, mostly on narcotics-related cases. Another plus.
Human rights. Kidnappings were down 34 percent in 2004 and a further
60.9 percent through May of this year. Another plus. Homicides are down
14.2 percent and another 22.3 percent through May of this year.
There were 137,315 newly displaced persons in 2004. That is a drop of
67.5 percent. Those are all pluses. Those are things that are being
accomplished.
Yes, we still have problems. Yes, there are narcotics in America.
Yes, they are coming into this country. But we are making progress. And
what you folks want to do is stop the progress. So what is your
alternative?
I do not hear anything but complaints. This is the wrong time and it
is the wrong message to send to our allies, President Uribe, who is
making progress down there. It is also the wrong signal to send to the
surrounding countries that have to deal with this drug problem and the
drug cartel.
I guess I am out of time, but I think the point has been made. Unless
you have a constructive alternative, I suggest you do what the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has suggested. Read his ``Dear
Colleague.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H5311]]
Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman. I believe we need a
balanced policy. And some of us tried in the Committee on International
Relations and in the Committee on Appropriations to make some modest
changes in support of increased alternative development aid, but we
were shut down on even those modest changes. Maybe the gentleman did
not listen to my statistics.
Also, we have a critique of the letter of the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder) that he sent to Members of Congress, and I think the
gentleman would be interested to know that some of the figures that the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has cited we believe are totally
inaccurate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Meeks).
{time} 1730
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am rising in support of this
amendment partly because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
refuse to include reasonable amendments that direct or redirect funds
to help the most in need in Colombia. In fact, they refuse to move on
to a more balanced policy on Colombia.
For example, Afro-Colombians comprise approximately 26 percent of
Colombia's total population. Nevertheless, they are overrepresented
amongst the poorest of the poor. Eighty-two percent of this
disadvantaged minority lack even basic public services.
There are problems with this bill, and we should not continue to
throw good money after bad. Plan Colombia had 5 or 6 years to prove
itself, and what it has proven is that the plan has caused more harm
than good. Eighty percent of U.S. assistance to Colombia goes to the
military and police. We need a more balanced policy on Colombia.
Plan Colombia's aerial fumigation strategy has forced coca growers
not to stop growing but to move their coca crops further west and north
to Afro-Colombian and indigenous territories. Fumigation is ruining
food crops, animals and livestock, while threatening the health and
environment of Afro-Colombians, especially in the department of Choco.
In 2002, only two municipalities in the department of Choco
registered some sort of coca crops. Today, all 31 municipalities in
that region have coca crops. Plan Colombia is destroying the
traditional cultures of Afro-Colombians and their communities while
providing little or no alternative development aid.
Furthermore, a primary U.S. objective for Plan Colombia has been to
prevent the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. In my
district in southeastern Queens, New York, and on the streets of the
United States of America, cocaine remains available today and at lower
prices than ever and the levels of use are stable, if not rising.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I ask my colleagues in conference to support alternative
development and social programs that work and can make our policy in
Colombia more balanced and thereby giving the American people a better
bang for their buck in Colombia.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will be defeated later on
today because it would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in
Colombia. We see a close connection between narcotics and terrorism.
The people of Colombia saw that. When the Medellin cartel killed
three major candidates for president, the people elected the last
candidate left who wanted to fight the narcoterrorists. In their last
election, the people of Colombia chose the candidate who took the
hardest line against narcoterrorists, and after September 11, who could
blame them?
President Uribe of Colombia has asked for our help, and so far, what
has our assistance accomplished? Coca growing is down, kidnappings are
down, terrorist attacks are down, opium growing is down, several
hundred drug kingpins extradited to the United States, and desertions
among terrorist groups are up.
In a recent poll, 73 percent of Colombians said they supported the
U.S. assistance under Plan Colombia. We have seen narcoterrorists in
Colombia offer training to other terror groups in other countries; and
with these international links, we see Colombian drugs not only
poisoning our kids but the profits from their sale are now supporting
international terror.
If we give up on Colombia, a new narcoterrorist state will rise in
our hemisphere, and when a narco-state took power in 1991 in Panama, it
took the direct action of the U.S. military to restore democracy.
I think we should not give up on democracy in Colombia. We should
listen to the voices of their people through their elected president
and make sure that he and his team remain in power and that this stays
as a Colombian struggle and is not surrendered to become a full blown
American one.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just respond to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, if I can, by
saying, if the Colombian people support this policy so much, then why
is it that only 740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42
million people? That is a fact. That was stated in the Council on
Foreign Relations report that came out last year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 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 me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I would
only ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, where have all the
conservatives gone? Where are the fiscal conservatives? A decade or so
ago, the conservatives on this side of the aisle voted against all
foreign aid. Now they are the champion of foreign aid.
We are running a national debt increase right now of nearly $600
billion a year, and the gentleman from this side of the aisle suggests
that maybe we can spend $100 million less out of a budget that is over
$20.3 billion, suggesting we could save $100 million, which sounds like
pretty good sense, and all we hear are complaints about why we need
this program.
One gentleman asked the question, what are we for if we are against
this program down in Colombia, Plan Colombia? Well, I'll tell my
colleagues what I am for. I am for the American taxpayer, and I will
tell my colleagues one thing. I will bet them I am right on this. I
will bet my colleagues, on either side of the aisle ever goes home and
ever puts it into their campaign brochure and say, you know what, I
voted $20 billion for foreign aid; and I know nobody over here will go
home and brag about $100 million that they were able to vote against
cutting from this side of the aisle. They will not do it.
I was here in 2000 when this debate was going on and strongly opposed
it for various reasons, but I remember the pretext for Plan Colombia.
The pretext was the drug war and this is what we have heard about
today. The evidence is very flimsy. If there was any success on the
drug war, production would be down and prices would be up. Production
is up and prices are down, and that is an economic absolute.
So there has been nothing accomplished. There has been more
production in other countries in the Andes, but the pretext there was
only the drugs, but I remember so clearly in the year 2000 who lobbied
for this bill.
Does anybody remember oil companies coming here to get their oil
pipelines protected, and we still protect them? This is a little
private army that we sent down there. We have 800 troops and advisers
in Colombia and spending these huge sums of money.
Who else lobbied for Plan Colombia? Do my colleagues remember the
debate on who would get to sell the helicopters? Would they be Black
Hawks or Hueys?
Then we wonder where the lobby is from. It is not from the American
people. I will bet my colleagues nobody wrote to anybody on this side
and said please make sure you spend this $100 million dollars; this
would be tragic if you would not spend it because it is doing so much
good. That does not happen. It is the lobbying behind the scenes of the
special interests whose interests are served by us being down there. It
is part of this military industrial complex which exists, and I do not
[[Page H5312]]
believe it has had one ounce of success. I think it is a complete waste
of money; and besides, just incidentally it is unconstitutional for us
to do this.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for the
time.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not doubt the sincerity
of proponents of the amendment on either side of the aisle. Many
compelling questions have been asked.
In the final analysis, it is my firmly held conviction that what many
maintain would be re-evaluation, that this immediate reduction would
send the signal of retreat.
We have heard criticisms of the taxation policies of Colombia. We
have heard criticisms based on different political ideologies in the
United States; but in the final analysis, as we conduct a worldwide war
on terror, I would remind all in this House we are not just talking
about Islamic fascism. We are talking about the rise of narcoterror.
For that reason I oppose the amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I
certainly agree with his intent, which is to minimize United States
investment in failed counternarcotics programs.
For far too long, we have supported policies and funded programs in
Colombia that simply do not work. Our counternarcotics programs in
Colombia have long been an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
The data we have from the National Drug Intelligence Center at the
Department of Justice with respect to the success of this program is
negative. It shows that the program has not decreased the amount of
cocaine coming into the United States. In fact, the quantity of cocaine
on our streets is increasing, and the price is decreasing, making it
all the more affordable and attractive to our youth.
The billions that we have put into Plan Colombia have not been
effective in substantially decreasing the amount of coca being grown in
Colombia either. After spending over $4 billion and spending nearly 6
years, have we even cut coca production in half? No. We have decreased
by less than 7 percent the number of hectares of coca in Colombia.
It is becoming even more difficult and costly to eliminate each
hectare of coca. The U.N., whose own surveys found a small decrease in
Colombian coca in 2004, found that for every acre of coca reduced in
2004, 22.8 acres of coca had to be sprayed. This ratio has never been
so high.
U.N. statistics indicate that the overall amount of coca grown in the
Andes increased by 3 percent last year, led by substantial increases in
Bolivia, 17 percent; Peru, 14 percent.
Finally, the failure of this program to solve the problem of coca
production is all the more compounded by the heavy toll it imposes on
the rural communities in Colombia that are already suffering from armed
conflict. Continuing to fund it at such a high level is simply bad
policy.
I am troubled by the fact that this amendment cuts $100 million from
the foreign operations bill without adding it back for one of the many
programs that could use it. The allocation with which the gentleman
from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and I had to contend is already $2.5
billion short of the President's request; and with the increased needs
we face around the world, to combat the HIV/AIDS virus and other
diseases, fight hunger, improve child health and education, and promote
peace and security in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe, I
am concerned that this amendment further reduces our funding in the
bill.
Again, I support the gentleman for raising these important issues,
and I thank him for all the time he has spent really understanding the
issue, working on the issue and trying to stress how useless this
funding really is in making a dent in the coca operation.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica), who is a member of the Task Force on Drugs.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I also had the privilege of chairing the Criminal Justice Drug Policy
Subcommittee before the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and
inherited those responsibilities, actually, from the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House. All during that era,
the Clinton era, we saw really the beginning of this incredible problem
in Colombia.
During the 8 years of the Clinton administration, the other side of
the aisle, even some of the folks that have spoken today, did
everything they could to keep resources from going to Colombia; and
when you do not have the resources to combat narcoterrorism, what
happens?
I have a little map here, and it shows where the drugs come from.
This is not a guessing game. We know from chemical analysis even the
fields the cocaine and heroin came from.
So they blocked helicopters, they blocked assistance, they blocked
eradication, interdiction, anything they could, because they did not
want to harm the hair on a single leftist terrorist in that region.
{time} 1745
But we are now trying to get a handle on that with the efforts of
Speaker Hastert, with this President.
They said Plan Colombia has not worked, when kidnappings are down a
third in Colombia; they say it has not worked when murder is down a
third; it has not worked when pipeline attacks from 2000, which were at
177 that year, to 20 last year. It has not worked?
Human rights? My colleague is concerned about human rights? Tens of
thousands of people died, judges, legislators, thousands of police were
slaughtered, and their human rights were not considered while you
blocked aid and assistance.
We have a President of the United States who has a firm policy, we
have a Speaker who has developed Plan Colombia and we are initiating
that. We have success in that land because we have a President who is
also getting the resources to another president, in Colombia, who has a
tough stance against narco-terrorism.
The drugs in the United States are still killing our young people. We
had over 26,000 people die, the silent deaths on our street. Our
biggest social problem. This is where our few dollars and resources
need to go, and that is where the drugs are, at their source, and we
can eradicate them.
Talk to one mother or father who has had a child die of a drug
overdose and you will see the worth of what we are doing here today. We
know where these drugs are. We can eradicate them. And we can do that
continuing Plan Colombia in an effective manner and not having the legs
cut out from under us when we have made such great progress.
I urge defeat of the McGovern amendment. I urge defeat of attempts to
again thwart the effort to stop drugs coming in across our borders.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for his leadership on this important issue.
I rise in strong support of the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment to
cut $100 million from the Andean counterdrug initiative account, which,
by the way, still leaves $634.5 million in the account. I am not
against helping create a more peaceful nation for the people of
Colombia, and of course we want to reduce the flow of drugs to this
country and the use of them by Americans, but I do not support throwing
good money after bad in the quagmire that is our Colombia policy.
I wanted to read from an article today in the L.A. Times written by
Sonni Efron, the headline being ``Drug War Fails to Dent U.S. Supply.''
``The Bush administration and congressional allies are gearing up to
renew a plan for drug eradication in Latin America despite some grim
news. The $5.4 billion spent on the plan since 2000 has made no dent in
the availability of cocaine on American streets, and prices are at all-
time lows. United Nations figures released this month show that coca
cultivation in the Andean region increased by 2 percent in
[[Page H5313]]
2004 as declines in Colombia were swamped by massive increases in Peru
and Bolivia. And the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said
last week that the antidrug effort has had 'no effect' on the price or
purity of drugs in the United States. The findings have fueled
skepticism in Congress where conservative groups have joined efforts to
lobby against continued funding.''
Let me underscore that: ``Conservative groups have joined efforts to
lobby against continued funding. The National Taxpayers Union calls the
antidrug program a 'boondoggle.' '' That is from The L.A. Times.
And the policy of fumigation is not only ineffective, but it is
inhumane. The majority of small farm families whose crops are sprayed
do not receive assistance to transition to food crops from either the
Colombian or the U.S. Governments. They are given no incentive to
change their behavior, no alternative to make a living that will help
them survive.
There are areas in Colombia where massive spraying is occurring and
little or no development aid is provided. Even legal crops in those
areas are killed. They are subsistence crops, and there is nothing
given to replace that loss for those families. This is inhumane and it
is also remarkably ineffective. Sixty-two percent of the coca fields
detected by the U.N. in Colombia in 2004 were new; evidence that
fumigation, in the absence of alternatives, is not moving farmers away
from planting coca.
If we want a long-term and effective plan, it has to be a new one. It
is not enough to send a report to our constituents each year and detail
how much we are spending to go fight drugs. And it is not a real
success when we reduce coca in one country while cultivation soars in
another. We need to show them results, and this plan has provided none.
So if you truly care, you are going to support the McGovern-McCollum-
Moore amendment and send a message that we need a new approach.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I find this debate most interesting, especially the
statement made by the previous speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica). It has been my experience on this floor through the years that
the most baffling moments come not when we are talking about things we
do not know, but when we are talking about things that we do know that
``ain't'' so.
I think the gentleman from Florida just illustrated what I mean. He
stood here on the floor and suggested that somehow those of us on this
side of the aisle who are skeptical about Plan Colombia had blocked all
kinds of initiatives. He also suggested that this plan was a plan which
had been forged into a successful program by President Bush and Speaker
Hastert.
Well, the fact is that I remember when Plan Colombia was first pushed
through the Committee on Appropriations, because I opposed it
vehemently. I thought, based on my experience in chairing the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, for 10 years, that our drug
interdiction programs were largely a flop. I know that I had officials
from the Reagan administration tell me privately that we had
intercepted less than 5 percent of the drugs that came across the
southern borders from not just Mexico, but from elsewhere in this
hemisphere.
I would ask what initiatives did we block? I wish we had blocked
some, but what I remember is getting run over. And I was not run over
by President Bush and Speaker Hastert, I was run over by President
Clinton and Speaker Hastert. They were the two who pushed it down the
throats of the Committee on Appropriations, each trying to compete with
each other to show who was most zealous in their resistance to the drug
problem.
So I would simply say I do not mind each of us rewriting a little
history, if it is on purpose, but I hate to see history being rewritten
by accident. That gets to be more than a little dangerous.
So I would simply suggest that on the merits, this program has had a
long time to prove itself. In the end, the only way it could succeed is
if you had a Colombian society that was determined to make it succeed,
and that society has not been willing to do that. They have not been
able to muster the forces necessary to deal with the problem
effectively.
So we are left to ask what is ordinarily spoken of as a good
conservative question, and that question would be: No matter how
desirable this program is, does it work? And the answer is clear. This
program has, at best, had only marginal success, very hard to see
certainly, night or day. So I would simply suggest that with all of our
challenges in the foreign aid area, even if we confine those challenges
just to the Western Hemisphere, there are a lot of other places where
we could more productively spend this money than we are in this
initiative.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and first of all, I want to commend him and the ranking member
for bringing this bill to the floor and for all their hard work. It is
a very difficult bill, as we can see by the debate here.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). The Andean
Counterdrug Initiative is an important antidrug effort that supports
Colombia and the countries in the Andean region. After years of steady
increases, cocaine and heroin production in the Andean Region is
decreasing. For the third straight year, from 2002 to 2004, the ACI has
helped reduce coca production by 33 percent in Colombia and 21 percent
in the region. Opium poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped 52 percent
in the year 2004 alone. The total land under coca cultivation in
Colombia decreased 7 percent in 2004, the fourth consecutive annual
decrease.
The United States and our allies disrupted the transport of 248
metric tons of cocaine headed through the transit zone before it could
reach U.S. shores in 2004 alone. The ACI has helped streamline
extradition procedures resulting in over 250 extraditions to the U.S.
since August of 2002, including FARC leader Simon Trinidad and ex-Cali
cartel leaders.
Over 60,000 families have received alternative crop development
assistance, and almost 1,000 infrastructure projects have been built
using ACI funds. Even as detractors cite individual instances of human
rights' abuses, overall kidnappings dropped by almost 35 percent in
2004 and fell another 60 percent through May of this year. Homicides
are down 14 percent in 2004 and dropped another 22 percent since May of
this year.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to strongly oppose this
amendment which would very much harm our ability to fight this scourge
in our country.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of concern about
Colombia and in support of this amendment, because I think the facts I
have heard here on the floor just misconstrue what is really going on
down there.
We need to wake up and smell the coffee. The debate here should be
about improving sales of Colombian coffee, not about the increased
sales of Colombian coca. What was Plan Colombia has now become Plan K
Street. What was supposed to help Colombians help themselves has now
become Help American Corporations Stay in Business in Colombia. What
should be money to eradicate the poverty that drives drugs in the first
place has become a program to give Dyna Corporation $80 million, to
give 16 U.S. contractors money to maintain Colombian helicopters and
money to U.S. firms to own and fly the eradication aircraft. This is
not about Plan Colombia anymore. This is about Plan K Street. Lockheed
Martin got $9 million.
Congress Members here travel to Colombia almost monthly on what I
have now called the Narcotourism Tour that American Congressmen like to
have. They come home thinking that they have seen the problems in
Colombia and that all we need to do is give more money. I am all for a
real Plan Colombia, a plan that invests in Colombia, that lets
Colombians do the jobs that Americans should be working themselves out
of. For 5 years the same companies are doing the same things they have
been doing; 5 years without
[[Page H5314]]
the Colombians owning those companies, without the Colombians doing
that work.
It is time that we make a statement. Cut this $100 million, put it
into alternative development, do something that helps Colombians help
themselves so that we do not have to keep American corporations on the
handout from American Congress Members to keep their businesses going
in the guise of trying to eradicate drugs in Colombia. It is time to
stop.
Mr. Chairman, it doesn't take an inside-the-beltway policy work to
understand that the current policy towards Colombia is broken.
My district on the Central Coast of California is filled with
compassionate people who closely follow US foreign policy towards our
southern neighbors and they recognize that our current policy towards
Colombia is broken.
They are well aware that only eradicating a farmer's crops and not
providing for alternative livelihoods is not a sustainable solution to
the coca growing problem in the Andean region.
US assistance to Colombia is reflective of this flawed policy: 80
percent of funds have gone for military assistance and been eaten up by
coca eradication.
Only 20 percent of funds have gone to social and economic programs.
These programs are what build local economies and communities and
provide alternatives to coca production.
This distribution of assistance is not a recipe for permanent coca
eradication. It's not a recipe for peace. It's a recipe for disaster.
And that disaster is reflected in the Administration's own figures
for coca production. The White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy statistics for 2004 show that, despite a record number of crops
sprayed in Colombia, data shows that coca production remains
``statistically unchanged'' and the US street prices of cocaine and
heroin are at or near all-time lows.
I'd like to quote a constituent and friend of mine, Bert Muhly, who
has traveled extensively throughout Latin America for decades and has
been a tireless advocate for the downtrodden throughout the Western
Hemisphere.
Bert correctly states:
``Plan Colombia must be abandoned in favor of a Plan for Peace where
the billions our government spends on shoring up the military
establishment of countries of Latin America that are used to suppress
the hopes of their people is diverted to programs that will alleviate
poverty and give hope to the people within those countries.''
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Colombia in the 1960s and have
visited Colombia many times since then. I have seen first hand that
Colombians are resilient and bright people who desperately want peace.
Yet U.S. assistance and the Colombian government have not laid the
ground work for peace.
The Colombian government has failed to focus on creating a rural
development strategy to address the underlying causes of poverty.
With such a lop-sided policy that fails to invest in the innate
capabilities of rural Colombians so that they can build a life for
themselves that doesn't involve coca production, I am sad that my
adopted country will remain stuck in this quagmire of civil war.
House rules prevent the $100 million from the McGovern-Moore-McCollum
amendment to be reallocated to alternative development, which would be
my preference. Absent that option, I strongly urge my colleagues to
vote in support of this amendment which is a step in the right
direction to encourage reform of U.S. policy in Colombia.
{time} 1800
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and
also an individual who has spent a great deal of time in Central
America and Latin America studying this issue.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)
and who I have great respect for, but disagree on some things,
particularly this amendment. This amendment, I believe, would cut the
rug out from under our democratically elected ally in Colombia.
Let us look at the facts. The facts are that Colombia is a democracy.
The facts are that Colombia is our hemisphere's second oldest
continuous democracy. The facts are that 90 percent of the cocaine and
50 percent of the heroin that comes into my home State of Illinois
comes from the Andean region, particularly Colombia. The facts tell us
that Colombian drugs in 2001 killed more Americans than the attack on
the World Trade Center. The facts tell us that the criminal sale of
narcotrafficking of drugs supports almost 30,000 terrorists, terrorists
who are affiliated with two leftist terrorist groups, FARC and the ELN,
and one right wing terrorist group, AUC.
I would note that these are terrorist groups that enslave child
soldiers, sending children into battle against the democratically
elected government of Colombia.
Today, 65 elected officials, judges, and a presidential candidate are
held hostage. They are political prisoners, held by the FARC. These 65
political prisoners are the only political prisoners held in our
hemisphere outside of Cuba, that brutal dictatorship.
We have a partner in President Uribe, and Colombia is making progress
under Plan Colombia. Homicides are down, kidnappings are down, terror
attacks are down, and 250 narcoterrorists and drug kingpins have been
extradited to the United States for trial. Again, Plan Colombia is
working.
When it comes to intercepting drugs this past year, 475 tons of drugs
were eradicated or seized in 2004. I would note just this past week the
Colombian Government was successful. In one drug bust, they seized 15
tons of street-quality cocaine, worth $400 million in Boston or
Chicago. Again, progress is being made. Clearly, by voting ``yes'' for
this amendment, Members pull the rug out from under the democratically
elected government of Colombia.
I have worked with many friends on both sides of the aisle. We have
talked about finding alternative crops to help the farmers in Colombia
make money and have a profitable alternative to becoming cocaleros, and
I am proud that through USAID our investments are paying off. Today,
thousands of former cocaleros are now cafeteros, growing coffee for a
more profitable market as coffee prices have increased in the past
year. As part of that commitment, the United States joined the
International Coffee Organization. Since then, prices have gone up $1 a
pound.
Mr. Chairman, vote ``no'' on the McGovern amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let us look at the facts. The facts are that illegal
drugs are cheaper today than they were 6 years ago and $4 billion ago
when we began Plan Colombia. The facts are that the elites in Colombia
want us to bankroll this war. It remains an embarrassing fact that only
740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42 million. They are
relying on us to bankroll this war.
Mr. Chairman, the other fact is that widespread impunity for human
rights abusers is getting worse. It has been widely publicized in our
newspapers about the new law that the Colombian Government has passed
to grant immunity and to grant amnesty, for the most part, to
individuals in the paramilitaries who are guilty of crimes again
humanity, many of them involved in the drug trade, and they are doing
that right before our eyes.
The facts are that the human rights situation is so bad that our own
State Department has yet to certify human rights progress in Colombia.
We are being drawn into a quagmire. The legal limit on the number of
military and contractor personnel had to be increased in 2004 from 400
to 800 military, from 400 to 600 contractors.
Let us try to solve the problem of drug abuse, not just throw money
at failing strategies. We need to invest in drug treatment and
prevention here at home and in the Andes, in alternative development
programs to help small farmers transition permanently from growing
illicit drugs. But this policy has failed.
Mr. Chairman, the question was raised before what are we for. I
include for the Record a statement of what we are for.
Rethinking Plan Colombia
Low-cost: use U.S. leverage far more vigorously in support
of human rights and the rule of law; support the
recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights for Colombia; insist upon the complete
dismantlement of paramilitary forces and structures, within
an effective legal framework for justice, truth, and
reparations; make trade consistent with sustainable drug
policy and human rights; encourage negotiations with the
guerrillas for a just and lasting peace; encourage Colombia's
elite to use more of its own resources to improve governance.
Fund by reducing security assistance: support a strong
judiciary and an independent
[[Page H5315]]
human rights sector; expand alternative development within a
comprehensive rural development strategy, and end aerial
spraying; encourage the strengthening of civilian governance
in rural areas, including local peace-building initiatives;
increase and improve humanitarian assistance, and expand
protection, to displaced persons and refugees; reduce U.S.
demand for drugs through evidence-based prevention strategies
and improved access to high-quality treatment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the McGovern
amendment.
This amendment would take valuable resources away from a program that
is working to help keep drugs off our streets. The Andean Counterdrug
Initiative was established to eliminate the cultivation and production
of cocaine and opium, build Andean law enforcement infrastructure,
arrest and prosecute traffickers, and seize their assets. The more we
can disrupt the production of the drugs that are smuggled into our
country, the safer our citizens will be.
The Andean Counterdrug Initiative has provided resources necessary to
fight the war on drugs where these drugs are grown and processed, and
efforts to disrupt the drug trade are working.
Aerial eradication efforts in Colombia have been impressive: 127,000
hectares were sprayed in 2003; 136,000 in 2004; and 95,000 hectares, or
nearly 250,000 acres, have already been sprayed in this year alone.
Efforts like these, which are supported by resources from the Andean
Counterdrug Initiative, have reduced coca cultivation in Colombia by 33
percent. Opium poppy cultivation in Colombia dropped 52 percent in
2004, which represents the third straight year of decline.
Due to these types of efforts, traffickers have been forced to
decentralize their crops of coca, which has worked to decrease the
total amount of coca cultivation. Efforts to seize drugs in Colombia
have also seen impressive strides with the help of this important
program.
Mr. Chairman, 114 metric tons of cocaine were seized in 2003, 178
metric tons in 2004. Drugs seized in Colombia are drugs that do not
make it to the United States. Now is not the time to reduce funding for
such a successful program. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, if this policy is succeeding, why does cocaine remain
readily available on U.S. streets at lower prices than ever, and the
levels of use are stable if not rising? There is increased
availability.
If this policy is such a success, why are there increased abuses by
the army? Why are trade union murders on the rise? Murders of trade
union leaders increased in 2004 over 2003.
Let us look at the facts here. The bottom line is that this policy
has not succeeded. It is time for us to take a fresh look at it and to
change course.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the McGovern amendment.
Assistance under Plan Colombia is not just about policies; it is about
saving lives. It is about the countless judges and other innocent
Colombians who have, throughout the years, perished under the violence
of ruthless narcotrafficking networks.
It is about fighting a threat to stability and security in our own
hemisphere and addressing the drug activity and the related criminal
enterprises that create an environment where terrorist activities can
blossom. It is about assisting our democratic allies in confronting a
threat that gradually erodes the institutional framework necessary for
the survival of these relatively new and fragile democracies. It is
about going to the source of the problem and providing for the welfare
of our children and our Nation's future.
Plan Colombia is working, and the funds appropriated in this
legislation are vital for the continued success of this effort. If we
truly care about the people of the Andean region, let us not abandon
them. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first, let me make a couple of points
clear. This amendment does not save a dime. It merely transfers money
from counternarcotics efforts to other efforts. Those Members who act
like it saves money are wrong.
Secondly, it is about kids and families in America. It is not about
contractors; it is about the cocaine on our streets and what is the
best way to deal with it.
Look, this is a tough problem. I am not going to admit that it is not
a tough problem. Rape is a tough problem. Child abuse is a tough
problem. Spouse abuse is a tough problem, but we do not say let us give
up efforts; let us give in because we have not seen a drop in spouse
abuse or child abuse; why do we not just surrender and give the fight
up.
Our problem is difficult here. This is a map of Colombia. If you look
at the map, the reason you hear passing statistics going on here is
because basically our policies have pushed the narcoterrorists out into
the jungle, instead of on the streets of Bogota where they are
assassinating elected officials, terrorizing individuals, as reported
in Garcia Marquez's book, ``Diary of a Kidnapping.'' We have pushed
them into the jungle, so we have seen a tremendous drop in kidnappings
and a tremendous drop in murders and blockades and all other types of
things in the populist areas of this part of the country.
The fact is that now for the first time in modern history, every
single city and town in this country has an elected official because he
is not worried about being murdered.
I am all for alternative development. Alternative development,
however, first requires you to get the guy from the FARC and the
ultraparamilitary rightist groups away from them with a machine gun
saying, plant palm heart and I will kill you. As you talk to the
individuals, you can offer all of the incentives you want; but, quite
frankly, they can make more money in coca. And as long as they are
being terrorized and as long as they think they can make the money in
coca and the terrorists think they can make money in coca, they are not
going to let them do alternative development.
So we have to get control of the land. Just like in Afghanistan with
heroin, it is fine for us to talk about alternative problems; but until
you eradicate the heroin, it does not do any good to talk to them about
planting a crop that will yield only about one-fifth the amount.
Now, I want to put a couple of other charts up here to show Members
the depth of this problem. This is the eastern Pacific and western
Atlantic. In this map from southwest Colombia in the eastern Pacific,
you see the main trafficking routes. This is a Caribbean route,
basically, going over to Yucatan.
The reason that is important is if you look at this map, the area we
are trying to patrol in the eastern Pacific is basically as big as the
continental United States. That does not even count the Caribbean.
Now, facts are stubborn things. In 1993, we cut 75 percent of the
interdiction budget. What we saw was cocaine and heroin pour in from
Colombia in that region to the point where after basically 10 years of
effort, we have steadily reduced it back to where we were. It jumped 50
percent in 12 months when we cut the budget. We are now gradually
working our way back down and trying to restabilize.
Let me conclude with this. This is not a Colombian problem; it is our
problem. It is our addictions and Europe's addictions that have
terrorized this 200-year-old democracy. Because we have not licked drug
abuse in America, they have had 30,000 police killed. President
Clinton, while initially he had bad policies in his administration, he
is the one who came up with the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and came
up with the Colombian Initiative, working with this Congress, because
he realized it did not work to cut back.
[[Page H5316]]
It was terrorizing a legitimate democracy. An economy that has
coffee, emeralds, oil, flowers, that had a flourishing middle class,
that is an example of a country that fights for itself, where their
police are dying. Unlike what it has taken in Afghanistan and Iraq to
rebuild a police force, they had a police force. What they needed was
helicopters, bullets, and communications systems. They needed help with
their legal system and alternative development. They needed help with
building roads into some of the rural areas where they had fled to. We
provided that help to the Colombians.
This is a model of what we are trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan;
but it shows that when the terrorists can get drug money, whether it be
in Afghanistan or Colombia, they are a threat to the stability, to the
law and order, and to the people who want to follow the law. We need to
stand behind them because it is our habit that has caused the problem.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not cripple our military support
for Colombia. Currently, there is $332 million in the Andean
Counterdrug Initiative for Colombia.
{time} 1815
This amendment reduces that amount by $100 million. There is an
additional $152 million for alternative development, human rights, and
rule of law programs for Colombia in the ACI. We are not touching that
money. There is another $90 million in military aid for Colombia in the
FMF account in this bill. We are not touching that money. In the
defense appropriations bill that we passed just a few weeks ago, there
was another $165 million in military aid for Colombia.
And should this amendment prevail, I will be happy to work with the
chairman, a gentleman I greatly admire, and the distinguished ranking
member to ensure that the intent of this amendment is made clear in the
final foreign operations conference report.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard some talk today about the new law passed
in Colombia last week to demobilize the paramilitary forces. Maybe we
should call the law up here what they are calling it in Colombia: the
Impunity and Immunity law. It fails to establish any mechanisms that
will ensure the dismantling of the paramilitaries' organizational
structures or financial structures. Commanders who are major narco-
traffickers and have committed crimes against humanity will get off
with very limited, if any, sentences, probably spent under house arrest
at their local hacienda, profits in hand.
Mr. Chairman, 6 years, over $4 billion. We are paying for Colombia's
war. As I pointed out over and over in this debate, there are 42
million people who live in Colombia. Only 720,000 of them actually pay
taxes. We are bankrolling this war. Maybe the elites in Colombia should
put up some of their own money.
We need to send a strong message: We are not Colombia's piggy-bank.
We cannot just keep writing blank checks. This policy has failed. It
has failed. The availability of cocaine on the streets of the United
States of America has never been more plentiful. The price has never
been lower. This policy has not made a difference to any of the people
in this country.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for the McGovern-McCollum-Moore
amendment. Enough is enough.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I think
this is the wrong time to send the signal to the world that the United
States Congress does not fully support President Bush in his fight
against terrorism and narcotics in this hemisphere. I believe that the
current mix of the ``hard side'' versus the ``soft side'' of programs
in Colombia has been vital to our success. The aerial spraying
eradication program enjoys strong public support in Colombia. Part of
the support is due to the fact that we are offering alternatives to
farmers who used to cultivate coca and poppy. Illicit cultivation is
not now their only option.
The soft-side programs promoting alternatives is even more effective
in Colombia due to the realization if they do not stop cultivation and
take advantage of legal opportunities, their coca or poppy will be
sprayed and they will not have anything available to them. The carrot-
and-stick incentive structure has proven to be very effective in
Colombia. I think we have gotten the mix right.
The political will of the Uribe government is part of the reason for
our success. However, Colombia has provided more than just political
will. In the last 3 years, it has doubled its portion of the GDP that
is devoted to public security and democracy. The narco-terrorists they
face are smart, well financed, and ruthless. Therefore, both the
government of Colombia and the United States must keep up the pressure
to end narco-terrorism in Colombia.
Our government has been a strong supporter of Colombia, and President
Bush has confirmed to President Uribe our firm commitment to support
Colombia in its efforts to combat narco-terrorism. Secretary Rice has
also confirmed this commitment during a recent visit to Colombia.
We need to consolidate the many successes of Plan Colombia. There has
been almost a 33 percent reduction in coca cultivation in Colombia
since 2001 and a 72 percent drop in poppy cultivation. We need to
ensure that this trend continues.
Our goals in Colombia are to eliminate narco-terrorism, promote
respect for human rights, create economic alternatives and
opportunities, respect for the rule of law, and achieving peace.
Democracy is flourishing in this important ally and terrorism is being
defeated. We cannot afford to lose the momentum.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, at issue in the case of Colombia are
priorities, but in a different sense than is usually assumed. The
``priority'' debate today is not about whether stemming the drug trade
is appropriate, but the methodology of going about it. Military
approaches fit war scenarios. Civil war is more problematic; criminal
activities even more so. My concern is that when America enters into
internal conflicts we change the nature of on-going struggles as well
as the motivations of various combatants. We become implicitly
accountable for a panoply of policies of any side we back and
accordingly answerable to the people for that side's allegiance or lack
thereof to social fairness and the rule of law itself.
In this context, would it not be better to limit our military
involvement in this struggling, divided country and focus our efforts
instead on alternative crop production, democracy building programs and
the effective prosecution of human rights abuses? And at home wouldn't
we be better off emphasizing education to reduce the demand for drugs?
Military involvement simply carries too many seeds of
counterproductivity as well as the prospect of escalation if policies
at one level of engagement prove insufficient.
Accordingly, I support the amendment before us, not out of a
conviction it is an adequate answer to a real dilemma for both of our
societies, but out of a belief that more balanced social involvement
holds a better prospect for more productive economic and social
development in Colombia and hence more comprehensive drug curtailment
through national law enforcement.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the
McGovern, McCollum and Moore Amendment to the FY06 Foreign Operations
Appropriations Bill that will reduce counter-narcotics and military
funding to Colombia by $100 million. The U.S./Colombia campaign against
drugs and terrorism is not working. Not only have efforts to reduce the
production of cocaine in Colombia not been effective, funds from the
program that should have been used to fight terrorism are instead being
used by paramilitary groups to commit human rights abuses.
The U.S. has invested billions of dollars into Plan Colombia and
successive programs since passing the FY 2000 budget. The Bush
administration wants to continue this misguided policy with a request
for $734 million in the FY06 Foreign Operations Appropriations request
for the Andean Counter-drug Initiative.
One of the main objectives of Plan Colombia has been to prevent the
flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. At the center of this effort has
been the aerial spraying of herbicides on Colombia's coca crops. But
U.S. and UN reports confirm that aerial spraying has not produced any
appreciable reduction in coca production. In fact, cocaine production
in Colombia may even have increased. According to the UN, 62 percent of
Colombian coca fields detected in 2004 were new!
The lack of any appreciable reduction in production combined with an
increase in production in countries such as Bolivia and Peru
[[Page H5317]]
has actually led to an increase of supply on the global market and a
decrease in the cost of cocaine in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I am also troubled by reports in the news that recently
the Colombian Congress, while approving a law governing the disarmament
of its country's death squads, at the same time, granted generous
concessions to paramilitary commanders accused of human rights abuses.
I am concerned that U.S. assistance is being used by Colombian security
forces that operate in conjunction with paramilitary forces targeting
social leaders with threats, disappearance, and execution. The U.S.
should not provide assistance to governments that refuse to hold
perpetrators accountable for human rights abuses.
Mr. Chairman, until I am convinced that the funds to Colombia are
fixing the problem instead of making it worse, I cannot support full
funding for aid to Colombia. That is why I support the McGovern,
McCollum, Moore Amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) will be postponed.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is one of
the best vehicles Congress has to address an issue of paramount
importance, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This bill contains
important Middle East provisions, but I believe we could have done
better in our efforts to bring peace to these two long-suffering
peoples.
I support our $2.3 billion package for Israel. Maintaining Israel's
military superiority in the region is a prerequisite for any peace
agreement, and I am pleased that the bill fulfills the President's
request for an additional $150 million for the Palestinians. The
President believes, as do I, that it is imperative to deliver U.S.
assistance quickly to improve the Palestinians' quality of life and
empower their democratically elected leadership. But I had hoped, Mr.
Chairman, that the Committee on Appropriations could have seized this
historic opportunity and provided direct funding to the Palestinian
Authority. Instead, this bill prohibits direct funding and places
excessive conditions and limitations on the aid package.
Of course, we must ensure transparency and accountability. But the
requirements in this legislation continue to go far beyond what we ever
demanded in the Arafat era. This strikes me as shortsighted. We should
join with President Bush in strengthening President Abbas, especially
in the face of a strong challenge from Hamas in the upcoming
parliamentary elections.
As Israel and the Palestinian Authority prepare to implement the
Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza, it is incumbent upon the United
States to help both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas confront
the extremists on each side who seek to derail this process. I hope,
Mr. Chairman, that when this bill comes to the conference with the
Senate, we can redirect some of our assistance directly to the
Palestinian Authority. Fragile as it may be, a flicker of hope and
optimism has been kindled in the Middle East. It may truly be our last
hope, and what a tragedy it would be for Israel, for the Palestinians,
and for America if we did not do everything in our power to bring an
end to this conflict.
I thank, again, the ranking member for yielding to me.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Migration and Refugee Assistance
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
enable the Secretary of State to provide, as authorized by
law, a contribution to the International Committee of the Red
Cross, assistance to refugees, including contributions to the
International Organization for Migration and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other activities
to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of
personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service
Act of 1980; allowances as authorized by sections 5921
through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized
by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $790,720,000,
which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
not more than $22,000,000 may be available for administrative
expenses: Provided further, That funds appropriated under
this heading may be made available for a headquarters
contribution to the International Committee of the Red Cross
only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to
the appropriate committees of Congress) that the Magen David
Adom Society of Israel is not being denied participation in
the activities of the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement.
United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 2(c) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
1962, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)), $30,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs
For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-
terrorism, demining and related programs and activities,
$400,350,000, to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of
part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-
terrorism assistance, chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, section 504 of the FREEDOM Support
Act, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for demining activities, the clearance
of unexploded ordnance, the destruction of small arms, and
related activities, notwithstanding any other provision of
law that restricts assistance to foreign countries, including
activities implemented through nongovernmental and
international organizations, and section 301 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and for a United
States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided, That of this amount
not to exceed $37,500,000, to remain available until
expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and
Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law
that restricts assistance to foreign countries, to promote
bilateral and multilateral activities relating to
nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such
funds may also be used for such countries other than the
Independent States of the former Soviet Union and
international organizations when it is in the national
security interest of the United States to do so: Provided
further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be
made available for the International Atomic Energy Agency
only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to
the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to
participate in the activities of that Agency: Provided
further, That of the funds made available for demining and
related activities, not to exceed $705,000, in addition to
funds otherwise available for such purposes, may be used for
administrative expenses related to the operation and
management of the demining program: Provided further, That
funds appropriated under this heading that are available for
``Anti-terrorism Assistance'' and ``Export Control and Border
Security'' shall remain available until September 30, 2007:
Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading
shall be made available for programs and countries in the
amounts contained in the table included in the report
accompanying this Act: Provided further, That any proposed
increases or decreases to the amounts contained in such table
shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of
the Committee on Appropriations and section 634A of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and notifications shall be
transmitted at least 15 days in advance of the obligation of
funds.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Royce
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Royce:
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $7,000,000) (reduced by
$7,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment seeks to direct $7 million in funding for the Small
Arms/Light Weapons Destruction initiative that is housed within the
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related programs
account. That account is called the NADR account, and the entire NADR
account is reduced by approximately 1.75 percent in order to
[[Page H5318]]
account for the increase in this Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction
initiative.
I am very pleased here to have worked with the gentleman from Arizona
(Chairman Kolbe) and with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey),
ranking member, to craft an amendment that I believe is acceptable to
both of them. Seven million dollars is the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level for this activity.
And, Mr. Chairman, of growing concern to the United States are these
shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles, referred to as MANPADs, which
have proliferated throughout the world, especially since the collapse
of the Soviet Union. These are U.S.-made Stingers, they are British-
made Blowpipes, and most of them are Russian-made SA-7s. According to
one report, 6,000 shoulder-fired missiles are outside of government
control. There are known black markets for these shoulder-fired
missiles throughout Africa, throughout the Middle East, and in Asia.
And for between about $5,000 and $30,000, a MANPAD can be acquired; a
low cost relative to the damage they could inflict in human loss as
well as economic and psychological damage. A successful attack with one
of these shoulder-fired missiles against an airliner could halt
aviation, and recently we had a study done by RAND, and they released
this report that found that the total economic loss resulting from an
attack could be in the billions of dollars.
The alarming news is that more than two dozen terrorist groups are
believed to be in possession of these weapons. Several incidents have
highlighted the danger that these weapons pose: the November, 2002,
attempted missile attack on an Israeli commercial airliner in Mombassa,
Kenya; the August, 2003 sting in which a man was arrested trying to
sell Russian-made shoulder-fired missiles to FBI agents posing as
terrorists. Also in 2003 we had the British government deploying
approximately 450 troops at Heathrow Airport after intelligence
indicated a possible al Qaeda plan to use these shoulder-fired missiles
against their civilian flights. Al Qaeda training films recovered by
allied forces in Afghanistan contained detailed instruction on how to
use Russian-made shoulder-fired missiles.
Most observers recommend a multi-layered approach to defend against
possible terrorist attacks using these shoulder-fired missiles. An
important piece of this strategy are U.S. efforts to take these deadly
weapons out of play around the world. Last week the International
Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee that I chair held a
briefing with administration officials on the State Department's
efforts to identify, secure, and then destroy these shoulder-fired
anti-aircraft missile stocks.
The Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction initiative is one part of
our effort against this threat. To reduce the number of shoulder-fired
missiles that could fall into the hands of terrorists, we are providing
bilateral assistance to foreign governments to identify and destroy
their stocks in excess of their security needs as well as to improve
security at their storage facilities. The State Department is now
overseeing the destruction or pledges to destroy shoulder-fired
missiles from Bosnia-Herzegovina, from Cambodia, Nigeria, Liberia,
Serbia, and other countries. And most importantly, I think, since 2003,
this program has destroyed over 10,500 of these shoulder-fired
missiles.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of work left to be done. This amendment
helps to continue this work. At little cost these efforts are helping
to mitigate a critical threat to our security.
So I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the ranking
member for working with me on this amendment. They have a tough task on
this bill, and I look forward to working with them on this legislation
as it moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not in opposition.
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, I do rise to say that I think that the issue that has
been raised by the gentleman from California is a very important one,
and we do accept this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
And I want to thank the gentleman for raising this issue today. I
strongly support continued funding for programs to secure and destroy
small arms and light weapons around the world, and I join my chairman
in delightfully accepting the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just say simply
that the program is certainly a worthwhile one and we have no problem
with it. We simply did not earmark specific dollars from this account
for it. This would suggest that certain dollars are to be spent, and we
do support what is being done.
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. Royce).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 70, line 19 be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 36, line 16 through page 70, line 19
is as follows:
Department of the Treasury
International Affairs Technical Assistance
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 129 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$20,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009,
which shall be available notwithstanding any other provision
of law that restricts assistance to foreign countries.
Debt Restructuring
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying loans and loan
guarantees, as the President may determine, for which funds
have been appropriated or otherwise made available for
programs within the International Affairs Budget Function
150, including the cost of selling, reducing, or canceling
amounts owed to the United States as a result of concessional
loans made to eligible countries, pursuant to parts IV and V
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, of modifying
concessional credit agreements with least developed
countries, as authorized under section 411 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended, of concessional loans, guarantees and credit
agreements, as authorized under section 572 of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 1989 (Public Law 100-461), and of
canceling amounts owed, as a result of loans or guarantees
made pursuant to the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, by
countries that are eligible for debt reduction pursuant to
title V of H.R. 3425 as enacted into law by section
1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-113, $65,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That not less
than $20,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading
shall be made available to carry out the provisions of part V
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Provided further, That
up to $45,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this
heading may be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Trust Fund
administered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development amounts for the benefit of countries that are
eligible for debt reduction pursuant to title V of H.R. 3425
as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-
113: Provided further, That amounts paid to the HIPC Trust
Fund may be used only to fund debt reduction under the
enhanced HIPC initiative by--
(1) the Inter-American Development Bank;
(2) the African Development Fund;
(3) the African Development Bank; and
(4) the Central American Bank for Economic Integration:
Provided further, That funds may not be paid to the HIPC
Trust Fund for the benefit of any country if the Secretary of
State has credible evidence that the government of such
country is engaged in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights or in
military or civil conflict that undermines its ability to
develop and implement measures to alleviate poverty and to
devote adequate human and financial resources to that end:
Provided further, That on the basis of final appropriations,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the
Committees on Appropriations concerning which countries and
international financial institutions are expected to benefit
from a United States contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund
during the fiscal year: Provided further, That the Secretary
of the Treasury shall inform the Committees on Appropriations
not less than 15 days in
[[Page H5319]]
advance of the signature of an agreement by the United States
to make payments to the HIPC Trust Fund of amounts for such
countries and institutions: Provided further, That the
Secretary of the Treasury may disburse funds designated for
debt reduction through the HIPC Trust Fund only for the
benefit of countries that--
(1) have committed, for a period of 24 months, not to
accept new market-rate loans from the international financial
institution receiving debt repayment as a result of such
disbursement, other than loans made by such institutions to
export-oriented commercial projects that generate foreign
exchange which are generally referred to as ``enclave''
loans; and
(2) have documented and demonstrated their commitment to
redirect their budgetary resources from international debt
repayments to programs to alleviate poverty and promote
economic growth that are additional to or expand upon those
previously available for such purposes:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this heading in this or any other appropriations Act shall be
made available for Sudan or Burma unless the Secretary of the
Treasury determines and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations that a democratically elected government has
taken office.
TITLE III--MILITARY ASSISTANCE
Funds Appropriated to the President
International Military Education and Training
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 541 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$86,744,000, of which up to $3,000,000 may remain available
until expended: Provided, That the civilian personnel for
whom military education and training may be provided under
this heading may include civilians who are not members of a
government whose participation would contribute to improved
civil-military relations, civilian control of the military,
or respect for human rights: Provided further, That funds
appropriated under this heading for military education and
training for Nigeria may only be provided through the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
Foreign Military Financing Program
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President
to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export
Control Act, $4,442,300,000: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not less than $2,280,000,000
shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not less
than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only
for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by
this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days
of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That to the
extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be
used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by
this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the United
States, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which
not less than $595,000,000 shall be available for the
procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense
services, including research and development: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph,
$206,000,000 should be made available for assistance for
Jordan: Provided further, That funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this paragraph shall be
nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in section 23 of
the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That funds
made available under this paragraph shall be obligated upon
apportionment in accordance with paragraph (5)(C) of title
31, United States Code, section 1501(a).
None of the funds made available under this heading shall
be available to finance the procurement of defense articles,
defense services, or design and construction services that
are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms
Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to
make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the
United States Government specifying the conditions under
which such procurements may be financed with such funds:
Provided, That all country and funding level increases in
allocations shall be submitted through the regular
notification procedures of section 515 of this Act: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be available for assistance for Sudan and
Guatemala: Provided further, That funds made available under
this heading may be used, notwithstanding any other provision
of law that restricts assistance to foreign countries, for
demining, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related
activities, and may include activities implemented through
nongovernmental and international organizations: Provided
further, That only those countries for which assistance was
justified for the ``Foreign Military Sales Financing
Program'' in the fiscal year 1989 congressional presentation
for security assistance programs may utilize funds made
available under this heading for procurement of defense
articles, defense services or design and construction
services that are not sold by the United States Government
under the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That
funds appropriated under this heading shall be expended at
the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for defense
articles and services: Provided further, That not more than
$41,600,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading may
be obligated for necessary expenses, including the purchase
of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only for use
outside of the United States, for the general costs of
administering military assistance and sales: Provided
further, That not more than $373,000,000 of funds realized
pursuant to section 21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control
Act may be obligated for expenses incurred by the Department
of Defense during fiscal year 2006 pursuant to section 43(b)
of the Arms Export Control Act, except that this limitation
may be exceeded only through the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided
further, That foreign military financing program funds
estimated to be outlayed for Egypt during fiscal year 2006
shall be transferred to an interest bearing account for Egypt
in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York within 30 days of
enactment of this Act.
Peacekeeping Operations
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
$177,800,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
under this heading shall be obligated or expended except as
provided through the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.
TITLE IV--MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
funds appropriated to the president
International Financial Institutions
Contribution to the International Development Association
For payment to the International Development Association by
the Secretary of the Treasury, $950,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Contribution to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
For payment to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
by the Secretary of the Treasury, $1,741,515, to remain
available until expended.
Limitation on Callable Capital Subscriptions
The United States Governor of the Multilateral Investment
Guarantee Agency may subscribe without fiscal year limitation
to the callable capital portion of the United States share of
such capital in an amount not to exceed $8,126,527.
Contribution to the Inter-American Investment Corporation
For payment to the Inter-American Investment Corporation by
the Secretary of the Treasury, $1,741,515, to remain
available until expended.
Contribution to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment
Fund
For payment to the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral
Investment Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the
United States contribution to the fund, $1,741,515, to remain
available until expended.
Contribution to the Asian Development Fund
For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the
Treasury to the increase in resources of the Asian
Development Fund, as authorized by the Asian Development Bank
Act, as amended, $115,250,000, to remain available until
expended.
Contribution to the African Development Bank
For payment to the African Development Bank by the
Secretary of the Treasury, $5,638,350, for the United States
paid-in share of the increase in capital stock, to remain
available until expended.
limitation on callable capital subscriptions
The United States Governor of the African Development Bank
may subscribe without fiscal year limitation for the callable
capital portion of the United States share of such capital
stock in an amount not to exceed $88,333,855.
contribution to the african development fund
For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the
Treasury to the increase in resources of the African
Development Fund, $135,700,000, to remain available until
expended.
Contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
For payment to the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development by the Secretary of the Treasury, $1,015,677 for
the United States share of the paid-in portion of the
increase in capital stock, to remain available until
expended.
limitation on callable capital subscriptions
The United States Governor of the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal
year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United
States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed
$2,249,888.
Contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development
For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the
Treasury to increase the resources of the International Fund
for Agricultural Development, $15,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
International Organizations and Programs
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of
section 2 of the
[[Page H5320]]
United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973,
$328,958,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated
under this heading may be made available to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
compensation for united states executive directors to international
financial institutions
Sec. 501. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be made
as payment to any international financial institution while
the United States Executive Director to such institution is
compensated by the institution at a rate which, together with
whatever compensation such Director receives from the United
States, is in excess of the rate provided for an individual
occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, or while
any alternate United States Director to such institution is
compensated by the institution at a rate in excess of the
rate provided for an individual occupying a position at level
V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5,
United States Code.
(b) For purposes of this section ``international financial
institutions'' are: the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the
Asian Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the
African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the
International Monetary Fund, the North American Development
Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
restrictions on voluntary contributions to united nations agencies
Sec. 502. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
made available to pay any voluntary contribution of the
United States to the United Nations (including the United
Nations Development Program) if the United Nations implements
or imposes any taxation on any United States persons.
limitation on residence expenses
Sec. 503. Of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $100,500 shall be for
official residence expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development during the current fiscal year:
Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken to assure
that, to the maximum extent possible, United States-owned
foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of dollars.
limitation on expenses
Sec. 504. Of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $5,000 shall be for
entertainment expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development during the current fiscal year.
limitation on representational allowances
Sec. 505. Of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act, not to exceed $125,000 shall be
available for representation allowances for the United States
Agency for International Development during the current
fiscal year: Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken
to assure that, to the maximum extent possible, United
States-owned foreign currencies are utilized in lieu of
dollars: Provided further, That of the funds made available
by this Act for general costs of administering military
assistance and sales under the heading ``Foreign Military
Financing Program'', not to exceed $4,000 shall be available
for entertainment expenses and not to exceed $130,000 shall
be available for representation allowances: Provided further,
That of the funds made available by this Act under the
heading ``International Military Education and Training'',
not to exceed $55,000 shall be available for entertainment
allowances: Provided further, That of the funds made
available by this Act for the Inter-American Foundation, not
to exceed $2,000 shall be available for entertainment and
representation allowances: Provided further, That of the
funds made available by this Act for the Peace Corps, not to
exceed a total of $4,000 shall be available for entertainment
expenses: Provided further, That of the funds made available
by this Act under the heading ``Trade and Development
Agency'', not to exceed $4,000 shall be available for
representation and entertainment allowances: Provided
further, That of the funds made available by this Act under
the heading ``Millennium Challenge Corporation'', not to
exceed $115,000 shall be available for representation and
entertainment allowances.
prohibition on taxation of united states assistance
Sec. 506. (a) Prohibition on Taxation.--None of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be made available to provide
assistance for a foreign country under a new bilateral
agreement governing the terms and conditions under which such
assistance is to be provided unless such agreement includes a
provision stating that assistance provided by the United
States shall be exempt from taxation, or reimbursed, by the
foreign government, and the Secretary of State shall
expeditiously seek to negotiate amendments to existing
bilateral agreements, as necessary, to conform with this
requirement.
(b) Reimbursement of Foreign Taxes.--An amount equivalent
to 200 percent of the total taxes assessed during fiscal year
2006 on funds appropriated by this Act by a foreign
government or entity against commodities financed under
United States assistance programs for which funds are
appropriated by this Act, either directly or through
grantees, contractors and subcontractors shall be withheld
from obligation from funds appropriated for assistance for
fiscal year 2007 and allocated for the central government of
such country and for the West Bank and Gaza Program to the
extent that the Secretary of State certifies and reports in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations that such taxes
have not been reimbursed to the Government of the United
States.
(c) De Minimis Exception.--Foreign taxes of a de minimis
nature shall not be subject to the provisions of subsection
(b).
(d) Reprogramming of Funds.--Funds withheld from obligation
for each country or entity pursuant to subsection (b) shall
be reprogrammed for assistance to countries which do not
assess taxes on United States assistance or which have an
effective arrangement that is providing substantial
reimbursement of such taxes.
(e) Determinations.--
(1) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any
country or entity the Secretary of State determines--
(A) does not assess taxes on United States assistance or
which has an effective arrangement that is providing
substantial reimbursement of such taxes; or
(B) the foreign policy interests of the United States
outweigh the policy of this section to ensure that United
States assistance is not subject to taxation.
(2) The Secretary of State shall consult with the
Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days prior to
exercising the authority of this subsection with regard to
any country or entity.
(f) Implementation.--The Secretary of State shall issue
rules, regulations, or policy guidance, as appropriate, to
implement the prohibition against the taxation of assistance
contained in this section.
(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the terms ``taxes'' and ``taxation'' refer to value
added taxes and customs duties imposed on commodities
financed with United States assistance for programs for which
funds are appropriated by this Act; and
(2) the term ``bilateral agreement'' refers to a framework
bilateral agreement between the Government of the United
States and the government of the country receiving assistance
that describes the privileges and immunities applicable to
United States foreign assistance for such country generally,
or an individual agreement between the Government of the
United States and such government that describes, among other
things, the treatment for tax purposes that will be accorded
the United States assistance provided under that agreement.
prohibition against direct funding for certain countries
Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended
to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba,
Libya, North Korea, Iran, or Syria: Provided, That for
purposes of this section, except with respect to Libya, the
prohibition on obligations or expenditures shall include
direct loans, credits, insurance and guarantees of the
Export-Import Bank or its agents.
military coups
Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended
to finance directly any assistance to the government of any
country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by
military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be
resumed to such government if the President determines and
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent
to the termination of assistance a democratically elected
government has taken office: Provided further, That the
provisions of this section shall not apply to assistance to
promote democratic elections or public participation in
democratic processes: Provided further, That funds made
available pursuant to the previous provisos shall be subject
to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
transfers
Sec. 509. (a)(1) Limitation on Transfers Between
Agencies.--None of the funds made available by this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in addition to transfers
made by, or authorized elsewhere in, this Act, funds
appropriated by this Act to carry out the purposes of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be allocated or
transferred to agencies of the United States Government
pursuant to the provisions of sections 109, 610, and 632 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(b) Transfers Between Accounts.--None of the funds made
available by this Act may be obligated under an appropriation
account to which they were not appropriated, except for
transfers specifically provided for in this Act, unless the
President, not less than 5 days prior to the exercise of any
authority contained in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to
transfer funds, consults with and provides a written policy
justification to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
(c) Audit of Inter-Agency Transfers.--Any agreement for the
transfer or allocation
[[Page H5321]]
of funds appropriated by this Act, or prior Acts, entered
into between the United States Agency for International
Development and another agency of the United States
Government under the authority of section 632(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of
law, shall expressly provide that the Office of the Inspector
General for the agency receiving the transfer or allocation
of such funds shall perform periodic program and financial
audits of the use of such funds: Provided, That funds
transferred under such authority may be made available for
the cost of such audits.
commercial leasing of defense articles
Sec. 510. Notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries, and subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations, the authority of section 23(a) of the Arms
Export Control Act may be used to provide financing to
Israel, Egypt and NATO and major non-NATO allies for the
procurement by leasing (including leasing with an option to
purchase) of defense articles from United States commercial
suppliers, not including Major Defense Equipment (other than
helicopters and other types of aircraft having possible
civilian application), if the President determines that there
are compelling foreign policy or national security reasons
for those defense articles being provided by commercial lease
rather than by government-to-government sale under such Act.
availability of funds
Sec. 511. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation after the
expiration of the current fiscal year unless expressly so
provided in this Act: Provided, That funds appropriated for
the purposes of chapters 1, 8, 11, and 12 of part I, section
667, chapters 4, 6, 8, and 9 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, section 23 of the Arms Export Control
Act, and funds provided under the heading ``Assistance for
Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', shall remain
available for an additional 4 years from the date on which
the availability of such funds would otherwise have expired,
if such funds are initially obligated before the expiration
of their respective periods of availability contained in this
Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, any funds made available for the
purposes of chapter 1 of part I and chapter 4 of part II of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 which are allocated or
obligated for cash disbursements in order to address balance
of payments or economic policy reform objectives, shall
remain available until expended.
limitation on assistance to countries in default
Sec. 512. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used to furnish assistance to the government of
any country which is in default during a period in excess of
1 calendar year in payment to the United States of principal
or interest on any loan made to the government of such
country by the United States pursuant to a program for which
funds are appropriated under this Act unless the President
determines, following consultations with the Committees on
Appropriations, that assistance to such country is in the
national interest of the United States.
commerce and trade
Sec. 513. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made
available pursuant to this Act for direct assistance and none
of the funds otherwise made available pursuant to this Act to
the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation shall be obligated or expended to finance any
loan, any assistance or any other financial commitments for
establishing or expanding production of any commodity for
export by any country other than the United States, if the
commodity is likely to be in surplus on world markets at the
time the resulting productive capacity is expected to become
operative and if the assistance will cause substantial injury
to United States producers of the same, similar, or competing
commodity: Provided, That such prohibition shall not apply to
the Export-Import Bank if in the judgment of its Board of
Directors the benefits to industry and employment in the
United States are likely to outweigh the injury to United
States producers of the same, similar, or competing
commodity, and the Chairman of the Board so notifies the
Committees on Appropriations.
(b) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act
to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 shall be available for any testing or breeding
feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction,
consultancy, publication, conference, or training in
connection with the growth or production in a foreign country
of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete
with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United
States: Provided, That this subsection shall not prohibit--
(1) activities designed to increase food security in
developing countries where such activities will not have a
significant impact on the export of agricultural commodities
of the United States; or
(2) research activities intended primarily to benefit
American producers.
surplus commodities
Sec. 514. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the
United States Executive Directors of the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, the International
Development Association, the International Finance
Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the
Inter-American Investment Corporation, the North American
Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the African Development Bank, and the African
Development Fund to use the voice and vote of the United
States to oppose any assistance by these institutions, using
funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this Act,
for the production or extraction of any commodity or mineral
for export, if it is in surplus on world markets and if the
assistance will cause substantial injury to United States
producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity.
notification requirements
Sec. 515. For the purposes of providing the executive
branch with the necessary administrative flexibility, none of
the funds made available under this Act for ``Child Survival
and Health Programs Fund'', ``Development Assistance'',
``International Organizations and Programs'', ``Trade and
Development Agency'', ``International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement'', ``Andean Counterdrug Initiative'',
``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'',
``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union'', ``Economic Support Fund'', ``Global HIV/AIDS
Initiative'', ``Peacekeeping Operations'', ``Capital
Investment Fund'', ``Operating Expenses of the United States
Agency for International Development'', ``Operating Expenses
of the United States Agency for International Development
Office of Inspector General'', ``Nonproliferation, Anti-
terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'', ``Millennium
Challenge Corporation'' (by country only), ``Foreign Military
Financing Program'', ``International Military Education and
Training'', ``Peace Corps'', and ``Migration and Refugee
Assistance'', shall be available for obligation for
activities, programs, projects, type of materiel assistance,
countries, or other operations not justified or in excess of
the amount justified to the Committees on Appropriations for
obligation under any of these specific headings unless the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are
previously notified 15 days in advance: Provided, That the
President shall not enter into any commitment of funds
appropriated for the purposes of section 23 of the Arms
Export Control Act for the provision of major defense
equipment, other than conventional ammunition, or other major
defense items defined to be aircraft, ships, missiles, or
combat vehicles, not previously justified to Congress or 20
percent in excess of the quantities justified to Congress
unless the Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days
in advance of such commitment: Provided further, That this
section shall not apply to any reprogramming for an activity,
program, or project for which funds are appropriated under
title II of this Act of less than 10 percent of the amount
previously justified to the Congress for obligation for such
activity, program, or project for the current fiscal year:
Provided further, That the requirements of this section or
any similar provision of this Act or any other Act, including
any prior Act requiring notification in accordance with the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations, may be waived if failure to do so would pose
a substantial risk to human health or welfare: Provided
further, That in case of any such waiver, notification to the
Congress, or the appropriate congressional committees, shall
be provided as early as practicable, but in no event later
than 3 days after taking the action to which such
notification requirement was applicable, in the context of
the circumstances necessitating such waiver: Provided
further, That any notification provided pursuant to such a
waiver shall contain an explanation of the emergency
circumstances.
limitation on availability of funds for international organizations and
programs
Sec. 516. Subject to the regular notification procedures of
the Committees on Appropriations, funds appropriated under
this Act or any previously enacted Act making appropriations
for foreign operations, export financing, and related
programs, which are returned or not made available for
organizations and programs because of the implementation of
section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall
remain available for obligation until September 30, 2007.
independent states of the former soviet union
Sec. 517. (a) None of the funds appropriated under the
heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a
government of an Independent State of the former Soviet
Union--
(1) unless that government is making progress in
implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market
principles, private ownership, respect for commercial
contracts, and equitable treatment of foreign private
investments; and
(2) if that government applies or transfers United States
assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or
seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or
ventures.
Assistance may be furnished without regard to this subsection
if the President determines that to do so is in the national
interest.
[[Page H5322]]
(b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a
government of an Independent State of the former Soviet Union
if that government directs any action in violation of the
territorial integrity or national sovereignty of any other
Independent State of the former Soviet Union, such as those
violations included in the Helsinki Final Act: Provided, That
such funds may be made available without regard to the
restriction in this subsection if the President determines
that to do so is in the national security interest of the
United States.
(c) None of the funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union'' shall be made available for any state to enhance its
military capability: Provided, That this restriction does not
apply to demilitarization, demining or nonproliferation
programs.
(d) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for
the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' for the
Russian Federation, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan shall
be subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.
(e) Funds made available in this Act for assistance for the
Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be
subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to
environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
(f) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or
making grants, with funds appropriated in this Act or prior
appropriations Acts under the heading ``Assistance for the
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' and under
comparable headings in prior appropriations Acts, for
projects or activities that have as one of their primary
purposes the fostering of private sector development, the
Coordinator for United States Assistance to Europe and
Eurasia and the implementing agency shall encourage the
participation of and give significant weight to contractors
and grantees who propose investing a significant amount of
their own resources (including volunteer services and in-kind
contributions) in such projects and activities.
prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization
Sec. 518. None of the funds made available to carry out
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may
be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method
of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to
practice abortions. None of the funds made available to carry
out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,
may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary
sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or
provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo
sterilizations. None of the funds made available to carry out
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may
be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates in
whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of,
abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family
planning. None of the funds made available to carry out part
I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, may be
obligated or expended for any country or organization if the
President certifies that the use of these funds by any such
country or organization would violate any of the above
provisions related to abortions and involuntary
sterilizations.
export financing transfer authorities
Sec. 519. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation
other than for administrative expenses made available for
fiscal year 2006, for programs under title I of this Act may
be transferred between such appropriations for use for any of
the purposes, programs, and activities for which the funds in
such receiving account may be used, but no such
appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided,
shall be increased by more than 25 percent by any such
transfer: Provided, That the exercise of such authority shall
be subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations.
special notification requirements
Sec. 520. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be obligated or expended for Serbia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, or
Pakistan, except as provided through the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
definition of program, project, and activity
Sec. 521. For the purpose of this Act ``program, project,
and activity'' shall be defined at the appropriations Act
account level and shall include all appropriations and
authorizations Acts earmarks, ceilings, and limitations with
the exception that for the following accounts: Economic
Support Fund and Foreign Military Financing Program,
``program, project, and activity'' shall also be considered
to include country, regional, and central program level
funding within each such account; for the development
assistance accounts of the United States Agency for
International Development ``program, project, and activity''
shall also be considered to include central, country,
regional, and program level funding, either as: (1) justified
to the Congress; or (2) allocated by the executive branch in
accordance with a report, to be provided to the Committees on
Appropriations within 30 days of the enactment of this Act,
as required by section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961.
child survival and health activities
Sec. 522. Up to $13,500,000 of the funds made available by
this Act for assistance under the heading ``Child Survival
and Health Programs Fund'', may be used to reimburse United
States Government agencies, agencies of State governments,
institutions of higher learning, and private and voluntary
organizations for the full cost of individuals (including for
the personal services of such individuals) detailed or
assigned to, or contracted by, as the case may be, the United
States Agency for International Development for the purpose
of carrying out activities under that heading: Provided, That
up to $3,500,000 of the funds made available by this Act for
assistance under the heading ``Development Assistance'' may
be used to reimburse such agencies, institutions, and
organizations for such costs of such individuals carrying out
other development assistance activities: Provided further,
That funds appropriated by titles II and III of this Act that
are made available for bilateral assistance for child
survival activities or disease programs including activities
relating to research on, and the prevention, treatment and
control of, HIV/AIDS may be made available notwithstanding
any provision of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and any
other provision of law that restricts assistance to foreign
countries except for the provisions under the heading ``Child
Survival and Health Programs Fund'' and the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of
2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), as amended.
afghanistan
Sec. 523. Of the funds appropriated by titles II and III of
this Act, not less than $954,000,000 should be made available
for humanitarian, reconstruction, and related assistance for
Afghanistan: Provided, That of the funds allocated for
assistance for Afghanistan from this Act and other Acts
making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs for fiscal year 2006, not
less than $50,000,000 should be made available to support
programs that directly address the needs of Afghan women and
girls.
notification on excess defense equipment
Sec. 524. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense
articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall
notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent
and under the same conditions as are other committees
pursuant to subsection (f) of that section: Provided, That
before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense
articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of
Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in
accordance with the regular notification procedures of such
Committees if such defense articles are significant military
equipment (as defined in section 47(9) of the Arms Export
Control Act) or are valued (in terms of original acquisition
cost) at $7,000,000 or more, or if notification is required
elsewhere in this Act for the use of appropriated funds for
specific countries that would receive such excess defense
articles: Provided further, That such Committees shall also
be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense
articles.
HIV/AIDS
Sec. 525. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, 25 percent of the funds that are appropriated by this
Act for a contribution to support the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the ``Global Fund'') shall be
withheld from obligation to the Global Fund until the
Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on
Appropriations that the Global Fund--
(1) has established clear progress indicators upon which to
determine the release of incremental disbursements;
(2) is releasing such incremental disbursements only if
positive results have been attained based on those
indicators; and
(3) is providing support and oversight to country-level
entities, such as country coordinating mechanisms, principal
recipients, and local Fund agents, to enable them to fulfill
their mandates.
(b) The Secretary of State may waive paragraph (1) of this
subsection if she determines and reports to the Committees on
Appropriations that such waiver is important to the national
interest of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this section of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
democracy programs
Sec. 526. (a) Not less than $27,000,000 of the funds
appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Economic Support
Fund'' should be allocated for the Human Rights and Democracy
Fund: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 may be used for the
Reagan/Fascell Democracy Fellows program.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries, up to $1,500,000
of the funds appropriated by this Act under the heading
``Economic Support Fund'' may be provided to make grants to
educational, humanitarian, and nongovernmental organizations
and individuals inside Iran and Syria to support the
advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran and Syria,
and such funds may be provided through the National Endowment
for Democracy.
[[Page H5323]]
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:
Page 70, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
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.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
{time} 1830
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the promotion of democracy has been one of the
cornerstones of American foreign policy throughout the history of this
Nation, but especially during the last century.
In his second inaugural address in January, President Bush committed
this Nation ``to seek and support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture.'' In enunciating this
goal, the President reiterated a long-standing core principle of
American national security policy. Promotion of democracy is not just
aspirational; political liberty and transparent government increase the
chance that a nation will be economically successful and politically
stable, a responsible member of the international community.
I have been concerned for several months now at proposed reductions
in funding for a whole range of our democracy promotion programs, many
of which were deeply cut in the President's budget request. In March of
this year, several of my colleagues joined me in asking the Congress to
more fully fund these efforts. I understand the difficult circumstances
that confront us on this bill. This is a tough environment for
appropriators, and I know that we have prioritized efforts to expand
the circle of democracy in the Islamic world as part of the war on
terror.
Unfortunately, though, other important democracy programs have
suffered greatly. For example, the National Endowment for Democracy for
which the President recommended an increase of $20 million over fiscal
year 2005 levels was actually cut in the State Department bill that we
passed this month. This and other similar cuts have made the job of
promoting democracy more difficult for American policymakers and
diplomats. I believe these cuts also endanger our national security by
pulling needed resources out of countries and regions that are at
critical stages in their political development.
Other programs funded through the foreign operations bill have also
been cut dramatically. The Support for the East European Democracy Act,
SEED, has been an important act in the ongoing transition to democracy
of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In the current fiscal
year, SEED received an appropriation of $396 million. For fiscal year
2006, President Bush requested $382 million, but the bill funds SEED at
only $357 million.
Similarly, the Freedom Support Act has been central to our efforts to
transform the states of the former Soviet Union. In the current fiscal
year, FSA appropriations totaled $555 million. The President requested
$482 million. But the bill provides for only $477 million.
One of our most flexible tools, the State Department's Human Rights
and Democracy Fund, promotes democracy, human rights and civil society
in countries and regions of strategic importance to the United States.
HRDF funds are important tools by which the Department of State
maintains pressure for universal human rights, democratic processes,
and civil liberties in all countries.
These challenges will be addressed by funding programs that promote
democratic reform and result in greater political pluralism and respect
for fundamental freedoms in countries with significant Muslim
populations, and that promote the protection and enforcement of legal
rights and an independent judiciary, increase popular participation in
government, and develop civil society in China. HRDF funds also support
programs around the world that include political party building,
promoting independent media and labor and worker rights, and supporting
civil society and democratic institutions.
In the current fiscal year, HRDF is being funded at $36 million; but
the bill pares that back to just $27 million, a 25 percent reduction.
My amendment is simple: it would increase the recommended funding
level back to $36 million. It is a modest, but important, signal to the
world that America's commitment to democracy in Eastern Europe, the
former Soviet Union, Africa, and Asia remains a central pillar of
American diplomacy and national security strategy.
When he asked Congress to declare war on Germany in 1917, President
Woodrow Wilson told the Nation that ``the world must be made safe for
democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of
political liberty.''
In that war and in the other wars that this Nation has fought to
preserve those ideals, we have paid a dear price. Our efforts to
promote democracy hold forth the promise of widening the circle of
freedom, while also reducing the prospect of failed states, terrorism
and the horrific human rights abuses that so often require the
intervention of American military force. Shortchanging these programs
is shortsighted and dangerous.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their interest and support in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, though I am not in opposition, I will claim
the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hefley). 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, I would just say the bill that we do have does provide
that not less than $27 million of the funds appropriated under this
section should be allocated for the Human Rights and the Democracy
Fund. What the gentleman has been talking about I think is a very
worthwhile program. The addition of the additional funds to that I
think is worthwhile. For that reason, we would accept the amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment. Strengthening democracy and promoting human rights are at
the heart of our national security strategy. The President has made
these ideals central components of U.S. foreign policy.
The State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund focuses on the
countries and regions of greatest strategic interest to the United
States, supporting those who seek to bolster human rights and promote
democracy in key areas of the world.
Unfortunately, the administration's request cut funding by $9 million
below FY 2005 levels. This was in part because the administration
requested increased funding for democracy programs through the National
Endowment for Democracy in the Science-State-Justice-Commerce bill.
However, the House did not grant the requested increases for NED; and,
in fact, the SSJC appropriations bill cut funding for NED below the FY
2005 enacted levels.
I therefore am very pleased that the chairman will accept the
gentleman's amendment so that we may ensure sufficient funding for
democracy programs in the FY 2006 bill.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member again.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 132, line 13, be considered as read, printed
in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
[[Page H5324]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 71, line 10, through page 132, line
13, is as follows:
Prohibition on bilateral assistance to terrorist countries
Sec. 527. (a) Funds appropriated for bilateral assistance
under any heading of this Act and funds appropriated under
any such heading in a provision of law enacted prior to the
enactment of this Act, shall not be made available to any
country which the President determines--
(1) grants sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or
group which has committed an act of international terrorism;
or
(2) otherwise supports international terrorism.
(b) The President may waive the application of subsection
(a) to a country if the President determines that national
security or humanitarian reasons justify such waiver. The
President shall publish each waiver in the Federal Register
and, at least 15 days before the waiver takes effect, shall
notify the Committees on Appropriations of the waiver
(including the justification for the waiver) in accordance
with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
debt-for-development
Sec. 528. In order to enhance the continued participation
of nongovernmental organizations in debt-for-development and
debt-for-nature exchanges, a nongovernmental organization
which is a grantee or contractor of the United States Agency
for International Development may place in interest bearing
accounts local currencies which accrue to that organization
as a result of economic assistance provided under title II of
this Act and, subject to the regular notification procedures
of the Committees on Appropriations, any interest earned on
such investment shall be used for the purpose for which the
assistance was provided to that organization.
separate accounts
Sec. 529. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--(1)
If assistance is furnished to the government of a foreign
country under chapters 1 and 10 of part I or chapter 4 of
part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under
agreements which result in the generation of local currencies
of that country, the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development shall--
(A) require that local currencies be deposited in a
separate account established by that government;
(B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets
forth--
(i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated; and
(ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so
deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
(C) establish by agreement with that government the
responsibilities of the United States Agency for
International Development and that government to monitor and
account for deposits into and disbursements from the separate
account.
(2) Uses of local currencies.--As may be agreed upon with
the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a
separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent
amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
(A) to carry out chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of
part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
(i) project and sector assistance activities; or
(ii) debt and deficit financing; or
(B) for the administrative requirements of the United
States Government.
(3) Programming accountability.--The United States Agency
for International Development shall take all necessary steps
to ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies
disbursed pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate
account established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used
for the purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
(4) Termination of assistance programs.--Upon termination
of assistance to a country under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or
chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any unencumbered
balances of funds which remain in a separate account
established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be disposed of
for such purposes as may be agreed to by the government of
that country and the United States Government.
(5) Reporting requirement.--The Administrator of the United
States Agency for International Development shall report on
an annual basis as part of the justification documents
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on the use of
local currencies for the administrative requirements of the
United States Government as authorized in subsection
(a)(2)(B), and such report shall include the amount of local
currency (and United States dollar equivalent) used and/or to
be used for such purpose in each applicable country.
(b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--(1) If
assistance is made available to the government of a foreign
country, under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of part
II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash transfer
assistance or as nonproject sector assistance, that country
shall be required to maintain such funds in a separate
account and not commingle them with any other funds.
(2) Applicability of other provisions of law.--Such funds
may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of
law which are inconsistent with the nature of this assistance
including provisions which are referenced in the Joint
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference
accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (House Report No. 98-
1159).
(3) Notification.--At least 15 days prior to obligating any
such cash transfer or nonproject sector assistance, the
President shall submit a notification through the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations,
which shall include a detailed description of how the funds
proposed to be made available will be used, with a discussion
of the United States interests that will be served by the
assistance (including, as appropriate, a description of the
economic policy reforms that will be promoted by such
assistance).
(4) Exemption.--Nonproject sector assistance funds may be
exempt from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) only
through the notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
enterprise fund restrictions
Sec. 530. (a) Prior to the distribution of any assets
resulting from any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of
an Enterprise Fund, in whole or in part, the President shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations, in accordance
with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations, a plan for the distribution of the assets of
the Enterprise Fund.
(b) Funds made available by this Act for Enterprise Funds
shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make
timely payment for projects and activities.
FINANCIAL MARKET ASSISTANCE IN TRANSITION COUNTRIES
Sec. 531. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the
headings ``Trade and Development Agency'', ``Development
Assistance'', ``Transition Initiatives'', ``Economic Support
Fund'', ``International Affairs Technical Assistance'',
``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union'', ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs'', and ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and
Baltic States'', not less than $40,000,000 should be made
available for building capital markets and financial systems
in countries in transition.
authorities for the peace corps, inter-american foundation and african
development foundation
Sec. 532. Unless expressly provided to the contrary,
provisions of this Act, and provisions contained in prior
Acts authorizing or making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs, shall not
be construed to prohibit activities authorized by or
conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the Inter-American
Foundation Act or the African Development Foundation Act. The
agency shall promptly report to the Committees on
Appropriations whenever it is conducting activities or is
proposing to conduct activities in a country for which
assistance is prohibited.
impact on jobs in the united states
Sec. 533. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
obligated or expended to provide--
(1) any financial incentive to a business enterprise
currently located in the United States for the purpose of
inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United
States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce
the number of employees of such business enterprise in the
United States because United States production is being
replaced by such enterprise outside the United States; or
(2) assistance for any program, project, or activity that
contributes to the violation of internationally recognized
workers rights, as defined in section 507(4) of the Trade Act
of 1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any
designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That the
application of section 507(4)(D) and (E) of such Act should
be commensurate with the level of development of the
recipient country and sector, and shall not preclude
assistance for the informal sector in such country, micro and
small-scale enterprise, and smallholder agriculture.
special authorities
Sec. 534. (a) Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Montenegro,
Victims of War, Displaced Children, and Displaced Burmese.--
Funds appropriated by this Act that are made available for
assistance for Afghanistan may be made available
notwithstanding section 512 of this Act or any similar
provision of law and section 660 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, and funds appropriated in titles I and II of
this Act that are made available for Lebanon, Montenegro,
Pakistan, and for victims of war, displaced children, and
displaced Burmese, and to assist victims of trafficking in
persons and, subject to the regular notification procedures
of the Committees on Appropriations, to combat such
trafficking, may be made available notwithstanding any other
provision of law that restricts assistance to foreign
countries and section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961.
(b) Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation
Activities.--Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the
provisions of sections 103 through 106, and chapter
[[Page H5325]]
4 of part II, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be
used, notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries and section 660 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for the purpose of
supporting tropical forestry and biodiversity conservation
activities and energy programs aimed at reducing greenhouse
gas emissions: Provided, That such assistance shall be
subject to sections 116, 502B, and 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961.
(c) Personal Services Contractors.--Funds appropriated by
this Act to carry out chapter 1 of part I, chapter 4 of part
II, and section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
and title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954, may be used by the United States
Agency for International Development to employ up to 25
personal services contractors in the United States, for the
purpose of providing direct, interim support for new or
expanded overseas programs and activities managed by the
agency until permanent direct hire personnel are hired and
trained: Provided, That not more than 10 of such contractors
shall be assigned to any bureau or office: Provided further,
That such funds appropriated to carry out title II of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,
may be made available only for personal services contractors
assigned to the Office of Food for Peace.
(d)(1) Waiver.--The President may waive the provisions of
section 1003 of Public Law 100-204 if the President
determines and certifies in writing to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the
Senate that it is important to the national security
interests of the United States.
(2) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall be effective for no more than a period
of 6 months at a time and shall not apply beyond 12 months
after the enactment of this Act.
(e) Small Business.--In entering into multiple award
indefinite-quantity contracts with funds appropriated by this
Act, the United States Agency for International Development
may provide an exception to the fair opportunity process for
placing task orders under such contracts when the order is
placed with any category of small or small disadvantaged
business.
(f) Contingencies.--During fiscal year 2006, the President
may use up to $45,000,000 under the authority of section 451
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, notwithstanding the
funding ceiling in section 451(a).
(g) Reconstituting Civilian Police Authority.--In providing
assistance with funds appropriated by this Act under section
660(b)(6) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, support for
a nation emerging from instability may be deemed to mean
support for regional, district, municipal, or other sub-
national entity emerging from instability, as well as a
nation emerging from instability.
(h) World Food Program.--Of the funds managed by the Bureau
for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance of the
United States Agency for International Development, from this
or any other Act, not less than $6,000,000 shall be made
available as a general contribution to the World Food
Program, notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries.
(i) National Endowment for Democracy.--Funds appropriated
by this Act that are provided to the National Endowment for
Democracy may be provided notwithstanding any other provision
of law or regulation that restricts assistance to foreign
countries.
arab league boycott of israel
Sec. 535. It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the Arab League boycott of Israel, and the secondary
boycott of American firms that have commercial ties with
Israel, is an impediment to peace in the region and to United
States investment and trade in the Middle East and North
Africa;
(2) the Arab League boycott, which was regrettably
reinstated in 1997, should be immediately and publicly
terminated, and the Central Office for the Boycott of Israel
immediately disbanded;
(3) all Arab League states should normalize relations with
their neighbor Israel;
(4) the President and the Secretary of State should
continue to vigorously oppose the Arab League boycott of
Israel and find concrete steps to demonstrate that opposition
by, for example, taking into consideration the participation
of any recipient country in the boycott when determining to
sell weapons to said country; and
(5) the President should report to Congress annually on
specific steps being taken by the United States to encourage
Arab League states to normalize their relations with Israel
to bring about the termination of the Arab League boycott of
Israel, including those to encourage allies and trading
partners of the United States to enact laws prohibiting
businesses from complying with the boycott and penalizing
businesses that do comply.
eligibility for assistance
Sec. 536. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental
Organizations.--Restrictions on assistance for foreign
countries contained in this or any other Act shall not be
construed to restrict assistance in support of programs of
nongovernmental organizations from funds appropriated by this
Act to carry out the provisions of chapters 1, 10, 11, and 12
of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, and from funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'':
Provided, That before using the authority of this subsection
to furnish assistance in support of programs of
nongovernmental organizations, the President shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations under the regular notification
procedures of those committees, including a description of
the program to be assisted, the assistance to be provided,
and the reasons for furnishing such assistance: Provided
further, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to alter any existing statutory prohibitions against abortion
or involuntary sterilizations contained in this or any other
Act.
(b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 2006, restrictions
on assistance to foreign countries contained in this or any
other Act shall not be construed to restrict assistance under
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to carry
out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to this
subsection may be obligated or expended except as provided
through the regular notification procedures of the Committees
on Appropriations.
(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
(1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting
assistance to countries that support international terrorism;
or
(2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting
assistance to the government of a country that violates
internationally recognized human rights.
reservations of funds
Sec. 537. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act which are
earmarked may be reprogrammed for other programs within the
same account notwithstanding the earmark if compliance with
the earmark is made impossible by operation of any provision
of this Act or any other provision contained in prior Acts
authorizing or making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs: Provided, That any
such reprogramming shall be subject to the regular
notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations:
Provided further, That assistance that is reprogrammed
pursuant to this subsection shall be made available under the
same terms and conditions as originally provided.
(b) In addition to the authority contained in subsection
(a), the original period of availability of funds
appropriated by this Act and administered by the United
States Agency for International Development that are
earmarked for particular programs or activities by this or
any other Act shall be extended for an additional fiscal year
if the Administrator of such agency determines and reports
promptly to the Committees on Appropriations that the
termination of assistance to a country or a significant
change in circumstances makes it unlikely that such earmarked
funds can be obligated during the original period of
availability: Provided, That such earmarked funds that are
continued available for an additional fiscal year shall be
obligated only for the purpose of such earmark.
ceilings and earmarks
Sec. 538. Ceilings and earmarks contained in this Act shall
not be applicable to funds or authorities appropriated or
otherwise made available by any subsequent Act unless such
Act specifically so directs. Earmarks or minimum funding
requirements contained in any other Act shall not be
applicable to funds appropriated by this Act.
prohibition on publicity or propaganda
Sec. 539. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within
the United States not authorized before the date of the
enactment of this Act by the Congress.
prohibition of payments to united nations members
Sec. 540. None of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, may be used to pay in whole or in part any
assessments, arrearages, or dues of any member of the United
Nations or, from funds appropriated by this Act to carry out
chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
the costs for participation of another country's delegation
at international conferences held under the auspices of
multilateral or international organizations.
nongovernmental organizations--documentation
Sec. 541. None of the funds appropriated or made available
pursuant to this Act shall be available to a nongovernmental
organization which fails to provide upon timely request any
document, file, or record necessary to the auditing
requirements of the United States Agency for International
Development.
prohibition on assistance to foreign governments that export lethal
military equipment to countries supporting international terrorism
Sec. 542. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be available to any foreign
government which provides lethal military equipment to a
country the government of which the Secretary of State has
determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section
6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979. The
prohibition under this section with respect to a
[[Page H5326]]
foreign government shall terminate 12 months after that
government ceases to provide such military equipment. This
section applies with respect to lethal military equipment
provided under a contract entered into after October 1, 1997.
(b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other
similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President
determines that furnishing such assistance is important to
the national interests of the United States.
(c) Whenever the waiver authority of subsection (b) is
exercised, the President shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report with respect to the
furnishing of such assistance. Any such report shall include
a detailed explanation of the assistance to be provided,
including the estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and
an explanation of how the assistance furthers United States
national interests.
withholding of assistance for parking fines and real property taxes
owed by foreign countries
Sec. 543. (a) Subject to subsection (c), of the funds
appropriated by this Act that are made available for
assistance for a foreign country, an amount equal to 110
percent of the total amount of the unpaid fully adjudicated
parking fines and penalties and unpaid property taxes owed by
the central government of such country shall be withheld from
obligation for assistance for the central government of such
country until the Secretary of State submits a certification
to the appropriate congressional committees stating that such
parking fines and penalties and unpaid property taxes are
fully paid.
(b) Funds withheld from obligation pursuant to subsection
(a) may be made available for other programs or activities
funded by this Act, after consultation with and subject to
the regular notification procedures of the appropriate
congressional committees, provided that no such funds shall
be made available for assistance for the central government
of a foreign country that has not paid the total amount of
the fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties and unpaid
property taxes owed by such country.
(c) Subsection (a) shall not include amounts that have been
withheld under any other provision of law.
(d)(1) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements
set forth in subsection (a) with respect to parking fines and
penalties no sooner than 60 days from the date of enactment
of this Act, or at any time with respect to a particular
country, if the Secretary determines that it is in the
national interests of the United States to do so.
(2) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements set
forth in subsection (a) with respect to the unpaid property
taxes if the Secretary of State determines that it is in the
national interests of the United States to do so.
(e) Not later than 6 months after the initial exercise of
the waiver authority in subsection (d), the Secretary of
State, after consultations with the City of New York, shall
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations
describing a strategy, including a timetable and steps
currently being taken, to collect the parking fines and
penalties and unpaid property taxes and interest owed by
nations receiving foreign assistance under this Act.
(f) In this section:
(1) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term ``fully adjudicated'' includes circumstances
in which the person to whom the vehicle is registered--
(A)(i) has not responded to the parking violation summons;
or
(ii) has not followed the appropriate adjudication
procedure to challenge the summons; and
(B) the period of time for payment of or challenge to the
summons has lapsed.
(3) The term ``parking fines and penalties'' means parking
fines and penalties--
(A) owed to--
(i) the District of Columbia; or
(ii) New York, New York; and
(B) incurred during the period April 1, 1997, through
September 30, 2005.
(4) The term ``unpaid property taxes'' means the amount of
unpaid taxes and interest determined to be owed by a foreign
country on real property in the District of Columbia or New
York, New York in a court order or judgment entered against
such country by a court of the United States or any State or
subdivision thereof.
limitation on assistance for the plo for the west bank and gaza
Sec. 544. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation
Organization for the West Bank and Gaza unless the President
has exercised the authority under section 604(a) of the
Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 (title VI of
Public Law 104-107) or any other legislation to suspend or
make inapplicable section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 and that suspension is still in effect: Provided,
That if the President fails to make the certification under
section 604(b)(2) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act
of 1995 or to suspend the prohibition under other
legislation, funds appropriated by this Act may not be
obligated for assistance for the Palestine Liberation
Organization for the West Bank and Gaza.
war crimes tribunals drawdown
Sec. 545. If the President determines that doing so will
contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide
or other violations of international humanitarian law, the
President may direct a drawdown pursuant to section 552(c) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of up to $30,000,000 of
commodities and services for the United Nations War Crimes
Tribunal established with regard to the former Yugoslavia by
the United Nations Security Council or such other tribunals
or commissions as the Council may establish or authorize to
deal with such violations, without regard to the ceiling
limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof: Provided, That
the determination required under this section shall be in
lieu of any determinations otherwise required under section
552(c): Provided further, That the drawdown made under this
section for any tribunal shall not be construed as an
endorsement or precedent for the establishment of any
standing or permanent international criminal tribunal or
court: Provided further, That funds made available for
tribunals other than Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or the Special Court
for Sierra Leone shall be made available subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
landmines
Sec. 546. Notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries, demining equipment
available to the United States Agency for International
Development and the Department of State and used in support
of the clearance of landmines and unexploded ordnance for
humanitarian purposes may be disposed of on a grant basis in
foreign countries, subject to such terms and conditions as
the President may prescribe.
restrictions concerning the palestinian authority
Sec. 547. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
obligated or expended to create in any part of Jerusalem a
new office of any department or agency of the United States
Government for the purpose of conducting official United
States Government business with the Palestinian Authority
over Gaza and Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing
entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of
Principles: Provided, That this restriction shall not apply
to the acquisition of additional space for the existing
Consulate General in Jerusalem: Provided further, That
meetings between officers and employees of the United States
and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor
Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO
Declaration of Principles, for the purpose of conducting
official United States Government business with such
authority should continue to take place in locations other
than Jerusalem. As has been true in the past, officers and
employees of the United States Government may continue to
meet in Jerusalem on other subjects with Palestinians
(including those who now occupy positions in the Palestinian
Authority), have social contacts, and have incidental
discussions.
prohibition of payment of certain expenses
Sec. 548. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act under the heading ``International
Military Education and Training'' or ``Foreign Military
Financing Program'' for Informational Program activities or
under the headings ``Child Survival and Health Programs
Fund'', ``Development Assistance'', and ``Economic Support
Fund'' may be obligated or expended to pay for--
(1) alcoholic beverages; or
(2) entertainment expenses for activities that are
substantially of a recreational character, including but not
limited to entrance fees at sporting events, theatrical and
musical productions, and amusement parks.
Haiti
Sec. 549. The Government of Haiti shall be eligible to
purchase defense articles and services under the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), for the Coast Guard.
limitation on assistance to the palestinian authority
Sec. 550. (a) Prohibition of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of
chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds
to the Palestinian Authority.
(b) Waiver.--The prohibition included in subsection (a)
shall not apply if the President certifies in writing to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro
tempore of the Senate that waiving such prohibition is
important to the national security interests of the United
States.
(c) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant
to subsection (b) shall be effective for no more than a
period of 6 months at a time and shall not apply beyond 12
months after the enactment of this Act.
(d) Report.--Whenever the waiver authority pursuant to
subsection (b) is exercised, the President shall submit a
report to the Committees on Appropriations detailing the
steps the Palestinian Authority has taken to arrest
terrorists, confiscate weapons and dismantle the terrorist
infrastructure. The report shall also include a description
of how funds will be spent and the accounting procedures in
place to ensure that they are properly disbursed.
[[Page H5327]]
limitation on assistance to security forces
Sec. 551. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign
country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that
such unit has committed gross violations of human rights,
unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees
on Appropriations that the government of such country is
taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of
the security forces unit to justice: Provided, That nothing
in this section shall be construed to withhold funds made
available by this Act from any unit of the security forces of
a foreign country not credibly alleged to be involved in
gross violations of human rights: Provided further, That in
the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to
this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform
the foreign government of the basis for such action and
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the foreign
government in taking effective measures to bring the
responsible members of the security forces to justice.
foreign military training report
Sec. 552. The annual foreign military training report
required by section 656 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
shall be submitted by the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate by the date specified
in that section.
authorization requirement
Sec. 553. Funds appropriated by this Act, except funds
appropriated under the headings ``Trade and Development
Agency'', ``Overseas Private Investment Corporation'', and
``Global HIV/AIDS Initiative'', may be obligated and expended
notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and section
15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956.
cambodia
Sec. 554. The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct the
United States executive directors of the international
financial institutions to use the voice and vote of the
United States to oppose loans to the Central Government of
Cambodia, except loans to meet basic human needs.
palestinian statehood
Sec. 555. (a) Limitation on Assistance.--None of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be provided to support a
Palestinian state unless the Secretary of State determines
and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees
that--
(1) a new leadership of a Palestinian governing entity has
been democratically elected through credible and competitive
elections;
(2) the elected governing entity of a new Palestinian
state--
(A) has demonstrated a firm commitment to peaceful co-
existence with the State of Israel;
(B) is taking appropriate measures to counter terrorism and
terrorist financing in the West Bank and Gaza, including the
dismantling of terrorist infrastructures;
(C) is establishing a new Palestinian security entity that
is cooperative with appropriate Israeli and other appropriate
security organizations; and
(3) the Palestinian Authority (or the governing body of a
new Palestinian state) is working with other countries in the
region to vigorously pursue efforts to establish a just,
lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will
enable Israel and an independent Palestinian state to exist
within the context of full and normal relationships, which
should include--
(A) termination of all claims or states of belligerency;
(B) respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity, and political independence of every
state in the area through measures including the
establishment of demilitarized zones;
(C) their right to live in peace within secure and
recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
(D) freedom of navigation through international waterways
in the area; and
(E) a framework for achieving a just settlement of the
refugee problem.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the newly-elected governing entity should enact a
constitution assuring the rule of law, an independent
judiciary, and respect for human rights for its citizens, and
should enact other laws and regulations assuring transparent
and accountable governance.
(c) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) if he
determines that it is vital to the national security
interests of the United States to do so.
(d) Exemption.--The restriction in subsection (a) shall not
apply to assistance intended to help reform the Palestinian
Authority and affiliated institutions, or a newly-elected
governing entity, in order to help meet the requirements of
subsection (a), consistent with the provisions of section 550
of this Act (``Limitation on Assistance to the Palestinian
Authority'').
colombia
Sec. 556. (a) Determination and Certification Required.--
Funds appropriated by this Act that are available for
assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces, may be made
available as follows:
(1) Up to 75 percent of such funds may be obligated prior
to a determination and certification by the Secretary of
State pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) Up to 12.5 percent of such funds may be obligated only
after the Secretary of State certifies and reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that:
(A) The Commander General of the Colombian Armed Forces is
suspending from the Armed Forces those members, of whatever
rank who, according to the Minister of Defense or the
Procuraduria General de la Nacion, have been credibly alleged
to have committed gross violations of human rights, including
extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted
paramilitary organizations.
(B) The Colombian Government is vigorously investigating
and prosecuting those members of the Colombian Armed Forces,
of whatever rank, who have been credibly alleged to have
committed gross violations of human rights, including extra-
judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted paramilitary
organizations, and is promptly punishing those members of the
Colombian Armed Forces found to have committed such
violations of human rights or to have aided or abetted
paramilitary organizations.
(C) The Colombian Armed Forces have made substantial
progress in cooperating with civilian prosecutors and
judicial authorities in such cases (including providing
requested information, such as the identity of persons
suspended from the Armed Forces and the nature and cause of
the suspension, and access to witnesses, relevant military
documents, and other requested information).
(D) The Colombian Armed Forces have made substantial
progress in severing links (including denying access to
military intelligence, vehicles, and other equipment or
supplies, and ceasing other forms of active or tacit
cooperation) at the command, battalion, and brigade levels,
with paramilitary organizations, especially in regions where
these organizations have a significant presence.
(E) The Colombian Government is dismantling paramilitary
leadership and financial networks by arresting commanders and
financial backers, especially in regions where these networks
have a significant presence.
(3) The balance of such funds may be obligated after July
31, 2006, if the Secretary of State certifies and reports to
the appropriate congressional committees, after such date,
that the Colombian Armed Forces are continuing to meet the
conditions contained in paragraph (2) and are conducting
vigorous operations to restore government authority and
respect for human rights in areas under the effective control
of paramilitary and guerrilla organizations.
(b) Congressional Notification.--Funds made available by
this Act for the Colombian Armed Forces shall be subject to
the regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
(c) Consultative Process.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter
until September 30, 2007, the Secretary of State shall
consult with internationally recognized human rights
organizations regarding progress in meeting the conditions
contained in that subsection.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Aided or abetted.--The term ``aided or abetted'' means
to provide any support to paramilitary groups, including
taking actions which allow, facilitate, or otherwise foster
the activities of such groups.
(2) Paramilitary groups.--The term ``paramilitary groups''
means illegal self-defense groups and illegal security
cooperatives.
illegal armed groups
Sec. 557. (a) Denial of Visas to Supporters of Colombian
Illegal Armed Groups.--Subject to subsection (b), the
Secretary of State shall not issue a visa to any alien who
the Secretary determines, based on credible evidence--
(1) has willfully provided any support to the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army
(ELN), or the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC),
including taking actions or failing to take actions which
allow, facilitate, or otherwise foster the activities of such
groups; or
(2) has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the commission of gross violations of human
rights, including extra-judicial killings, in Colombia.
(b) Waiver.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
Secretary of State determines and certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees, on a case-by-case
basis, that the issuance of a visa to the alien is necessary
to support the peace process in Colombia or for urgent
humanitarian reasons.
prohibition on assistance to the palestinian broadcasting corporation
Sec. 558. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to provide equipment,
technical support, consulting services, or any other form of
assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
west bank and gaza program
Sec. 559. (a) Oversight.--For fiscal year 2006, 30 days
prior to the initial obligation of funds for the bilateral
West Bank and Gaza Program, the Secretary of State shall
certify to the appropriate committees of Congress that
procedures have been established to assure the Comptroller
General of the United
[[Page H5328]]
States will have access to appropriate United States
financial information in order to review the uses of United
States assistance for the Program funded under the heading
``Economic Support Fund'' for the West Bank and Gaza.
(b) Vetting.--Prior to the obligation of funds appropriated
by this Act under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' for
assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, the Secretary of State
shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that such
assistance is not provided to or through any individual,
private or government entity, or educational institution that
the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates,
plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist
activity. The Secretary of State shall, as appropriate,
establish procedures specifying the steps to be taken in
carrying out this subsection and shall terminate assistance
to any individual, entity, or educational institution which
he has determined to be involved in or advocating terrorist
activity.
(c) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated by this
Act for assistance under the West Bank and Gaza program may
be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise
honoring individuals who commit, or have committed, acts of
terrorism.
(d) Audits.--
(1) The Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development shall ensure that Federal or non-
Federal audits of all contractors and grantees, and
significant subcontractors and subgrantees, under the West
Bank and Gaza Program, are conducted at least on an annual
basis to ensure, among other things, compliance with this
section.
(2) Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the heading
``Economic Support Fund'' that are made available for
assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, up to $1,000,000 may
be used by the Office of the Inspector General of the United
States Agency for International Development for audits,
inspections, and other activities in furtherance of the
requirements of this subsection. Such funds are in addition
to funds otherwise available for such purposes.
(e) Subsequent to the certification specified in subsection
(a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct an audit and an investigation of the treatment,
handling, and uses of all funds for the bilateral West Bank
and Gaza Program in fiscal year 2006 under the heading
``Economic Support Fund''. The audit shall address--
(1) the extent to which such Program complies with the
requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and
(2) an examination of all programs, projects, and
activities carried out under such Program, including both
obligations and expenditures.
contributions to united nations population fund
Sec. 560. (a) Limitations on Amount of Contribution.--Of
the amounts made available under ``International
Organizations and Programs'' and ``Child Survival and Health
Programs Fund'' for fiscal year 2006, $34,000,000 shall be
made available for the United Nations Population Fund
(hereafter in this section referred to as the ``UNFPA''):
Provided, That of this amount, not less than $25,000,000
shall be derived from funds appropriated under the heading
``International Organizations and Programs''.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated under the
heading ``International Organizations and Programs'' in this
Act that are available for UNFPA, that are not made available
for UNFPA because of the operation of any provision of law,
shall be transferred to ``Child Survival and Health Programs
Fund'' and shall be made available for family planning,
maternal, and reproductive health activities, subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds in China.--None of the
funds made available under ``International Organizations and
Programs'' may be made available for the UNFPA for a country
program in the People's Republic of China.
(d) Conditions on Availability of Funds.--Amounts made
available under ``International Organizations and Programs''
for fiscal year 2006 for the UNFPA may not be made available
to UNFPA unless--
(1) the UNFPA maintains amounts made available to the UNFPA
under this section in an account separate from other accounts
of the UNFPA;
(2) the UNFPA does not commingle amounts made available to
the UNFPA under this section with other sums; and
(3) the UNFPA does not fund abortions.
war criminals
Sec. 561. (a)(1) None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available pursuant to this Act may be made
available for assistance, and the Secretary of the Treasury
shall instruct the United States executive directors to the
international financial institutions to vote against any new
project involving the extension by such institutions of any
financial or technical assistance, to any country, entity, or
municipality whose competent authorities have failed, as
determined by the Secretary of State, to take necessary and
significant steps to implement its international legal
obligations to apprehend and transfer to the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (the
``Tribunal'') all persons in their territory who have been
indicted by the Tribunal and to otherwise cooperate with the
Tribunal.
(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to
humanitarian assistance or assistance for democratization.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply unless the
Secretary of State determines and reports to the appropriate
congressional committees that the competent authorities of
such country, entity, or municipality are--
(1) cooperating with the Tribunal, including access for
investigators to archives and witnesses, the provision of
documents, and the surrender and transfer of indictees or
assistance in their apprehension; and
(2) are acting consistently with the Dayton Accords.
(c) Not less than 10 days before any vote in an
international financial institution regarding the extension
of any new project involving financial or technical
assistance or grants to any country or entity described in
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall provide to
the Committees on Appropriations a written justification for
the proposed assistance, including an explanation of the
United States position regarding any such vote, as well as a
description of the location of the proposed assistance by
municipality, its purpose, and its intended beneficiaries.
(d) In carrying out this section, the Secretary of State,
the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, and the Secretary of the Treasury
shall consult with representatives of human rights
organizations and all government agencies with relevant
information to help prevent indicted war criminals from
benefiting from any financial or technical assistance or
grants provided to any country or entity described in
subsection (a).
(e) The Secretary of State may waive the application of
subsection (a) with respect to projects within a country,
entity, or municipality upon a written determination to the
Committees on Appropriations that such assistance directly
supports the implementation of the Dayton Accords.
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Country.--The term ``country'' means Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.
(2) Entity.--The term ``entity'' refers to the Federation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro and the
Republika Srpska.
(3) Municipality.--The term ``municipality'' means a city,
town or other subdivision within a country or entity as
defined herein.
(4) Dayton accords.--The term ``Dayton Accords'' means the
General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, together with annexes relating thereto, done at
Dayton, November 10 through 16, 1995.
user fees
Sec. 562. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the
United States Executive Director at each international
financial institution (as defined in section 1701(c)(2) of
the International Financial Institutions Act) and the
International Monetary Fund to oppose any loan, grant,
strategy or policy of these institutions that would require
user fees or service charges on poor people for primary
education or primary healthcare, including prevention and
treatment efforts for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and
infant, child, and maternal well-being, in connection with
the institutions' financing programs.
funding for serbia
Sec. 563. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act may be made
available for assistance for the central Government of Serbia
after May 31, 2006, if the President has made the
determination and certification contained in subsection (c).
(b) After May 31, 2006, the Secretary of the Treasury
should instruct the United States executive directors to the
international financial institutions to support loans and
assistance to the Government of Serbia and Montenegro subject
to the conditions in subsection (c): Provided, That section
576 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, as amended, shall not
apply to the provision of loans and assistance to the
Government of Serbia and Montenegro through international
financial institutions.
(c) The determination and certification referred to in
subsection (a) is a determination by the President and a
certification to the Committees on Appropriations that the
Government of Serbia and Montenegro is--
(1) cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia including access for investigators,
the provision of documents, and the surrender and transfer of
indictees or assistance in their apprehension, including
making all practicable efforts to apprehend and transfer
Ratko Mladic;
(2) taking steps that are consistent with the Dayton
Accords to end Serbian financial, political, security and
other support which has served to maintain separate Republika
Srpska institutions; and
(3) taking steps to implement policies which reflect a
respect for minority rights and the rule of law.
(d) This section shall not apply to Montenegro, Kosovo,
humanitarian assistance or assistance to promote democracy.
community-based police assistance
Sec. 564. (a) Authority.--Funds made available by this Act
to carry out the provisions of chapter 1 of part I and
chapter 4 of
[[Page H5329]]
part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used,
notwithstanding section 660 of that Act, to enhance the
effectiveness and accountability of civilian police authority
through training and technical assistance in human rights,
the rule of law, strategic planning, and through assistance
to foster civilian police roles that support democratic
governance including assistance for programs to prevent
conflict, respond to disasters, address gender-based
violence, and foster improved police relations with the
communities they serve.
(b) Notification.--Assistance provided under subsection (a)
shall be subject to prior consultation with, and the regular
notification procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations.
Special Debt Relief for the Poorest
Sec. 565. (a) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President may
reduce amounts owed to the United States (or any agency of
the United States) by an eligible country as a result of--
(1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
(2) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms
Export Control Act; or
(3) any obligation or portion of such obligation, to pay
for purchases of United States agricultural commodities
guaranteed by the Commodity Credit Corporation under export
credit guarantee programs authorized pursuant to section 5(f)
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of June 29,
1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the Food for Peace Act of
1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), or section 202 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-
501).
(b) Limitations.--
(1) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief
and referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris
Club Agreed Minutes''.
(2) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is
provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
(3) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt
burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International
Development Association, but not from the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as
``IDA-only'' countries.
(c) Conditions.--The authority provided by subsection (a)
may be exercised only with respect to a country whose
government--
(1) does not have an excessive level of military
expenditures;
(2) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism;
(3) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics
control matters;
(4) (including its military or other security forces) does
not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights; and
(5) is not ineligible for assistance because of the
application of section 527 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
(d) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by
subsection (a) may be used only with regard to the funds
appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt
Restructuring''.
(e) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt
pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered assistance
for the purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance
to a country. The authority provided by subsection (a) may be
exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 or section 321 of the International
Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975.
Authority to Engage in Debt Buybacks or Sales
Sec. 566. (a) Loans Eligible for Sale, Reduction, or
Cancellation.--
(1) Authority to sell, reduce, or cancel certain loans.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts
assistance to foreign countries, the President may, in
accordance with this section, sell to any eligible purchaser
any concessional loan or portion thereof made before January
1, 1995, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, to
the government of any eligible country as defined in section
702(6) of that Act or on receipt of payment from an eligible
purchaser, reduce or cancel such loan or portion thereof,
only for the purpose of facilitating--
(A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or
debt-for-nature swaps; or
(B) a debt buyback by an eligible country of its own
qualified debt, only if the eligible country uses an
additional amount of the local currency of the eligible
country, equal to not less than 40 percent of the price paid
for such debt by such eligible country, or the difference
between the price paid for such debt and the face value of
such debt, to support activities that link conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources with local community
development, and child survival and other child development,
in a manner consistent with sections 707 through 710 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale, reduction, or
cancellation would not contravene any term or condition of
any prior agreement relating to such loan.
(2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President shall, in accordance with
this section, establish the terms and conditions under which
loans may be sold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this
section.
(3) Administration.--The Facility, as defined in section
702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall notify
the administrator of the agency primarily responsible for
administering part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of
purchasers that the President has determined to be eligible,
and shall direct such agency to carry out the sale,
reduction, or cancellation of a loan pursuant to this
section. Such agency shall make adjustment in its accounts to
reflect the sale, reduction, or cancellation.
(4) Limitation.--The authorities of this subsection shall
be available only to the extent that appropriations for the
cost of the modification, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made in advance.
(b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The proceeds from the sale,
reduction, or cancellation of any loan sold, reduced, or
canceled pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the
United States Government account or accounts established for
the repayment of such loan.
(c) Eligible Purchasers.--A loan may be sold pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans
satisfactory to the President for using the loan for the
purpose of engaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-
development swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.
(d) Debtor Consultations.--Before the sale to any eligible
purchaser, or any reduction or cancellation pursuant to this
section, of any loan made to an eligible country, the
President should consult with the country concerning the
amount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceled and their
uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps,
or debt-for-nature swaps.
(e) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by
subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds
appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Debt
Restructuring''.
Basic Education
Sec. 567. Of the funds appropriated by title II of this
Act, not less than $465,000,000 shall be made available for
basic education, of which not less than $250,000 shall be
provided to the Comptroller General of the United States to
prepare an analysis of United States funded international
basic education programs: Provided, That the analysis, which
should be submitted to the Committee within nine months of
enactment of this Act, shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) the amount of funds provided for basic education by all
United States Government agencies in fiscal years 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, and 2005;
(2) a country-by-country and project-by-project breakdown
of such funds;
(3) an analysis of host country contributions to education
at the local, provincial, and federal level;
(4) the amount of funds, including loans, provided for
basic education by other major bilateral donors and
multilateral institutions, including United Nations agencies
and the World Bank Group, including a historical view of such
levels;
(5) an analysis of United States efforts to increase the
commitment of other major bilateral donors and multilateral
institutions to basic education;
(6) an analysis of how various United States Government
agencies coordinate in the provision of such assistance,
including how such coordination contributes to achievement of
the Millennium Development Goals with respect to basic
education;
(7) an analysis of the effect of the quadrupling of United
States assistance for basic education since fiscal year 2001
on education programs in the developing world; and
(8) recommendations on the content and structure of United
States assistance that would increase its effectiveness in
promoting literary and numeracy.
reconciliation programs
Sec. 568. Of the funds appropriated under the heading
``Economic Support Fund'', not less than $15,000,000 should
be made available to support reconciliation programs and
activities which bring together individuals of different
ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds from areas of
civil conflict and war.
sudan
Sec. 569. (a) Availability of Funds.--Of the funds
appropriated by title II of this Act, not less than
$367,000,000 should be made available for assistance for
Sudan.
(b) Limitation on Assistance.--Subject to subsection (c):
(1) Notwithstanding section 501(a) of the International
Malaria Control Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-570) or any other
provision of law that restricts funds for foreign countries,
none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made
available for assistance for the Government of Sudan.
(2) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made
available for the cost, as defined in section 502, of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying loans and loan
guarantees held by the Government of Sudan, including the
cost of selling, reducing, or canceling amounts owed to the
United States, and modifying concessional loans, guarantees,
and credit agreements.
(c) Subsection (b) shall not apply if the Secretary of
State determines and certifies to the Committees on
Appropriations that--
(1) the Government of Sudan has taken significant steps to
disarm and disband government-supported militia groups in the
Darfur region;
[[Page H5330]]
(2) the Government of Sudan and all government-supported
militia groups are honoring their commitments made in the
cease-fire agreement of April 8, 2004; and
(3) the Government of Sudan is allowing unimpeded access to
Darfur to humanitarian aid organizations, the human rights
investigation and humanitarian teams of the United Nations,
including protection officers, and an international
monitoring team that is based in Darfur and that has the
support of the United States.
(d) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (b) shall not
apply to--
(1) humanitarian assistance;
(2) assistance for Darfur and for areas outside the control
of the Government of Sudan; and
(3) assistance to support implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this Act and section
501 of Public Law 106-570, the terms ``Government of Sudan'',
``areas outside of control of the Government of Sudan'', and
``area in Sudan outside of control of the Government of
Sudan'' shall have the same meaning and application as was
the case immediately prior to June 5, 2004, and, Southern
Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State, Blue Nile State and Abyei
shall be deemed ``areas outside of control of the Government
of Sudan''.
trade capacity building
Sec. 570. Of the funds appropriated by this Act, under the
headings ``Trade and Development Agency'', ``Development
Assistance'', ``Transition Initiatives'', ``Economic Support
Fund'', ``International Affairs Technical Assistance'', and
``International Organizations and Programs'', not less than
$522,000,000 should be made available for trade capacity
building assistance: Provided, That $20,000,000 of the funds
appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Economic Support
Fund'' shall be made available for labor and environmental
capacity building activities relating to the free trade
agreement with the countries of Central America and the
Dominican Republic.
excess defense articles for central and south european countries and
certain other countries
Sec. 571. Notwithstanding section 516(e) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)), during fiscal
year 2006, funds available to the Department of Defense may
be expended for crating, packing, handling, and
transportation of excess defense articles transferred under
the authority of section 516 of such Act to Albania,
Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Former Yugoslavian
Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, India, Iraq, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Pakistan,
Romania, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan.
CUBA
Sec. 572. None of the funds appropriated by this Act under
the heading ``International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement'' may be made available for assistance to the
Government of Cuba.
GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE TRAINING
Sec. 573. Programs funded under titles II and III of this
Act that provide training for foreign police, judicial, and
military officials, shall include instruction on how to
address incidences and victims of gender-based violence:
Provided, That the Secretary of State, in consultation with
the Secretary of Defense, shall report to the Committee on
Appropriations, no later than 180 days after enactment of
this Act, how such instruction is being incorporated into
programs funded under titles II and III of this Act.
limitation on economic support fund assistance for certain foreign
governments that are parties to the international criminal court
Sec. 574. (a) 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.
(b) The President may, with prior notice to Congress, waive
the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (``NATO'') member country, a
major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel,
Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New
Zealand), Taiwan, or such other country as he may determine
if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional
committees that it is important to the national interests of
the United States to waive such prohibition.
(c) The President may, with prior notice to Congress, waive
the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a
particular country if he determines and reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that such country has
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.
(d) The prohibition of this section shall not apply to
countries otherwise eligible for assistance under the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, notwithstanding section
606(a)(2)(B) of such Act.
tibet
Sec. 575. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct
the United States executive director to each international
financial institution to use the voice and vote of the United
States to support projects in Tibet if such projects do not
provide incentives for the migration and settlement of non-
Tibetans into Tibet or facilitate the transfer of ownership
of Tibetan land and natural resources to non-Tibetans; are
based on a thorough needs-assessment; foster self-sufficiency
of the Tibetan people and respect Tibetan culture and
traditions; and are subject to effective monitoring.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law that
restricts assistance to foreign countries, not less than
$4,000,000 of the funds appropriated by this Act under the
heading ``Economic Support Fund'' should be made available to
nongovernmental organizations to support activities which
preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable
development and environmental conservation in Tibetan
communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other
Tibetan communities in China.
central america
Sec. 576. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the
headings ``Child Survival and Health Programs Fund'' and
``Development Assistance'', not less than the amount of funds
initially allocated pursuant to section 653(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for fiscal year 2005 should be made
available for El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras.
united states agency for international development management
Sec. 577. (a) Authority.--Up to $75,000,000 of the funds
made available in this Act to carry out the provisions of
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including funds
appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for Eastern
Europe and the Baltic States'', may be used by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) to hire
and employ individuals in the United States and overseas on a
limited appointment basis pursuant to the authority of
sections 308 and 309 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980.
(b) Restrictions.--
(1) The number of individuals hired in any fiscal year
pursuant to the authority contained in subsection (a) may not
exceed 175.
(2) The authority to hire individuals contained in
subsection (a) shall expire on September 30, 2008.
(c) Conditions.--The authority of this section may only be
used to the extent that an equivalent number of positions
that are filled by personal services contractors or other
nondirect-hire employees of USAID, who are compensated with
funds appropriated to carry out part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, including funds appropriated under
the heading ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic
States'', are eliminated.
(d) Priority Sectors.--In exercising the authority of this
section, primary emphasis shall be placed on enabling USAID
to meet personnel positions in technical skill areas
currently encumbered by contractor or other nondirect-hire
personnel.
(e) Consultations.--The USAID Administrator shall consult
with the Committees on Appropriations at least on a quarterly
basis concerning the implementation of this section.
(f) Program Account Charged.--The account charged for the
cost of an individual hired and employed under the authority
of this section shall be the account to which such
individual's responsibilities primarily relate. Funds made
available to carry out this section may be transferred to and
merged and consolidated with funds appropriated for
``Operating Expenses of the United States Agency for
International Development''.
(g) Disaster Surge Capacity.--Funds appropriated by this
Act to carry out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, including funds appropriated under the heading
``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'', may
be used, in addition to funds otherwise available for such
purposes, for the cost (including the support costs) of
individuals detailed to or employed by the United States
Agency for International Development whose primary
responsibility is to carry out programs in response to
natural disasters.
hipc debt reduction
Sec. 578. Section 501(b) of H.R. 3425, as enacted into law
by section 1000(a)(5) of division B of Public Law 106-113
(113 Stat. 1501A-311), is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) The Act of March 11, 1941 (chapter 11; 55 Stat. 31;
22 U.S.C. 411 et seq.; commonly known as the `Lend-Lease
Act').''
opic transfer authority
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 579. Whenever the President determines that it is in
furtherance of the purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, up to a total of $20,000,000 of the funds appropriated
under title II of this Act may be transferred to and merged
with funds appropriated by this Act for the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation Program Account, to be subject to the
terms and conditions of that account: Provided, That such
funds shall not be available for administrative expenses of
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Provided
further, That funds earmarked by this Act shall not be
transferred pursuant
[[Page H5331]]
to this section: Provided further, That the exercise of such
authority shall be subject to the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
conflict response
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 580. Whenever the Secretary of State determines that
it is in the national interest of the United States, the
Secretary is authorized to furnish reconstruction and
stabilization assistance, on such terms and conditions as the
Secretary may determine, for the purpose of preventing,
responding to, or enabling transition from conflict or civil
strife in foreign countries or regions: Provided, That the
Secretary may transfer up to $100,000,000 among accounts of
the Department of State and to other Federal agencies as
necessary to carry out these authorities: Provided further,
That pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of State
that it is in the national interest of the United States to
prevent or respond to conflict or civil strife in foreign
countries or regions, or to enable transition from such
strife assistance provided under this paragraph, as well as
assistance provided with funds appropriated under titles II
and III of this Act for countries subject to a determination
made under this paragraph, may be used: Provided further,
That the exercise of such authority shall be subject to the
regular notification procedures of the Committees on
Appropriations.
rescission
Sec. 581. Of the funds provided in title II of Public Law
108-447, under the heading ``Other Bilateral Economic
Assistance, Economic Support Fund'', $64,000,000 is hereby
rescinded.
anticorruption provisions
Sec. 582. Twenty-five percent of the funds appropriated by
this Act under the headings ``International Development
Association'', shall be withheld from obligation until the
Secretary of the Treasury certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that--
(a) World Bank procurement guidelines are applied to all
procurement financed in whole or in part by a loan from the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
or a credit agreement or grant from the International
Development Association (IDA);
(b) the World Bank proposal ``Increasing the Use of Country
Systems in Procurement'' dated March 2005 has been withdrawn;
(c) the World Bank is maintaining a strong central
procurement office staffed with senior experts who are
designated to address commercial concerns, questions, and
complaints regarding procurement procedures and payments
under IDA and IBRD projects;
(d) thresholds for international competitive bidding are
established to maximize international competitive bidding in
accordance with sound procurement practices, including
transparency, competition, and cost-effective results for the
Borrowers;
(e) all tenders under the World Bank's national competitive
bidding provisions are subject to the same advertisement
requirements as tenders under international competitive
bidding; and
(f) loan agreements are made public between the World Bank
and the Borrowers.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order?
Point of Order
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against what was
left unprotected by H. Res. 341 in section 565 that begins on page 113,
line 26, through page 114, line 10, for the reason that it violates
rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislative language in a general
appropriations bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
The provision is stricken from the bill.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Beauprez
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Beauprez:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
limitation on assistance to foreign countries that refuse to extradite
to the United States any individual accused in the United States of
killing a law enforcement officer
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Department of State may be used to provide assistance to
any country the government of which has notified the
Department of State of its refusal to extradite to the United
States any individual accused in the United States of killing
a law enforcement officer, as specified in a United States
extradition request.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all acknowledge the hard work and
dedication of the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and
the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for
their dedication and the construction of a very, very good bill.
But I rise tonight with an amendment, and the intent of this
amendment is very, very simple. It is to return cop killers back to the
United States to stand trial in our country, the same country in which
they committed their unthinkable crime.
The problem was brought to my attention last month after Denver
Police Detective Donnie Young was allegedly executed by Raul Gomez-
Garcia. After killing Detective Young and shooting and wounding his
partner, Gomez-Garcia fled to Mexico, where he was tracked down and
arrested weeks later. The Mexican Government now refuses to extradite
him back to the U.S. if there is any chance he could spend life in
prison without parole. Detective Young's widow and his two children now
face the further tragedy of either partial justice or no justice at all
being served to her husband's killer.
In another case, in 2002, a convicted felon who had been deported
three times allegedly shot and killed a Los Angeles County sheriff
following a routine traffic stop before fleeing to Mexico, where he
remains today, essentially escaping justice.
The U.S. should not be forced to plea bargain with other countries in
order to try criminals, especially cop killers, in our own courts. As a
good neighbor, Mexico should live up to their end of our extradition
treaty. Killing a police officer is one of the most egregious crimes,
and we should have the right to seek justice for the families of the
slain officers.
The U.S. is not obliged to give foreign aid, and we should not reward
nations giving safe haven to cop killers. I ask my colleagues to vote
for this commonsense amendment that will bring help and peace and
justice to those who deserve it most.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
leadership in the State of Colorado and here in Washington, D.C. on
this issue, about fighting to protect our law enforcement officers.
There is a growing problem in this Nation where criminals will commit
violent crimes, including murdering law enforcement officers, and flee
to nations that refuse to extradite to the United States those
criminals because of our tough sentencing laws, including mandatory
minimum sentences.
This amendment is simple: it will not allow taxpayer funds to go to
nations that refuse to stand with us against the vile act of murdering
law enforcement officers.
Law enforcement officers across this country are bravely fighting
crime, responding to emergencies, and protecting our rights. We have an
opportunity to stand up for them with this amendment here today. When
countries do not extradite their criminals, it actually creates a
twisted incentive to be even more violent in their crimes. The more
violent the crime, the tougher the sentence here in the United States;
and the tougher the sentence, the less likely they are to be subject to
extradition.
The Beauprez-McHenry amendment will apply the pressure that usually
gets the best results, and that is withholding tax dollars to those
countries. I, for one, think it is prudent and just that we require
nations to extradite cop killers before receiving aid through this
appropriations process.
Again, I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Beauprez). I certainly appreciate his representation of his
constituents in Colorado, I thank him for his leadership and
friendship, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Beauprez-McHenry
amendment when the time comes and protect our law enforcement officers
across this Nation.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
[[Page H5332]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment that would cut off assistance for U.S. programs in Mexico,
and let us make it clear that Mexico is the country we are talking
about today, no other.
The amendment is based on the wrong assumption that U.S. foreign
assistance to Mexico is only in Mexico's national interests. I am here
to say that the funding in this amendment prohibits the United States'
national interest, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
President Bush and his Office of National Drug Control Policy are
fully supportive of the assistance we provide in this bill for the
country of Mexico. The bulk of that assistance takes the form of
international narcotics and law enforcement, roughly around $40
million. There is another $11 million in ESF funds that support
democracy and the rule-of-law programs. Around $22 million supports
child survival and development programs. All of these resources are
central to the U.S. national interest.
This amendment could directly cut off $40 million in resources that
are essential for our counternarcotics assistance, law enforcement
assistance, and border securities. We do not, in other words, with this
amendment, gain any kind of leverage over the country of Mexico.
I highlight the fact that this assistance is more for us than Mexico
because the objective of this assistance is to increase U.S. national
and border security, something I am acutely aware of, living along the
border. Cutting off these funds would be very shortsighted and would
serve to hurt U.S. interests, not the interests of Mexico.
For decades, the U.S.-Mexico relationship was one of acrimony,
distrust, and a lack of good working relationship to meet the
challenges of the enormous border relationship between our two
countries.
Only with the passage of NAFTA, 10 years ago, were we able to write a
new chapter in U.S.-Mexico relations. We started down a path of deeper
cooperation in order to spur development in Mexico, secure our shared
borders, and fight the flow of illegal drugs across our territories.
{time} 1845
Passage of this amendment could have a devastating impact on that
effort to stop the flow of drugs.
I would point out that Mexico has offered tremendous cooperation in
improving border security and counterterrorism efforts. Let me cite
just a couple of things. During the threat to aviation security at the
end of 2003, Mexico worked closely with the U.S. Government canceling
some flights, Air Mexico flights to Los Angeles and stepping up
passenger screening. They stopped those flights in direct response to
our request. At the commencement of the war in Iraq, the Government of
Mexico implemented a plan and its military assumed a higher state of
alert for potential targets of international terrorism, including key
infrastructure sites and centers of tourism. Third, multilaterally,
Mexico is party to all 12 United States conventions and protocols
against terrorism and has hosted several conferences on security.
I believe this amendment would undermine the spirit of cooperation
and the degree of cooperation that we have achieved, and I do not think
this amendment reflects the priorities of the national interest of the
United States. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the
comments of the chairman. I think that this amendment would be
detrimental to the national security, and I urge my colleagues to
defeat it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I could not agree more with the chairman that this is more for the
U.S. than it is for our neighbors. I also want to state for the record
that I have enormous fondness for our neighbors to the south. I have 20
percent Hispanics in my district and many of them came from Mexico. One
of my earliest childhood memories is of migrant workers sitting around
our kitchen table at our farm, my mother cooking them lunch as they
harvested our crops, thrashing the grain crop from our dairy farm. I
have great fondness for them but, I also believe, as the gentleman
stated, in the rule of law.
Let me quote Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles District Attorney. ``As
you are aware, the Mexican Supreme Court unilaterally altered the
Extradition Treaty in 2001.'' He goes on to say, ``This decision and
its application to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and
Mexico is clearly violative of the Treaty.''
That is what we are talking about tonight. We have a treaty in place.
Good neighbors mean what they say and say what they mean, and live by
treaties that are reached.
This amendment is all about just being honest and fair-dealing with
good friends. We intend to be a good friend of Mexico and other nations
around the globe. We will live by our treaties, and we ask that they
live by theirs.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I would just briefly close by citing just a few statistics on
extraditions. I have had the privilege over the last 10 years now of
serving as chairman of the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary meeting. I
can remember when I first started attending 20 years ago, extradition
was the issue that we are always talking about. We do not talk about
that very much anymore, and the reason is very simple.
The first 14 years of the Extradition Treaty with Mexico, from 1980
to 1994, a total of 14 years, Mexico extradited eight, a total of eight
fugitives to the United States. Between 1996 and 2000, Mexico
extradited an annual average of 13 fugitives each year to the United
States.
Mexico has extradited more fugitives every year between 1996 and 2000
than in the first 15 years of the Bilateral Extradition Treaty
combined. In 2004 they extradited a record 34 fugitives to the U.S., up
from the record numbers of 17 in 2001, a record number of 25 in 2002,
and 31 in 2003. These include 19 Mexican nationals and 17 narcotics
defendants.
So I think there is no question that Mexico is doing what they can
do. Can there be more done? Can they do better? Do we have areas of
disagreement? Yes, we do, and one of these issues is the matter of the
length of term for which a person may be sentenced to prison. We are
working with them on that.
But I would urge my colleagues that this amendment is certainly not
going to help us get a cooperative attitude with Mexico if it were to
pass. I urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Beauprez) will be postponed.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WEINER. Is this the appropriate place in the reading for a
limiting amendment?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may offer his amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting 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
[[Page H5333]]
Act shall be obligated or expended to finance any assistance
to Saudi Arabia.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps the more appropriate question about this
amendment is not why should we restrict any funds in this bill from
going to the Nation of Saudi Arabia, but why should we allow any funds
from this or any other budget to be going to Saudi Arabia.
There is not much in the bill, but there is $25,000 for the Saudis,
the IMET program. More importantly, that money triggers allocations in
future bills that permit the Saudis to buy U.S. arms at a discounted
rate.
The administration, when they were asked to justify why we would give
any money to a nation that exports terror, a nation that is getting
almost $60 for a barrel of crude oil, here is what they say in their
State Department budget justification: ``While Saudi Arabia controls
the world's largest oil reserve, it faces an increasing budget
pressure.''
So I guess one of the reasons we are providing aid to the Saudis is
because of their budget pressures.
Frankly, we have heard a great deal over the course of years; in
fact, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, who has done a
terrific job on this bill in many ways, has argued in the past that the
Saudis are doing better, they are doing better at cracking down on
crime. But on May 28 of 2005, Syria arrested 300 Saudis trying to cross
the border into Iraq to join the Jihad against the United States. I
would say to my colleagues in the House that if you are relying on
Syria to crack down on terrorism against Saudi Arabia, you know you
have trouble.
Recently, a report in The Washington Post analyzed all of the Web
sites where Jihadists brag about their so-called martyrdom, places
where they list those who have given their lives so that they can blow
up others, including our troops. They concluded that 70 percent of the
homicide bombers on Islamic extremist Web sites are Saudis. Sixty-one
percent of the Arab martyrs in Iraq are Saudis. This is just in recent
months, in recent times since our last bill passed.
According to Ambassador Dory Gold, in testimony before a Subcommittee
of the House Committee on International Relations in July of 2003, at
least 50 percent of the funding for Hamas is Saudi blood money.
We all know the history of Osama bin Laden. When he left Saudi
Arabia, he did so with, by some estimates, nearly $1 billion of Saudi
blood money which was subsequently used, as we know, to attack my city,
and others.
The time has come for us to say once again, just as we did last year
in this bill, no aid to Saudi Arabia, no aid to a country that exports
Wahabisim, no aid to a country that exports terrorism, no aid to a
country that has been worse than uncooperative in our efforts to
control worldwide oil prices.
There is no other way to view the Saudis except as our enemies, not
as our friends. Nothing, I think, was more troubling for many of us
than to see the President waiting in Crawford, Texas for over an hour
while the Crown Prince came and then gave a lecture to our President on
the way to fight terrorism.
The way we in the House should fight terrorism is to not provide any
more aid to the Saudis, and my amendment would do that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is another one of those amendments that is difficult to speak
against, I suppose, because we all have our problems with the record in
Saudi Arabia. But it is also one that when we look at it in the cold
light, I think we recognize that it does not do what it says it is
going to do, it is symbolic, and the symbolism comes down on the wrong
side.
In the past there have been elements, certainly, of the Saudi
Government that have not been helpful to the United States in its
Global War on Terrorism but, in the past few years, the Government of
Saudi Arabia has greatly increased its efforts to root out terrorism
and has increased its cooperation with the United States Government.
Now, this bill provides a really very small sum of $25,000 to the
International Military Education and Training program, or IMET, to help
train and increase military contracts with the Saudi military. Some
would say, what could you possibly do for $25,000, and why do we not
charge the Saudi Government for this training? In fact, that is exactly
what we do. By providing this sum of $25,000, about the cost of
training one officer, we allow them access to the program, and this
results in Saudi Arabia spending approximately $13 million of its own
funds on an annual basis to train over 400 students at U.S. military
schools. This training exposes Saudi officers to U.S. military
doctrines, training regimes, systems and, most importantly, to U.S.
values.
With the Global War on Terrorism, now is not the time to turn our
backs on those who have albeit belatedly, turned to us for assistance
and cooperation. We need all the friends and the allies that we can get
in this fight against terrorism. There is no question that the Saudi
Arabian government has been remiss in the past in its commitments to
combating terrorism, but that is changing and, above all, we need to be
encouraging the change, not discouraging it, which is precisely, of
course, what this amendment would do.
So let us not drive a wedge between the United States and the Arab
regimes that are cooperating with us on the War on Terrorism. I urge
that we defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Weiner amendment. This
provision was included in the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations bill,
and I believe it should be included again.
This is a common sense amendment. It sends a message to Saudi Arabia
that the United States is serious about reform.
We impatiently await Saudi Government efforts to eliminate anti-
Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda from its state-controlled media. We
are looking for democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, including reforms
that would allow the women of that country a voice in shaping their
country.
We still have not seen Saudi Arabia disavow its propaganda campaign
against Christians and Jews, a campaign that is alive and well here in
our very own country, as Saudi-exported materials inciting hatred and
prejudice are made available at Saudi-supported American mosques.
In short, it is all carrot these days and too little sticks. The
Weiner amendment provides some incentive for change in Saudi Arabia. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms.
Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for introducing this
amendment yet again, which I have supported year after year. I rise in
strong support of this amendment.
No one is born knowing how to hate; it needs to be taught. The Saudi
Kingdom, our purported partner in peace, have turned teaching hatred
into a perverted art form. Saudi textbooks, official publications of
the Education Ministry, paint a hate-filled, distorted portrait of a
world in which Israel does not exist, the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated
by a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, and the protocols of the Elders of
Zion is taught as history.
Saudi Arabia's religious beliefs have banned Barbie dolls, calling
them Jewish toys that are offensive to Islam.
Last year, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah was quoted as telling Saudi
television that ``Zionists'' were behind the attack at the oil facility
at Yanbu. The Crown Prince was also quoted as saying, ``Our country is
targeted, you know who is behind all of this. It is Zionism.''
Fifteen of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals; we all know
that.
[[Page H5334]]
Knowing this, did the Saudi government express one word of remorse or
regret to the families of the victims? No, not one word.
The Saudis and President Bush are constantly declaring to the United
States that they are our partners in the War on Terrorism. We are
talking about the same Saudis that support, encourage, and finance
terrorism, the same Saudis that exude racist and anti-Semitic hatred,
the same Saudis that have the worst record on the planet when it comes
to religious intolerance, racial intolerance, and discrimination
against women.
Our world will never be safe when children are taught hatred and
disdain, when the terrorist mission of death and destruction is being
funded by the Saudis.
It is unbelievable to me that we continue to pretend that they are
our allies, and it is completely inexplicable that one penny of
American taxpayer money is going to Saudi Arabia.
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 partner in peace that either they are with us or they are
against us. They cannot have it both ways, and neither can our
administration.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a couple of things
that the chairman said.
For 3 years now, I have heard the argument for continued support for
the Saudis as two somewhat contradictory positions. One, it is not a
lot of money; and two, they are getting better.
Well, I think it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly in this
bill when we are already short-funded, to justify why it is we provide
any money at all if they are not an ally. If they are not espousing
U.S. American views, if they are not improving democracy, what are they
doing? I will tell you what they are doing, Mr. Chairman. They are
traveling to Iraq and blowing up our troops.
{time} 1900
That is not according to me; that is according to their own bragging
Web sites and The Washington Post assessment about who they are. There
is a dramatic increase in the amount of violence since we offered this
bill last year, not a decline. There is a dramatic increase in the
exporting of Wahabiism, not a decline. And there is no sign of greater
cooperation. You know, a sign of great cooperation is not hiring a very
expensive lobbyist here, running TV ads, running newspaper ads. A sign
of cooperation is saying we are going to start cracking down on terror,
not moving it out of our country into someone else's problem.
The problem that we face here, whether it is $25,000, $25 million or
$25 billion, is we articulate our values in this bill. And our values
are simply not to be supportive of the Saudi Arabian Government.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I want to thank the chairman for his very good work on this bill. It is
an excellent bill. I know they put an enormous amount of work into it,
and I rise in support of this amendment because I think we can make it
even better; and that is why I am joining the gentleman from New York
in offering this amendment, the Weiner/Ferguson amendment; and I rise
in strong support of the amendment.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the largest
financers of terrorism in the world. And the fact that this bill
provides American dollars to this country for U.S.-subsidized military
training is nothing short of astounding.
Our own government's reports chronicle Saudi Arabia's continuing
human rights abuses, ongoing financing of terrorist groups, and
exporting of terrorist ideologies. It is amazing that we are looking to
Saudi Arabia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and giving
them money out of our legislation. Now is not the time to reduce
pressure on Saudi Arabia. Instead of rewarding the Saudi Government for
financing terrorism and harboring terrorists, we should be holding them
accountable for well-documented human rights abuses and terrorist
connections.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Weiner/Ferguson
amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, let me just say to the chairman and the ranking member,
they have done an excellent job with a limited budget. But I think we
should give them an extra $25,000 to work with by saying that we are
not going to provide comfort to the Saudis, we are not going to provide
aid, taxpayer aid to the Saudi Arabians.
This is not just the position of a bipartisan group here in Congress.
The Council on Foreign Relations has said for years individuals and
charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of
funds for al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission said Saudi Arabia is ``a problematic ally in
fighting Islamic extremism.'' Our own State Department says Hamas
receives funding from ``private benefactors in Saudi Arabia.''
There is not probably an observer of the scene today that does not
recognize that Saudi Arabia has done a very deft two-face game. They
come here, they send us a moderate face. They have convinced,
obviously, our State Department, who walks along almost in lock step
with everything that they say.
We here in Congress should say we understand that we are going to
start judging nations in the post-September 11 world by what they do,
not by what they say. And what the Saudi Arabians have done is export
Wahabiism to the United States, export terrorism to the troops in Iraq,
and export terror all around the world.
Vote ``yes'' on the Weiner/Ferguson amendment. Let us finally put an
end to it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just want to try to reiterate one argument and add a point on
another argument that has just been made by the gentleman from the
other side. First, on the issue of the funding, the financing of this
program, I hope that the comments that I made have dispensed with that.
For $25,000, in other words, the country has access to the program,
they become a part of the IMET program, we get a $13 million payment
from the country. So it is not as though we are giving money to the
country of Saudi Arabia. It is a legal process that they have to do to
access the program; and to do that we have to provide training for one
officer, then they are able to provide training for the hundreds of
other officers that come to the United States, and they pay fully for
them.
And that money is here in the United States and stays here in the
United States where these people are being trained. So I think that is
a pretty good rate of return on the investment, $25,000 getting you $13
million. The foreign aid argument is untrue. It has nothing to do with
whether Saudi Arabia is a rich country or not. It has to do with
whether or not these countries should be getting any kind of training.
And I think the kind of training that we give in the IMET program is
exactly the kind of training we ought to be giving to military officers
of other countries including Saudi Arabia.
And on the last point, the gentleman from New York made the
suggestion that these people from Saudi, he said, where are they going.
We know where they are going. They are going to Iraq and blowing up our
troops. The implication that somehow the Saudi Government is involved
in an official way in blowing up our troops in Iraq is an absolutely
outrageous statement and has no basis in fact whatsoever. And so I
would reject this statement.
And I think on this basis alone this amendment ought to be defeated
because we should not be saying to the Saudi Government that we believe
that somehow you are involved in blowing up troops in Iraq.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very clear that it
has been the Saudi policy to export their worst troublemakers like bin
Laden, like Wahabiism, so that the problem is not turned inward. That
is their policy.
[[Page H5335]]
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the statement is made.
The gentleman from New York has just confirmed what I thought. The
statement is that the Saudi Government is officially involved in
helping to kill American troops in Iraq. And I think that statement is
an absolute outrage, and I do not think there is any basis of fact
whatever for that.
I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It does not
belong here. We should not do it. We should not be sending this kind of
signal. I urge defeat of 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 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Otter
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Otter:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
Limitation on assistance for Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian
people
Sec. __. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) of the total amount of funds that are available in this
Act for assistance for the Palestinian Authority (or any
other Palestinian entity) or for the Palestinian people, not
more than 25 percent of such amount may be obligated and
expended during each quarter of fiscal year 2006; and
(2) none of the funds made available in this Act may be
made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority
(or any other Palestinian entity) or for the Palestinian
people during any quarter of fiscal year 2006 unless the
Secretary of State determines that the Palestinian Authority
has not provided support for acts of international terrorism
during the three-month period preceding the first day of that
quarter.
(b) In this section, the term ``quarter of fiscal year
2006'' means any three-month period beginning on--
(1) October 1, 2005;
(2) January 1, 2006;
(3) April 1, 2006; or
(4) July 1, 2006.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Idaho
(Mr. Otter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to join with my other colleagues in congratulating both the
chairman and the ranking member for having put together a foreign ops
bill that certainly had to be an arduous task. But like the amendment
that preceded me, I think that my amendment can improve on a near-
perfect piece of legislation.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to correct what I believe to be a
fatal flaw in the way we administer our foreign aid. We cannot truly be
effective, either domestically or in our role as the world leader on
the world stage, when our foreign aid policy forces us to support our
friends while we are indiscriminately doling out money to our and their
enemies at the same time.
All the effort we put into promoting peace and cooperation is
meaningless without requiring accountability from the recipients of our
assistance. U.S. foreign aid should be based on a recipient's
demonstrated willingness to support the ideals and the aspirations for
their regions. When we provide aid to a country, we should be able to
expect a marked change in that country's behavior in keeping with our
and their goals.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about here. When my
children were younger, I gave them a monthly allowance. Unlike gifts
that they got at Christmastime and holidays, this was money that they
had to earn themselves. And this allowance came with certain strings
attached. It came with an understanding that I could expect certain
behavior from them. On occasion, they would forget our bargain, and
their behavior would not reflect the expectations that I had set for
them. But when they did not receive their allowance the next month,
they were quick to fix the problem so that we could all then once again
live peacefully together.
Foreign aid is like an allowance which the United States is neither
obligated to offer nor give, and which does not come without strings
attached. And yet we continue to act as if we are required to hand out
money to nations and people who actively oppose the principles of
democracy and peace. And this practice must end.
Today we have a golden opportunity to change the way we address the
issue of foreign aid because of some important changes and changes in
leadership of the Palestinian Authority. We have an opportunity to
further the development for a partnership for peace between our
countries. In light of the renewed request on foreign aid, we should
act now to infuse any aid with common sense and accountability so that
we can advance the realistic goals that the President has set for the
Middle East.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is the first step. It states that no more
than 25 percent of the funds appropriated to the Palestinian Authority
or any other Palestinian entities will be available to the Palestinians
during each financial quarter. What that means is that every quarter,
the four quarters of the year, one fourth of the money in this bill
that would otherwise go in one lump sum to the Palestinian Authority,
but one fourth is all that will be able to be advanced to them during
any one quarter. And then it will be advanced to them so long as we
have the Secretary of State who will determine that the Palestinian
Authority has not participated in or supported any acts of
international terrorism during the previous 3 months.
In other words, our expectation is that they should quit killing
people. They should quit creating acts of terrorism. And for that, we
will pay them.
We know right now that those folks are being paid $25,000 a piece to
wrap a bomb around themselves and go get on a bus in their so-called
enemy's territory. And so that is why, with that expectation, then we
make the payment.
The President is working to achieve lasting peace in this region,
realistically and, I believe, in good faith; and I applaud his efforts.
But if we are going to see a change in the Middle East, our approach to
foreign aid must change as well. What better time than now to change
our attitude and the way that we hand out foreign aid.
I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to assist in
the peace process by making sure that our assistance carries with it
the weight of our principles.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not have
any comments. I would make a point of order, though, if the gentleman
is not prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman giving me the
opportunity to make the point. One of these days, one of these years,
perhaps during my lifetime in the United States House of
Representatives, I will be able to frame this amendment so that it will
not have a point of order successfully placed against it. And I thank
the chairman for that opportunity to explain my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Idaho?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Prohibition on use of funds by the Export-Import Bank of the United
States to approve an application for a long-term loan or loan guarantee
with respect to a nuclear project in the People's Republic of China
Sec. 601. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to
approve an
[[Page H5336]]
application for a long-term loan or loan guarantee with
respect to a nuclear project in the People's Republic of
China.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This tri-partisan amendment has widespread support across the
ideological spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans, from progressives
to conservatives. It is being cosponsored today by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich). It also is being supported by a number of leading national
organizations including the National Taxpayers Union; Friends of the
Earth; Citizens Against Government Waste; the Green Scissors Coalition;
Taxpayers For Common Sense; and U.S. PIRG, the U.S. Public Interest
Research Group.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It would
prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing corporate welfare for
the construction of nuclear power plants in China.
Mr. Chairman, I think the rationale for supporting this amendment is
obvious. At a time when we have a $7.7 trillion national debt and a
record-breaking Federal deficit, it is not only absurd, but it is
dangerous for the taxpayers of this country to be subsidizing the
construction of nuclear power plants in China.
{time} 1915
Mr. Chairman, amazingly enough, the company involved here,
Westinghouse Electric, which builds nuclear technology is owned by
British National Fuels which itself is a company wholly owned by the
British government. So we are dealing with the absurdity of American
taxpayers who are in the midst of a record breaking deficit,
subsidizing the British government, a nation which, to the best of my
knowledge, is not made up of starving, desperate people in the
developing world.
Mr. Chairman, there is no debate, but that when these four nuclear
power plants will be built at a cost which involves an Export-Import
loan of some $5 billion, that when these nuclear power plants will be
built, the Chinese will own the technology. And a question that every
Member of this Congress should be asking is, is it really in the best
interest of the United States of America to provide advanced nuclear
technology to China. Furthermore, the Chinese company which is building
these four nuclear power plants, the Chinese national nuclear company
has been tied to at least three instances of weapons proliferation
involving Iran and Pakistan.
Mr. Chairman, I do not always agree with the National Taxpayers
Union. But let me briefly summarize what they say in a letter that they
sent to me today.
NTU has long advocated total elimination of taxpayer funding of the
Export-Import Bank for the simple fact that American taxpayers should
not be forced to subsidize the overseas operation of U.S. corporation
or foreign governments. Considering the rapid pace of economic growth
in China and its emergence as a strong force in the global business
environment, it is particularly egregious to waste taxpayer dollars on
such a project.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) seek to
control the time in opposition?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. As he said, this amendment would prohibit the Export-Import
Bank from supporting the sale of nuclear power plant and technology in
China.
It was 6 years ago in 1998 during the Clinton administration that the
U.S. lifted the ban on the export of civilian nuclear power plants and
fuel to China. After we became satisfied that China had met the
conditions of the 1985 U.S.-China agreement on peaceful nuclear
cooperation.
Last September the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce
expressed their support for increasing trade with China in nuclear
energy technology and for the export of U.S. civilian nuclear power
plants. In February of this year the Ex-Im Board of Directors approved
a preliminary commitment of $5 million from Westinghouse Electric
Company to enable it to make a bid on the design and construction of
four 1,000 megawatt commercial power reactors on two sites in China.
These reactors will be the first in a series of 26 new commercial
power plants planned for construction through the year 2020. So we are
looking at a very large possible export in business for United States
businesses. We are in heavy competition. Westinghouse is in heavy
competition with companies from France and from Russia to provide the
same or similar kind of technology. This order would create or sustain,
according to Westinghouse, about 5,000 jobs; 5,000 jobs in the United
States at Westinghouse and its American suppliers.
Because I have heard the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on the
floor railing against outsourcing and the China trade deficit, I
thought, here is an opportunity for us to do something about that, to
create jobs here at home for us to make sure that we are selling things
to China. But this amendment of course would make it impossible for
Westinghouse conduct this business while, other countries would get the
kind of commitments that they need from the government to protect those
kind of investments. We, the U.S. Government, would not be doing so for
Westinghouse.
There can be no question about it. Prohibiting the Export-Import Bank
from supporting this and future transactions is going to have a
tremendously negative impact on U.S. exporters and U.S. employment. And
it is going to send a signal to businesses that they better not be
doing business in China. Nothing could be worse for us.
I strongly urge us to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. And with all due respect, we have been hearing this type of
argument for 20 years. When are the American people going to demand
that the Members of the United States Congress start watching out for
the interests of the people of the United States and not some small
group of elite Americans and international financiers who will make a
profit off this in the short run, but in the long run will create the
situation that we have found in China today and the situation we find
ourselves in here.
For 20 years we have been told by trading and having economic
relations with this monstrous dictatorship that we would see
liberalization, that we would see a change in the policies that the
Chinese government has towards its own people. What have we seen
instead? It is the same massive dictatorship. This is the world's worst
human rights abuser, and it is the last country in the world that we
should be subsidizing American business in order to create business in
that country.
The fact is we have seen jobs and businessmen in this country go to
China because business leaders in this country will personally make a
quick buck by betraying the American working people. That is what is
happening here. How can we think they would do anything else?
This government, as we are hearing today, is subsidizing this. Now,
when it comes to Westinghouse, when it comes to Westinghouse, this is
not even an American company. And we are going to have the United
States taxpayers subsidizing a British company in order to build a
nuclear power plant or a series of nuclear power plants for communist
China? This makes no sense at all. We should not be subsidizing it even
if it was an American company.
What are the Chinese going to do when they get this technology from
Westinghouse? I can tell you right now, it is certainly something that
is
[[Page H5337]]
acknowledged in the business community, they will start building those
plants and they will copy every piece of technology that we have spent,
the American taxpayers have spent, developing the technology, and the
Chinese will just take it and copy it. That is why today the greatest
threat to our freedom, the greatest threat to America's prosperity is
not radical Islam, although that is a challenge we have to face, but in
the long run it is a China that is emerging on the scene that is
belligerent to everything we stand for as a people.
The last thing we should be doing is building up their economy as we
have been doing as a policy of this government for the last 20 years.
And let me note, nuclear power plants? Has anyone looked at the
proliferation record of the communist Chinese? Why do you think we are
having a challenge right now to the world peace in Korea? Do you think
the North Koreans just discovered all this technology on their own.
No, the fact is that the Chinese are the ones who are behind the
nuclear development in Korea and the development of weapons that
threaten Japan and the United States. The last thing we should be doing
is helping them develop and perfect their technology that deals with
nuclear energy.
This is, again, a no-brainer for me, but the American people need to
find out whose side the Congress is on. The policies we have had to
China in these last 20 years have created a Frankenstein monster that
threatens not only the peace on the world, but threatens the prosperity
of our people and the freedom of those who would seek freedom in China
itself.
We have been cutting a deal with the devil and we are now coming to a
point where everybody recognizes that threat, except perhaps the
leadership, unfortunately, in the United States Congress.
So I would commend the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). I look
forward to working with him on this.
Let us get the word out to the American people whose side we are on.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
I appreciate the good job of leadership that he is providing on this
issue.
I think a question seems to be resonating here and that is, who is
going to look out for U.S. jobs? I think that is a very good question.
Here we have on one side Westinghouse, who is working as an American
company, a conglomerate, with other corporations trying to build some
of the product to be able to export that product in order to create
jobs here in America and provide something to China that they are going
to get one way or another.
What are the options of that? Well, we can ignore the opportunities
we have for American jobs. We can say, let us give the jobs to France.
France is also bidding on this. Let France have the jobs.
We have a good example of how France is gaining ground on us in the
aircraft industry. They have a government that is willing to do what is
necessary in order to move the aerospace industry in France forward.
And here we have an opportunity to move forward with the technology
that we happen to have that other countries want. So we can either
create the jobs here or we can allow them to be created in France. Or
there is the other Russia company that is bidding on it as well. We
could let the jobs be created in Russia.
So who is looking out for U.S. jobs? This supply of finance from the
Export-Import Bank would meet all the guidelines that have been
established and it would provide the funding for an American company to
move forward and make jobs for here in America. And that is a good
motive. But the overall question is, what is Congress going to do about
United States jobs?
We hear a lot about outsourcing American jobs. Nobody ever stops to
say, why are we outsourcing American jobs? We keep putting barriers in
place for American jobs to be created. Here is a good example. We could
have Westinghouse jobs or we could have French and Russian jobs. But it
goes beyond that.
Congress has created barriers over the last generation that have
driven this economy to a very difficult point. Our trade deficit was
$670 billion last year. Our Federal deficit is going to be about $300
billion this year. And we are seeing the loss, the outsourcing of high-
quality, high-paying jobs.
If you look at what we have done here in Congress, we have created
barriers that have made it difficult for people who create jobs. Health
care policy, driven largely by Medicaid and Medicare, is a socialist
health care policy that has driven a whole lot of paperwork and a whole
lot of unnecessary practices. For example, the Hospital Association in
Kansas says for every hour of health care it takes an hour of paperwork
to comply with it.
We have litigation here that drives up the cost of building products
here. We have regulation that costs $8,000 for every American worker,
12 percent of every product driven up by Congress' rules, and that
pushing jobs overseas.
Our tax policy ends up on the bottom line of our products. Our energy
policy, that cannot to make law. We could create 700,000 American jobs
but we cannot get an energy bill through the Senate. We have trade
policy that is unenforced. When there is a violation of our trade
policy, we do not get the proper support.
The one thing that we have a surplus of in this country that we do
not export is lawsuits. The only way you export lawsuits is through
trade policy. You have got to have a trade policy in place to do that.
We also need to improve our research and development and our lifelong
learning, but we have got to protect American jobs and this is one way
to do that.
I just want to finish this up by saying, we could do a lot in
Congress to create an environment here in the U.S. that would keep and
create jobs, but we put barrier after barrier in place, and here is one
more opportunity for us to drive jobs to France, give the jobs to
France.
Let's say no, let us not do it this time. Let us oppose this
amendment. Let us support Westinghouse. Let us do something for an
American company for once. Just because it has the name China as the
destination for the product we shouldn't go into shock. That is not the
point.
The point is American jobs, either you will have them in
Westinghouse, or you will have them in Russia or you will have them in
France. I say bring the jobs back to America. Let us remove these
barriers that we have put in place. Let us create jobs in America. We
can do it and we can do it today by defeating this amendment.
I thank the Chairman Kolbe for doing a fine job.
{time} 1930
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In another time and place, I would like to deal with many of the
assertions made by my friend who just spoke, but now is not the time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for
yielding me time.
Why should the American taxpayers underwrite a British company to
build nuclear power plants in China? That is exactly the transaction
the Export-Import Bank has already given preliminary approval for.
British Nuclear Fuel's U.S. division would receive loans of about $5
billion to build four nuclear power plants in China. Why should
American taxpayers underwrite a British company to build nuclear power
plants in China? According to the Export-Import Bank, ``The nuclear
power plants are being purchased to meet the increased demand for power
in the heavy industrialized region of the country.''
This is not the sort of transaction the Export-Import Bank, read
American taxpayers, should be funding. First, the purpose of Export-
Import Bank financing is to enable manufacturing sales to countries
that are too poor to afford those U.S. goods without financing. But
China has no shortage of U.S. dollars that they have earned mounting
the largest trade deficit the United States has with any single
country.
In the last 4 years alone, China added net $472 billion to its bank
holding of U.S. dollars. Poor China. According to
[[Page H5338]]
the International Trade Agency, that is the amount by which Chinese
exports to the U.S. exceeded Chinese imports from the U.S.
Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up in Cleveland, there was a myth
that, if you dug a hole deep enough, you could get to China. Well, you
know what, we have succeeded in doing that with our trade deficit; and
we will keep digging this hole with this proposal unless the Sanders
amendment passes.
China does not lack access to substantial amounts of U.S. currency to
enable it to buy U.S.-manufactured nuclear power plants without a
taxpayer subsidy. Yet the Export-Import Bank is subsidizing China to
buy nuclear power plants.
Now, if anyone here doubts China's wealth and thinks that we have to
help China further, consider that just this last week a Chinese oil
company offered $16.5 billion to buy Unocal. If they have that kind of
wealth to spend on energy, do my colleagues not think they can afford
nuclear power plants without a taxpayer subsidy?
Some might say that the sale of nuclear power plants to China would
improve the trade imbalance with China and is therefore, beneficial;
but do not believe it. If U.S. taxpayers have to buy the nuclear power
plant, that is what the Export-Import Bank financing is, then we give
it to China, and that will not make a difference in the fundamental
imbalance of trade.
Unless the Sanders amendment passes, American taxpayers will be
giving a gift of at least $5 billion for nuclear power plants in China.
The applicant for the Ex-Im Bank funding is a wholly-owned division
of a British conglomerate. For those watching the trade deficit, the
U.S. is already in hock to Britain as well as China. In the last 4
years, the U.K. has accrued $27 billion in surpluses. The profits from
the sale of the nuclear power plants to China will flow to Britain, not
to the U.S.
If my colleagues think the American taxpayers should not be buying
nuclear power plants for China, then vote for the Sanders amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close. I
am the only other speaker at the moment that is here.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for either side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 3\1/2\
minutes, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman from Arizona closes; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
The American middle class is shrinking, and one of the reasons that
we are losing good-paying jobs is that corporation after corporation is
throwing American workers out on the street and moving to countries
like China where desperate people are paid 30 cents an hour, 20 cents
an hour and go to jail when they stand up for their political rights or
stand up for their right to form a union.
There is increasing concern by people from all walks of life that the
economy of China, which is growing in leaps and bounds, is threatening
the American standard of living. Whether it is blue collar jobs or
white collar, information technology jobs, China is growing while our
jobs are shrinking; and we are losing good-paying jobs and providing
our young people with low-wage jobs, with minimal benefits.
If it makes sense to anybody in this country to be putting $5 billion
of American taxpayer money at risk, to be subsidizing the development
of nuclear power plants in China, providing them with the technology
that can be used for military purposes, with a company that is owned by
the British Government, if somebody got up here and proposed subsidies
for a federally owned company, people on the other side would go
ballistic; but it is okay to be subsidizing a nationalized company in
Great Britain providing and building nuclear power plants in China.
I think that the time is long overdue that the United States Congress
took a very hard look at Export-Import Bank in general. Over the years,
what we have seen is they are providing huge subsidies to large
corporations who are outsourcing American jobs. In this instance, they
are providing a subsidy to a British company owned by their own
government building nuclear power plants in China.
I think that is a very bad deal. I think the American people would be
shocked if we allowed this to go through, and I hope that we can
support this tri-partisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I will not take that much time to close this debate.
The gentleman from Vermont talked about outsourcing jobs and jobs
being moved to other countries in order for them to get this business.
The exact opposite is the case here.
If we do not support this kind of business, it is a legitimate thing
for a government, I think, to have an export-import kind of
relationship. Virtually every major country in the world does that. It
is a way of saying, without putting at risk the taxpayers' dollars, and
so far Ex-Im Bank has never cost the taxpayers' dollars, any real money
in terms of lost loans that we have had to pay for as taxpayers, it is
a way of us making sure that we get jobs here in the United States, of
keeping businesses here in the United States, and that is exactly what
this would do: high-paying technology jobs, high-paying engineering
jobs, high paying work, design work that would be done by engineers and
others to support the construction of nuclear power plants in China, a
very large project.
What we are talking about here today is only the tip of the iceberg.
We are talking about building a large number of these plants over many
years. No doubt whoever wins the initial contract, it will be like
doing cookie cutters after that. They will get the rest of them. So I
think we are talking about something much, much larger than is shown
here today.
It is for that reason that the State Department has strongly opposed
this amendment, because they believe that it affects jobs that will
result, and Westinghouse has said about the loss of 5,000 jobs if they
are not able to get this contract. We think we have the technology to
get it. We think we can get this contract, and we expect that we will
win those jobs as a result of that.
I think it is ironic that even at a moment when my colleagues are
talking about the weak economy or they are talking about the fact that
we are losing jobs overseas because of the trade deficit that they want
to create a larger trade deficit. They want to stop jobs from being
created here at home. They want to stop American companies from
exporting this kind of technology, all of which has been decided that
it is safe and politically safe as well as technologically safe. They
want us to stop us from exporting these kinds of jobs.
The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that one of the reasons
we want to do this, we should be so anxious that China increases its
reliance on nuclear power, is that if they fail to do that, they are
going to have to continue to use more and more fossil fuels,
particularly petroleum; and we know it already is occurring. Virtually
all of the incremental production in the world is being consumed by
China which has a rapidly growing economy, and that is what is helping
to drive up the price of oil in the world to the sky-rocketing, the
sky-high levels that it is today.
If we are not able to help with this kind of technology, China would
perhaps have to go back to other kinds of fossil fuel-using plants. Not
only does it have environmental degradation, but it obviously has
enormous impact on the economy of the rest of the world.
For all of those reasons, this is a very bad amendment, ill designed,
ill directed, and ill timed; and I urge its defeat.
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).
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.
[[Page H5339]]
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:
Page 132, insert the following after line 13:
Governments that have failed to permit certain extraditions
Sec. 583. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Department of State, other than funds provided under the
heading ``international narcotics control and law
enforcement'', may be used to provide assistance to any
country with whom the United States has an extradition treaty
and whose government has notified the Department of State of
its refusal to extradite to the United States any individual
accused of committing a criminal offense 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 5 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, the amendment that I have at the desk relates to the
growing problem of lack of extradition of criminals who committed
violent offenses in the United States and then flee across our borders
and are not able to be returned by way of extradition.
This is a growing problem. It is a problem for a country such as ours
that now has an estimated 11 million people illegally in our country.
Mexico to our south has become a point of refuge. Many of the
individuals who are committing these offenses are committing them and
immediately fleeing to their home country of Mexico.
Some are not quite so quick. Some are offenses such as the one we
have heard in a previous amendment as it relates to the killing of a
police officer in the line of duty, but it is a growing concern for all
of the citizens of the States of this country and one that I think we
need to begin to point a finger at.
This amendment says that if you refuse to extradite for an offense
that would have a life imprisonment or less, then if funds flow through
the State Department, those funds would be withheld if they are
refusing to extradite.
Let me give my colleagues a scenario. Let us assume that you have two
men who rape and brutally murder a 4-year-old child. One is a citizen
of the United States. The other one is a citizen of Mexico who is
illegally in the country. Both flee across the border to Mexico. The
district attorney or the prosecutor in the circuit indicts them, and of
course, in those kind of cases, they face either life imprisonment or,
in some cases, capital punishment. Mexico will extradite the United
States citizen back here. They will not extradite the Mexican citizen
back unless the prosecutor agrees to lower the offense to a crime that
would be less than a life sentence.
Now, that is a hypothetical case. I will allude to the facts as they
now exist in my community in a few minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King), my colleague.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding me time and for bringing this amendment to the floor.
This is a discussion and debate that this country needs to have, and
it takes me back to about 6 weeks ago when the incident in Denver where
the alleged shooter, Raul Gomez-Garcia, shot Officer Donny Young in the
back of the head and killed him and wounded another officer. We
suspected that he would abscond to the sanctuary of Mexico and he did,
and the plea bargain has already taken place. I am not certain if he is
back in the United States under that plea bargain; but this policy,
this sanctuary policy that exists in Mexico is a policy that requires
us to plea bargain down the crimes in this country and tells the
shooters, you can shoot and run to Mexico.
I will pose a hypothetical situation, but it is one that could
happen.
Just suppose Osama bin Laden was picked up by Mexican police in
Mexico City. There is no way that Mexico extradites Osama bin Laden to
the United States until we plea bargain that down to something less
than life imprison, no capital punishment, no life in prison. Can my
colleagues imagine sitting on the parole board for Osama bin Laden and
having to release him into the streets of the United States of America
because of a sanctuary policy that exists in the state of Mexico?
{time} 1945
That is the leverage that is out there now, and we are paying for
these countries in foreign operations money to alter the crime and
punishment policy in the United States. That must stop. It can stop
with the Deal amendment.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to how much
time remains for me.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we just dealt with another amendment that, in a similar
way, tried to criticize at the country of Mexico for the problems that
we have with extradition, and during that debate, I think I outlined
what I think has been the rather substantial improvement in the
cooperation that we have had with Mexico on this issue.
During the first 14 years of the extradition treaty with Mexico, from
1980 to 1994, Mexico extradited, a total of eight fugitives to the
United States. In the next 4 years, they extradited an average each
year of 13. But in the last 4 years, in 2001 they indicted 17; in 2002,
25; in 2003, 31; and in 2004, they extradited a record of 34 fugitives
to the United States. So I think there is little doubt that we have
great cooperation.
The problem I have with the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia is it is not at all clear to whom this applies. I asked the
gentleman, and he is not sure. We have asked the Department of State,
and they are not sure. I know what his intention is and the country he
is trying to effect, but we do not know it does not apply to other
countries. There may well be other countries that it applies to.
I cannot say, for example, with certainty that this would not require
us to cut off all of our counternarcotics efforts in Colombia. I am not
sure it would not have some impact on a country like that. It could
have an impact in Afghanistan. I do not know. Nobody seems to know for
sure what the impact of this might be.
So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, and until we have
a much clearer idea of how this would impact, I would urge that we not
adopt this amendment and that it be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The amendment specifically excludes international narcotics control,
and law enforcement money would not be subject to being withheld. That
answers one of the concerns of the chairman. I do not know all the
countries, but I can tell you some. Mexico, no sentence of life
imprisonment or greater; Costa Rica, no sentence of more than 50 years;
Spain, no life sentence; Venezuela, any sentence over 30 years; and
Portugal, any sentence over 20 years.
Now, I gave the hypothetical of a 4-year-old girl raped and murdered
and suspects fleeing over the border. In my county, this past weekend,
a 4-year-old girl, about 3 feet tall, weighing less than 40 pounds, was
brutally raped and murdered. The only suspect, the chief suspect, is
now thought to have fled back across to Mexico. This is an individual
who was deported from the United States less than 2 years ago and now
is being sought again.
There is no way that our district attorney will be able to prosecute
that case unless we agree that we are going to reduce it to
substantially less than an American citizen would be charged with under
the same circumstances.
I withdrew an amendment very similar to this last year in deference
to the
[[Page H5340]]
chairman and upon the assurances that the State Department would work
to change the situation as it relates to Mexico. There has been no
change.
Mr. Chairman, they may say that they are proud of extraditing 30
individuals last year to the United States, but in any district
attorney's office in Southern California alone, they can tell you of
hundreds of murder cases where extradition has not been achieved. And
so I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close the debate.
Let me just note that we have just been advised by the State
Department that this would affect Colombia. Of course, as the gentleman
said, it does not affect the international narcotics control and law
enforcement account, which is one of the big sums of money that goes to
Colombia, but this would affect foreign military financing, FMF, for
Colombia. It would cut off the money for IMET, the International
Military Education Training programs. And it would affect the anti-
terrorism programs that come under the NADR category. So it would have
an enormous impact on our efforts in Colombia.
I think for that reason, I would certainly hope that this body would
not accept this amendment, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. 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 Georgia (Mr. Deal) will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. 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. Lee:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
prohibition on certain international narcotics control and law
enforcement assistance to the government of haiti
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act under
the heading ``international narcotics control and law
enforcement'' may be used to transfer excess property of an
agency of the United States Government to the Government of
Haiti.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The goal of the Lee-Conyers-Kilpatrick-Waters amendment is to limit
the transfer of free guns and other defense articles to the Government
of Haiti which have been used to wreak havoc on the Haitian people.
Many in the general public and here in Congress have been under the
misconception that there is an arms embargo to Haiti. However, since
2004, close to 3,000 weapons have been transferred to Haiti from the
United States and, in all probability, have gone to arm the Haitian
National Police force.
This amendment requires a limitation on all transfers of excess
property to the Government of Haiti because they are using excess arms
and ammunition from the United States to arm criminals in the Haitian
National Police force. This amendment specifically would prohibit all
arms transfers by the State Department in accordance with all relevant
sections of current law.
This limitation is critical, Mr. Chairman, because the people of
Haiti are not safe, and they remain targets of political violence,
torture, and, in many cases, murder. Unfortunately, too often the
perpetrators of this violence are the Haitian National Police. There
have been numerous reports in the news and firsthand accounts of human
rights' and faith-based groups who have traveled to Haiti and seen the
hostile environment Haitians face.
The Haitian National Police are intimidating, murdering, and
executing the poor and political opposition with weapons transferred
from the United States to the Government of Haiti. This is simply
unacceptable. The Government of Haiti has access to weapons for police
training and security and have paid for defense articles out of their
own budget without our government and this Congress' free transfer of
arms and ammunition.
This amendment is basically about accountability and saving Haitians'
lives. The United States must not be complicit in helping to arm
criminals, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Lee-
Conyers-Waters-Kilpatrick Haiti arms limitation amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but
I will not oppose the amendment. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I want to say
that I would be prepared to accept this amendment, however, I think it
is extremely important that we make it clear that we want to express
that our congressional intent with this amendment is that this
prohibition not extend to medical equipment or excess property that is
used for humanitarian purposes.
I do not believe that is what the gentlewoman is intending to do. I
know what she is trying to get at, but I think it is very important we
make it very clear in our intent here that we are not trying to prevent
the transfer of medical equipment and other kinds of property that
would be used for humanitarian purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the co-chair of the Haiti task force.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me
this time, and first of all, I want to assure the chairman that we are
absolutely in agreement that medical equipment and supplies would not
be affected by the reach of this amendment. I am glad the gentleman has
put that in the Record, and I am sure we are all in total agreement.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Lee-Lantos-Conyers-Waters-
Kilpatrick amendment is something that we regret that we have to do.
Haiti is in such a difficult situation, politically, economically, and
socially, and it is so important that we try to stem the level of
violence. That is the sole purpose of all of us coming together to work
on this. I am so proud of the chairman for agreeing to accept this
amendment, because it means that he sees and understands the underlying
circumstances that have caused us to come together in the first place.
We need less violence. The election is coming up. How we are going to
have an election there under these circumstances I am not even sure of.
We have tried, some of us have tried to get it delayed, but we have not
been successful. We need the United Nations to implement an effective
disarmament program, because as long as there is as much a level of
violence as we find there, we cannot even go down there.
So, please, let us support this amendment. I thank the Members on
both sides that see the importance of it.
Mr. Chairman, Today I rise to support the Lee-Lantos-Conyers-Waters-
Kilpatrick amendment which would preclude the State Department from
transferring any ``excess arms'' that the State Department may have in
its possession to the Government of Haiti and the Haitian National
Police. Even though the United States has an arms embargo against
Haiti, U.S. law grants authority to the President of the United States
to provide weapons to Haiti, without any Congressional input, as long
as these arms are identified as ``excess.'' Recently, it has come to
the attention of Congress that last August, the President transferred
over 4,000 arms and ammunition to the Government of Haiti. These arms
included hundreds of .38 caliber, .45 caliber, and 9 mm guns as well as
M-14 rifles and sub-machine guns.
Presently, the Country of Haiti is in the midst of a political,
economic and humanitarian crisis. As a result, many resources,
financial and otherwise are sorely needed. However, the sending of arms
to further the perpetration the violence is not the prudent course of
action.
Specifically, the Haitian National Police, on numerous occasions,
have not been described not as ``law enforcement'' but instead as ``law
breakers.'' Many incidents have been reported where the Haitian
National police are accused
[[Page H5341]]
of harassing, beating and killing Haitian citizens, including innocent
children.
Due to the many problems plaguing the Haitian National Police, the
policy of transferring ``excess'' weapons to them is particularly
unsettling. I believe it is important we stop the flow of weapons to
Haiti and work with the U.N. to implement an effective disarmament
program. As long as violence is the way, the people will suffer. The
passage of this amendment is one of life and death and is critical to
the well-being of region, of a country and of a people.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and
I also want to thank the chairman for supporting this amendment, and I
want to assure him that if we need to, in conference, make it explicit
that no humanitarian assistance or excess property would be prohibited
by this, we will definitely do that.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues from California, the
cochairs of the Haiti task force, for their important work on this
issue. So many of us continue to look at the horrors that are occurring
every day, and instead of being minimized, they seem to increase in
intensity. In talking to friends who have been there recently, each day
the violence gets more grim, and it affects the average person who just
wants to go about their business living normally. That is impossible.
So I am very pleased that the chairman is accepting this amendment,
and I hope that we can work closely with the Haiti task force to see if
we can come up with some kind of positive recommendations that can have
an impact on the lives of people.
So I thank my colleagues for introducing this amendment and I look
forward to working closely with them so that perhaps the average family
can look forward to a decent life one day soon.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I
thank the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan for
their support and their very clear statements.
Also, if there are no other requests for time, I want to, once again,
thank our chairman for his support and clarify again that the point he
raised is certainly a concern all of us have, and we will make sure
that humanitarian types of excess property that we all care about in
getting to Haiti is excluded from this provision.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and,
again with the understanding that we are all in agreement that the
intent of this prohibition is not to extend to medical equipment or
other excess property used for humanitarian purposes, I accept 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 California (Ms. Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. 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. Bradley of New Hampshire:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
limitation on assistance to Romania under the Support for East European
Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``assistance for eastern europe and the baltic
states'' may be obligated or expended for assistance to
Romania under the Support for East European Democracy (SEED)
Act of 1989.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
First, let me begin by thanking the chairman of the committee as well
as the ranking member, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) for cosponsoring this amendment with me.
It is not my intention to permanently withhold dollars that are
appropriated under this bill from the country of Romania. It is my hope
that by the time there is a committee of conference the issue that I
will describe in just a moment will have been resolved.
{time} 2000
That issue involves preapproved adoptions from the country of
Romania.
A couple of years ago, I met a family in my home State of New
Hampshire. The woman's name is Allyson Schaaf, and she had already
adopted a Romanian baby and had a second child that had been approved
by the Romanian authorities. She was one of about 200 Americans
families that had their adoption cases already approved before a change
in the law by Romania.
Under pressure by the European Union in order to gain acceptance to
the European Union, Romania changed its adoption policy without
releasing the 200-or-so adopted children that already had families
assigned to them here in this country.
I have met with numerous Romanian officials, including the president
of Romania, the prime minister and the ambassador on several occasions,
and pressed the case not only for my constituent, Ms. Schaaf, but also
for the other 200-or-so American families in this circumstance.
These are families that have invested love, time, energy, and all of
the commitment to try to unite their families in this country. It is my
hope that with this amendment that would withhold some of the money for
Romania, that that will be the signal that will be necessary for the
Romanians to deal with this situation, to release the 200-or-so cases
that have been previously approved; and then by the time the conference
committee has been formed, hopefully these adoptions will have gone
forward, and this amendment will no longer be necessary.
Once again, I thank the minority ranking member and the chairman for
working with me so hard to ensure that this amendment is the
appropriate amendment in terms of the parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will not be in opposition to the amendment for the purpose of this
discussion, and I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley)
for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I thank him for his
remarks. As the gentleman suggested, this is a very emotional issue
which cuts deeply with a number of American families that have
adoptions pending in Romania.
The development assistance accounts in our bill accounts for roughly
$20 million for Romania. I want to make it very clear it is not my
intent to limit assistance to Romania for the entire year. The
assistance we provide is very important for local police forces, for
HIV/AIDS prevention, and for fighting human trafficking, very much the
kind of thing that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) would
want us to fight against. It helps fight corruption and money
laundering and builds an independent media.
I have been working with the Romanian Government to address this
issue, but I know not a great deal has been accomplished in this
regard. I think by adopting this amendment this evening, we are
impressing both on the State Department and I hope the Romania
government, which I hope will get this message, how important it is to
continue to work toward a solution. This does send a very strong signal
to the Romanian Government. I am pleased to accept the amendment, but I
do expect to work with the ranking member and the gentleman to work and
revisit this issue in conference with the Senate and to find a solution
that will not involve cutting off aid to Romania.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the
comments of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I thank the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for clarifying the
amendment. We understand the important purposes of our
[[Page H5342]]
aid to Romania, and I hope we can really make a change in the adoption
policy. I look forward to working with the chairman.
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her gracious
support and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his gracious
support, and it is my hope that the 200-or-so families that have gone
through the process, that they will be able, by us taking this action
tonight, I hope we can help them expedite the process to unite their
families into loving, caring homes in the United States.
I have met a couple of children adopted by American families, and it
is a wonderful story. Anything that we can do to expedite that will be
a significant step for those families. I thank both the ranking member
and the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters
Ms. WATERS. 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. Waters:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
sense of Congress regarding national elections in Haiti
Sec. __. It is the sense of Congress that national
elections should not be held in the Republic of Haiti until
conditions have been established to ensure that the elections
will be free and fair. Such conditions should include the
following:
(1) The disarmament of all gangs and illegally armed
groups.
(2) An end to kidnappings of civilians.
(3) Security for all United States citizens working in
Haiti.
(4) The establishment of security throughout Haiti in order
to enable all candidates to campaign for office safely.
(5) Plans to provide security at all polling places.
(6) Plans to ensure security for United States and
international election monitors.
(7) Fair trials or release for all persons in Haiti who are
being detained without trial.
(8) Respect for internationally recognized human rights.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
One week ago today, the Canadian Government issued a travel advisory
for Haiti, warning its citizens not to travel to the island nation
unless they have critical or compelling business or family reasons. The
advisory was issued after a Montreal woman said she was kidnapped in
Haiti and beaten and burned with candles until her family paid a
ransom.
The U.S. State Department issued a similar travel warning on May 26,
urging all U.S. citizens to leave Haiti. The travel warning was issued
the day after unknown gunmen fired five rounds of bullets at a U.S.
embassy van traveling in downtown Port-au-Prince.
On May 31, unknown gunmen shot a French official and stole his car
while he was driving from Cap-Haitien to Port-au-Prince. The official
died at a hospital in Port-au-Prince several hours later. At least
seven people were killed the same day when armed men opened fire and
started a fire that spread throughout an entire market in Port-au-
Prince.
By mid-June, the Peace Corps had suspended its operations in Haiti
and evacuated 16 Peace Corps volunteers. The same week, gunmen wounded
two U.N. peacekeepers during a shootout in Cite Soleil.
Mr. Chairman, the violence in Haiti has been escalating over the past
year. Kidnappings are now commonplace, and security is nonexistent. The
interim government of Haiti has been unwilling, unable, incompetent,
has not disarmed the gangs that roam, enforced the rule of law, or
provide security to citizens and foreigners.
But the government is creating as many problems as those gangs that
are roaming the streets. The Haitian National Police contribute to the
violence through their use of force and summary executions. On February
28, 2005, during a large nonviolent march for democracy, police
officers opened fire on unarmed demonstrators in broad daylight in the
presence of international observers and media.
Many Haitians do not trust the U.N. peacekeepers who stood by and
watched while the police fired on the demonstrators. Police officers
are widely considered to be corrupt; and Amnesty International has
expressed concerns about arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment in detention
centers, and other human rights violations. There are an estimated 700
political prisoners in Haiti, and most of them have been detained
illegally for months without formal charges.
This is not an atmosphere that is conducive to the organization of
free and fair elections. Nevertheless, the interim government of Haiti
is persisting in its plans to hold elections in October and November of
this year. If elections are held under the current conditions,
candidates will be afraid to campaign for office, and individual
Haitians will be afraid to leave their homes to vote.
My amendment expresses a sense of Congress that national elections
should not be held in the Republic of Haiti until conditions have been
established to ensure that the elections will be free and fair.
The amendment specifies that conditions should include the following:
the disarmament of all gangs and illegally armed groups; an end to
kidnapping of civilians, security for all United States citizens
working in Haiti; the establishment of security throughout Haiti in
order to enable all candidates to campaign for office safely; plans to
provide security at all polling places; plans to ensure security for
United States and international election monitors; fair trials or
release for all persons in Haiti who are being detained without trial;
and respect for internationally recognized human rights.
Mr. Chairman, until all candidates for office can travel safely
throughout Haiti, they cannot be expected to campaign for office. Until
American citizens can travel to Haiti without risking their lives, they
cannot be expected to monitor the Haitian elections. And until the
people of Haiti can walk outside of their homes in peace, they cannot
expect to vote.
Mr. Chairman, we are fiddling while Rome is burning. Haiti is in an
absolute mess. The police officers, many of them are corrupt who were
rebels, who were part of the coup d'etat, who were in exile before this
interim government took over, are now executing members of the Lavalos
Party, are basically killing folks who belong to the party that will
likely prevail if there are elections. This violence must stop.
This Congress must send a message to CARICOM and everybody else that
we will not support elections in this atmosphere. We should stop this
madness and help to stabilize Haiti.
Point of Order
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment proposes to state a legislative position.
Mr. Chairman, for that reason I would insist on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his interpretation
of what I am attempting to do here. I do not know what law the
gentleman is referring to. There is no law that would have us dictate
when elections are to take place in Haiti. There is no law that we
would be in violation of by not using our influence to make those
elections happen.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is
being driven by Mr. Noriega at the State Department because they have
helped to create this chaos in Haiti with the removal of the
democratically elected
[[Page H5343]]
president, and this democratically elected president will probably not
be able to return to Haiti. That is not a problem. That is not
something that anybody should worry about.
What we should be concerned about is why they are insisting on
holding these elections in this atmosphere of violence, corruption, and
complete chaos in Haiti. So I do not think the gentleman is referring
to any law that he can reasonably point to that we are in violation of.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)
proposes to express a legislative sentiment of the Congress.
As such, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is
not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
limitation on funds relating to attendance of Federal employees at
conferences occurring outside the United States
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more
than 50 employees of a Federal department or agency at any
single conference occurring outside the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Members from either side of the aisle may disagree exactly how we got
to the point we are, in general, and that is that our deficit is too
high and that we spend too much money. But I think we can both agree on
one thing, that we should work together to try to solve that problem.
I am offering, therefore, today what I consider is a commonsense
approach to deal with a spending abuse. It is an approach that this
House agreed to in similar legislation in the past.
In essence, it is a limitation on the number of Federal employees
that may go overseas to international conferences. This has grown out
of a growing tendency in the past by various administrations for
sending various numbers to international conferences, spending upwards
of millions of dollars. Back in 2004, for example, over 130 Federal
employees attended an AIDS conference in Thailand.
{time} 2015
Instead of spending all this money on sending personnel over there,
instead we could have used it, in fact, to provide AIDS prevention and
AIDS medicine; 216,000 newborns in Africa alone.
So this legislation grows out of a common problem in the past. Just
sending too many people overseas, using taxpayers' dollars to do so.
Earlier in this session we had similar language which was approved by
this House in the Interior bill, and I would encourage my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to approve it now in this legislation as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
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.
I do not intend to oppose the amendment, but simply to say that I am
willing to accept this amendment at this time and will revisit this and
consider this, of course, in the conference.
But I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this issue to our
attention, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I just want to take this time to thank the chairman for his work this
time, as well as in the past, to visit this issue through the
conference process. So I thank the gentleman for accepting 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 New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Capuano
Mr. CAPUANO. 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. Capuano:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
authorization to use all necessary means to stop genocide in Darfur,
Sudan
Sec. __. Consistent with the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the President is
authorized to use all necessary means to stop genocide in
Darfur, Sudan.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What this amendment does is it authorizes the President to use all
necessary means to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
Before I start, I would like to comment very clearly that I know that
the gentleman from Arizona has been very active on this issue and has
been very supportive, understanding the rules and the difficulties they
present. I respect the position he has to take tonight, but I also want
to make it clear that I consider him a friend on this issue.
For those who do not know, the genocide in Darfur has been clearly
documented. This Congress declared it a genocide in July of 2004. In
September of 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated: ``genocide
has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the
Janjaweed bear responsibility.''
This Congress has passed enough money, I think it totals about over
$400 million already, for the African Union Mission and the
humanitarian relief in Sudan. We have done our job. The United States
has supported financially and morally. The African Union has also
stepped up. The African Union, in April of 2004, created a Cease-Fire
Commission. They do not have the mandate to protect civilians, however,
and that is the major problem. They do have 2,600 troops on the ground
right now, but the job is not being done. In May they announced that
they are going to send 7,700 troops to Darfur between July and
September. NATO, the EU, and the United States are all supporting that
effort.
Finally, the United Nations itself has taken action. Six resolutions
have passed the Security Council to bring an end to the violence.
Unfortunately, all of these efforts have failed to date. The violence
has already claimed the lives of 400,000 people, and it is getting
worse. For those who do not understand the concept of 400,000, that is
the entire population of Oakland, California or Mesa, Arizona or Tulsa,
Oklahoma or Omaha, Nebraska or Minneapolis, Minnesota. The violence has
created 200,000 refugees and it has displaced 2 million people. That is
the entire population of New Mexico.
What is going on in Sudan is a tragedy. The United States, I believe,
has a moral obligation to step up and do whatever we can to stop this
genocide. We have done it in other places for other reasons. We have
failed to do it in other places for other reasons. We should not fail
to do it here.
The government of Khartoum is a genocidal regime. They have
demonstrated this policy again and again in every segment of their
country. Reports of the fighting and the killing are getting worse, and
this regime remains in power this whole time. We need to stand up and
take some action.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H5344]]
Point of Order
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment, but before I do so, let me say to the gentleman that I fully
concur with what he is attempting to do here. I have been to Darfur. I
went with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), and we have seen
some of the terrible things going on there. There is no question about
it. We need to do everything we can to stop this. And I believe that
our legislation does do a lot of that. For one thing, we have $69
million in the legislation for the assistance to Darfur for
humanitarian assistance as well as other moneys to implement the peace
accords in the south.
But, Mr. Chairman, this is a very broad amendment, and for that
reason I must make a point of order against the amendment because it
does propose to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an
appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
That rule states in pertinent part that:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law, modifies existing powers and duties.'' This
does that, and for that reason it would not be in order.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from
Massachusetts for spending some time to discuss the genocide that is
currently occurring in Darfur. He and I understand that the
administration does currently have the authorization to take steps, and
with his help and with the help of the Chair, I hope we can continue to
keep this issue on the tops of our agenda so that the world does not
actually watch what is going on without taking all appropriate action,
and I want to thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language
conferring authority. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla
Mr. BONILLA. 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. Bonilla:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Limitation on use of funds by the Export-Import Bank of the United
States
Sec. 601. Of the amounts provided in title I, under the
heading ``Export-Import Bank of the United States--
administrative expenses'', not more than $66,200,000 may be
expended while there is a vacancy in position of the head of
the Office of Inspector General in the Export-Import Bank of
the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would do something very simple, and that is it would
withhold 10 percent of administrative costs at the Ex-Im Bank until
there is an Inspector General in place.
As we all know, Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the
export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. A by-
product of this, of course, is the creation of U.S. jobs and the
support of U.S. manufacturers. But all too often, it seems that the Ex-
Im Bank is content to conduct operations in the shadows in a
questionable manner. There appears to be a lack of official guidance in
how credit worthiness is determined. There appears to be a lack of
official guidance addressing the small business requirements that
Congress has mandated. And more disturbing also is that we ask
questions and we get no answers.
People empower us to keep an eye on these expenditures, and they are
not being open with Members of Congress. All too simple questions
sometimes that are set on basic policy either go unanswered or answered
without any substantive information.
For example, in March of this year, I sent a letter to the Ex-Im Bank
that, among other things, asked: ``Under what circumstances does EX-IM
permit its employees to share information about an ongoing
investigation with third parties? The bank has acknowledged that they
received my letter. The Director of Legislative Affairs replied that my
concerns have been forwarded to the Office of General Counsel, and the
General Counsel's office has acknowledged receipt of the letter, but
yet the questions remain unanswered. Obviously, their inability to
answer basic questions on policy raises a concern that the bank may be
operating subjectively and without internal policies or controls to
prevent waste, fraud, or abuse.
This agency has existed far too long and with far too great an
expense to the taxpayer to not have an Inspector General keeping an eye
on it. It is time that this agency provide taxpayers with the assurance
that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent wisely. It is time
the Ex-Im respects the role that this body plays in keeping an eye on
them and an oversight on this agency, which is very important.
I ask the chairman for his support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but
I will not oppose it.
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.
Let me just say that I think the gentleman's amendment is one that we
can accept. The administration has requested $1 million to pay for an
Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Export-Import Bank in addition
to the $73 million that they have for regular administrative expenses.
For the past few years, the committee has not recommended separate
funding for an Inspector General because we felt the bank was small. It
only had 400 employees. The bank uses a private accounting firm to
audit its books so a main function of the proposed IG is already being
met.
Nonetheless, I understand the frustration that the gentleman from
Texas has shown here this evening and has expressed. The bank should be
responsive to the needs of U.S. exporters; so I do not intend to oppose
the amendment.
I do want to say, however, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Texas
that I am concerned about what might be the unintended side
consequences of this amendment. The U.S. Export-Import Bank is not able
to control the nomination and confirmation process of the Inspector
General, as we know. That comes from the White House, the President; so
they cannot have any control over that. And without doubt it would
penalize U.S. exporters and the bank itself if there were a delay
through no fault at the bank in nominating and confirming the Inspector
General.
So I intend to work in conference to ensure that the bank is not
unintentionally harmed with respect to the support that it gives to
U.S. exporters, and I am sure that that would be the intention of the
gentleman from Texas as well.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the chairman's support of my amendment and acknowledge
his very thoughtful remarks. I would, however, point out that private
accounting is not independent because they answer to the Ex-Im chairman
and not the public. So, again, we are looking for answers. The public
empowers us to keep an eye on how these funds are allocated, and they
need to have the sun shine on them a little more, and the Inspector
General would do that because obviously they are not being responsive
at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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 Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
[[Page H5345]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee
Mr. INSLEE. 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. Inslee:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Limitation on use of funds by the Export-Import Bank
Sec. 601. Of the total amount made available in this Act to
the Export-Import Bank of the United States for the extension
of credit for transactions related to energy projects, the
Bank shall use--
(1) not more than 95 percent for transactions related to
fossil fuel projects; and
(2) not less than 5 percent for transactions related to
renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our amendment seeks to improve our investment internationally in
renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. There is a
certain irony that while this amendment comes to the floor of the House
now, the President is addressing the Nation about the Iraq War right
now, a war in the middle of an oil-producing region that the world is
largely dependent upon to sustain its economy. The instability of that
region in and of itself ought to point out the need to use the Export-
Import Bank to encourage the development not of the fossil fuel energy
sources but renewable energy sources and energy efficiency standards.
So our amendment would simply say that we have to use at least 5
percent of our energy products in renewable energy projects so we do
not have to remain dependent on fossil fuel.
A couple of things that have happened to indicate the wisdom of this:
In the last couple of weeks, oil has topped $60 a barrel. And since
dinosaurs went to die in the Mid East, that is where the oil is. We
have to break our dependence on oil internationally from any source.
Secondly, we have seen the effort by the Chinese government-owned oil
company to buy a domestic United States producer as a precursor, a
predecessor, of future disputes over this resource that we are now
largely dependent on. We need to break our addiction to oil. We need to
get serious about renewable energy.
And the third fact that has happened in the last several weeks is
that we have learned that the debate about global warming is over.
Debating whether or not global warming is occurring in large part or
significant part during human activity is like now debating gravity.
And just two facts that I hope that some Members who may be listening
tonight may consider: A picture here of a glacier in Antarctica over a
several-month period, showing a block of ice breaking off the
Antarctic, 26 miles by 11 miles in width, breaking off, a phenomenon
that is now occurring with, if not regularity, more frequency now as an
indication of global warming.
I noticed seeing in the newspaper yesterday tourism is booming in
Alaska because tourists say they want to see Alaska before it melts. We
are now seeing with our own eyes the symptoms of global warming across
our hemisphere. We need to do something about it.
{time} 2030
The science behind that, this is not just anecdotal. I would ask
anyone when they think about energy sources to consider the fact that
carbon dioxide now is at levels that we have never seen before in the
history of the planet.
I refer you to a chart which shows the changes in CO2 levels and
temperature levels that have occurred on the globe over the last
several thousand years. This chart basically shows that while there
have been changes in the last several hundred thousand years, we have
never seen spikes of carbon dioxide, the major global warming gas, like
we have now.
Here is the present. We show that our carbon dioxide levels, over
376,000 parts per million, are the highest ever in global history since
we have been able to ascertain, even looking at the trapped air bubbles
at historical levels thousands of feet down in the glaciers.
What we see is the prediction, Mr. Chairman, that if this Nation and
the world does not become serious about renewable and clean energy,
those levels will spike to unprecedented levels, up to 980,000 parts
per million by 2100. In the next century, we will have carbon dioxide
levels, by 2100, three times higher than they have ever been in the
history of the world, at least for several hundred thousand years.
We have to get serious about this issue. Our amendment would be one
small step. I would like to pass it tonight. We will not, because a
point of order has been raised against it. But I hope this is one small
moment when Members can think that the next time we have an opportunity
to get serious about global warming or respond to the needs of our
grandkids, do not let this happen to this great Earth.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me just advise Members that might be listening that
we are coming to the close of the end of the discussion here this
evening and to the amendments, and I believe that we will be having
votes in a very short period of time. I think the discussion that we
have had here today, this evening, has been one that has been
productive and I think has highlighted a number of the issues in
foreign policy.
The foreign operations legislation appropriation bill is one which
uniquely allows us to cover a broad range of foreign policy issues and
allows the Congress of the United States to have its input on issues
and give direction to the administration, as well as to other agencies,
about how foreign policy should be conducted.
I think that some of the amendments which have been accepted here
tonight have helped to strengthen the legislation that we have, and I
think that the others that have not been accepted and will be voted on
are ones that I hope will be defeated on the floor when it comes time
to cast votes on these amendments.
So I would urge my colleagues to restrain themselves here at this
late hour, and I believe that we can very quickly come to a conclusion
on the bill and be able to conclude deliberations of this bill very
quickly.
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 132, after line 13, insert the following:
Limitation on Use of Funds to Reduce Outlays for the Return of
Darfurian Refugees
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used to return displaced persons from Chad to Sudan.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the text of my amendment be read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order
against the amendment.
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.
[[Page H5346]]
Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman. I want to
acknowledge the work that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has
done and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has done on the
Darfur crisis as relates to the refugees; and I hope that maybe as we
discuss this matter, I can work with the distinguished gentleman and
the distinguished gentlewoman on conference language that responds to
my concern.
We originally had this amendment include the words ``not against
their will.'' The reason, Mr. Chairman, is that in the time that I
spent in Chad with the refugees that have been resettled in Chad, I saw
that the crisis in Darfur and the surrounding border areas between
Sudan and Chad still exist.
We have made great strides in providing resources to the region; but
as I traveled to Chad and met with the leadership of Chad, they talked
about the enormous challenges that they are presently having with their
refugees and the refugees from Sudan and the need for resources. At the
same time as I talked one on one to the refugees that were there, they
expressed to me that the brutality was still going on.
Of course, in Chad we find that there is a lack of sufficient water,
adequate medical supplies, and, of course, the possibility that the
Janjaweed will come across the border and raid them at will. But at the
same time, these refugees were frightened about the possibility of
being returned to Sudan because the Government of Chad may be
overwhelmed with the resources needed to protect them.
I believe, of course, that we can help provide the resources to Chad
needed to protect those refugees, and the United Nations refugee
resettlement effort was very much in force and very much an effective
tool.
But as we know, the genocidal regime in Sudan has left 2.5 million
people displaced and at least 380,000 people dead in Darfur. We also
know that there is a continuing number of refugees that have come
across the border.
Due to increasing violence, 15,000 innocent civilians continue to die
each month. Genocide cannot continue on our watch. The United States
must move forward towards an effective action against this terrible
crime.
We are gratified that this Congress voted on a genocide initiative
and declared that genocide was occurring. The United Nations, of
course, has had a more difficult time dealing with that question. But
we know that genocide has occurred. We know that these refugees are
fleeing for a very important reason. The United Nations Secretary
General has described the situation in Darfur as ``a little short of
hell on Earth,'' and expert John Prendergast calls it ``Rwanda in slow
motion.''
Under cover of a decade-long civil war that has claimed 2 million
Sudanese lives, the government-backed Janjaweed continues their
campaign to wipe out communities of African tribal farmers who live in
the region.
I understand that there have been changes in the Sudanese Government.
In Chad, I met with the Sudanese ambassador. I have met with the
Sudanese ambassador, to the dismay of many here in the United States,
trying to find common ground.
I want to applaud the work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) and the Committee on International Relations and the Committee
on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs, that has looked at this question and has fought
it with great, great perseverance. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Jackson) provided additional dollars.
But I want to make sure that any Darfurian refugee that is in Chad is
not forced to leave for any economic reason. Of course, we need more
dollars to help Chad, more support of the United Nations Commissioner
on Human Rights and Refugees. But we also need to ensure that resources
here by this appropriation do not force anyone to go back to a place
where they do not want to go.
Some refugees may want to go back. When I met with them one on one,
they talked about their cattle being destroyed, they talked about there
being no place for them, their villages had been destroyed. We looked
and spoke with the African Union at the aerial footage that would show
how large villages had been destroyed, so there is not much for them to
return to.
I want to be able to say that we are working at all ends, the
declaration of genocide, the negotiations with Sudan to stop the
violence and stop the devastating destruction of these individuals in
Sudan and stop the fleeing from Sudan.
But now that we are in the predicament that we are in, which is
380,000, up to 400,000 and growing, refugees in Chad, we want to make
sure that there is no fear, no, if you will, requirement, no demand, no
shuttling. Refugees who do not want to go back, they should not have to
go.
Let me say this as well: if you speak to the women and the children
that I had a chance to speak to, I can only say that tears would come
to your eyes, the raping, the brutalization, the fear, the
apprehension. I would ask my colleagues to consider an amendment that
simply wants to give to those who are in fear of their lives the
opportunity not to return if they desire not to return.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to preclude the use of funds
made available in this act to force repatriation of Darfurian refugees
from the Republic of Chad back to Darfur, Sudan against their will.
This act could be deemed authorized under Section 12 of the Sudan Peace
Act as an effort to assist the African Union in its peacekeeping
efforts; however, it could prove detrimental or deadly for many
Darfurians.
I traveled to the Republic of Chad last April and saw the devastation
and suffering first-hand by the Sudanese refugees. They lack sufficient
water, adequate medical supplies, and protection from Janjaweed militia
who raid them at will.
As many of you know, the genocidal regime in Sudan has left 2.5
million people displaced and at least 380,000 people dead in the
Darfur. Due to increasing violence, 15,000 innocent civilians continue
to die each month. Genocide cannot continue on our watch; the United
States must move toward effective action against this most terrible
crime. The United Nations Secretary General has described the situation
in Darfur as ``little short of hell on earth.'' Expert John Prendergast
calls it ``Rwanda in slow motion.'' Under cover of a decade-long civil
war that has claimed 2 million Sudanese lives, government backed
Janjaweed continue their campaign to wipe out communities of African
tribal farmers who live in the region. The government-backed Janjaweed
are razing villages, systematically raping women and young girls,
abducting children, poisoning water supplies, and destroying sources of
food. Unlike the recent tsunamis in Southeast Asia, the situation in
Darfur is manmade and therefore can be addressed.
In my visit to the region, I had the opportunity to meet with Lt.
General Ansu of the African Union, which is the single peacekeeping
force supported by the United Nations. During the meeting, the general
noted that there is nothing they can do pursuant to the current
mandate. As a result, I recently co-signed a letter, along with other
Congressional Black Caucus members, to the President of Nigeria, Mr.
Obasanjo, asking him to use his influence as chairman of the African
Union to change the mandate of the AU in Sudan. Additionally, I am also
a co-sponsor of H.R. 1424, ``The Darfur Genocide Accountability Act of
2005.'' H.R. 1424, among other things, also calls for changing the
mandate of the AU. While these are positive steps towards ending the
genocide, they are clearly not enough.
In addition to my visit with Lt. General Ansu, I also had the
opportunity to visit refugee camps and spoke with many of the refugees
regarding what they have seen. According to them, many of the women and
young girls have been raped, and many of the men have been violently
murdered. Furthermore, water and food supplies have been completely
destroyed making it impossible for many to survive.
The time has come for the United States to take a substantive role in
curtailing this situation. I ask that my colleagues support the
Jackson-Lee amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I understand the Parliamentarian has made a
decision that this would be in order, and, therefore, I would withdraw
my reservation.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sure what the gentlewoman is
attempting to accomplish here, what the purpose of offering this
amendment is. The only funds that would be affected by this, the only
funds that we have in the bill that affect refugees is that we provide
for the UNHCR, that is, the United Nations High Commissioner on
Refugees.
[[Page H5347]]
I think it is quite apparent that when it comes to Darfur and the
Sudan, the UNHCR would not support any kind of program of resettlement
of refugees that had been, not displaced, but they are refugees that go
from one place to another. Refugees that fled from Sudan into Chad,
they would not support any program of resettling them back in Sudan if
there were not a comprehensive peace settlement that would allow them
to be resettled.
The effect of the gentlewoman's amendment would be to stop assistance
for such an important program if there was to be a peace settlement
that was to be achieved and everybody in Darfur and Sudan were to agree
on it. I cannot believe that is what the gentlewoman really intends,
because what she would be doing is taking a terrible human tragedy and
simply compounding it and making it a much worse human tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentlewoman would reconsider this
amendment, because I do not believe that its intent is what she intends
to do. Let me just make it clear, it would limit all money going to
UNHCR for resettlement if there were a peace agreement in Darfur. If
there were a peace agreement, we would want nothing more than to be
able to return those refugees from Chad back to Darfur. I cannot
believe that is what the gentlewoman intended.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman very much for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, if I might engage the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona, I think the amendment can be interpreted in the way the
gentleman has offered, but I think it can be interpreted in the way I
have offered it. The problem is as we visited, first of all I want to
thank Chad for what it has offered to the refugees and, of course,
refugee resettlement efforts with the United Nations, where Chad is
hosting the United Nations and welcoming them for the many refugee
camps that are there.
But there is a terrible economic burden on Chad as well, and this is
simply language that suggests that we are monitoring or ensuring that
our funds are being used to, in fact, provide for those refugees who
are in fear of their lives.
Now, I would be happy if the gentleman would work with me to include
this in report language, so that we would have at least that protection
from what might happen or what might be thought of or what might cause,
if you will, some sort of pressure to return those refugees because of
the economic imbalance. When we were there, though Chad was very
hospitable, and all of us have gone to Chad and gone through Chad to go
to Sudan, but if, for example, the financial burden became so
extensive, then there might be some pressure, Mr. Chairman.
{time} 2045
So I would hope that we find common ground to realize that it is a
concern. I would not have brought it to the floor if it was not. I
think it is an important point to make, that we understand the
brutality that these refugees have experienced, and because they have
experienced such devastation, we want to cross the T's and dot the I's.
So that was the explanation I wanted to make. If I can work to get a
commitment on precise report language, which I think answers the
concern, then I think that that is a way of addressing a definitive
concern that I saw, and I think it is real, and I think my
interpretation clarifies that it is not in any way undermining the
funding for the U.N. Refugee Resettlement Program, but it is to make
clear that even if there is an economic burden on the host country; in
this instance, Chad, and again, I repeat, I thank them for their
hospitality to these refugees. They should be, as we have supported
their efforts, but there would not be that intent to resettle these
refugees beyond the time of them wanting to go back, or for those who
do not want to go back.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know the chairman's
clear concern and commitment to focus on the severe issues in Darfur,
and I certainly would be delighted to work with the chairman to see if
we can come up with some report language that would clarify the intent
of the gentlewoman from Texas' concerns as expressed in this amendment.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I understand then what the gentlewoman from
Texas is suggesting. Certainly, none of us would want to require forced
repatriation of people from Chad back to Sudan. That is certainly not
what any of us would want. But this amendment, as it is drafted, would
be overly broad and would simply not allow us to do any kind of program
that would help to resettle refugees that have fled from Darfur to
return them to their homes, and I know that is not what the gentlewoman
desires.
So, therefore, I agree with the point she is making, and we are
certainly willing to work with her when we get to conference and the
statement of manager's intentions in conference to work on language
that will make it clear that we would oppose any kind of forcible
repatriation of refugees from one country to the other.
If that is acceptable, I would hope the gentlewoman would then
withdraw this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for a concluding
statement.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me try to understand the
gentleman. I guess we differ whether it is overbroad, but I am
welcoming of the gentleman's generous offer, in understanding that he
would work with me on report language that helps us not have forced
repatriation back to Sudan.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from New York would
continue to yield to me, the House report for the House bill is
completed, but in conference, yes, we could work on language in
conference.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from New
York would continue to yield, that is the clarity that I was trying to
secure.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has expired.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has remaining time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I am completed with my remarks and I am
prepared to yield back the balance of my time, if the gentlewoman is
prepared to withdraw the 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, with that kind of offer and
the understanding that the amendment was drafted to ensure that we did
not have the forcing of refugees to return, I will look forward to
working with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) to have language in conference
on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. 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. Hefley:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
reduction in total appropriations
Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act (other than
appropriations required to be made by a provision of law) are
hereby reduced by $202,700,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5348]]
Mr. Chairman, this is no surprise to anyone. I rise again today to
offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriation
bill by 1 percent, 1 cent on the dollar. This amounts to $202.7
million.
I have offered this kind of an amendment on a number of these bills,
and it is because I feel so strongly about the need for us to come to a
balanced budget which we once had, and we have gotten very far away
from.
The committee has done a good job in the sense that the amount of
this bill is $2.5 billion less than what the administration called for.
However, it is still an increase of $750 million over last year's
Foreign Operations budget.
My sense is that if you do not have the money, you do not spend more
than last year. That is the situation we are in right now. I will not
go into this whole thing; I simply encourage an ``aye'' vote on behalf
of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today already cuts the President's
request, and the gentleman from Colorado has mentioned this; it cuts
the President's request by $2.6 billion. That is 11 percent, and that
is the largest cut in terms of any of the appropriation bills that we
have had on the floor or will have on the floor this year.
We have cut all of the fat I think, and then some, from this bill. I
am sure everybody can find something that they do not like, but there
are a lot of programs that I think are very valuable that did not get
funded in this because of the 11 percent cut over the President's
request that we had, certainly things that the President thought were
important and should be done.
I think if my colleagues were to peruse the bill, they would see that
there is a $1.4 billion dollar cut from the President's account for the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. That has been a priority of the
President and mine in this bill. We have cut all of the new programs
that the President requested. We zeroed out the Global Environmental
Facility. We withheld 25 percent of the funds from the World Bank and
conditioned funds of the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS until detailed
reforms are met.
So this is a fiscally conservative bill of which I am very proud, and
I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment that is offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for every
one of the cuts that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) mentioned,
and they have done a good job where that is concerned, but I still hope
we will get a positive vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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 Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. 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. Loretta Sanchez of California:
Page 132, after line 13, insert the following:
limitation on International Military Education and Training assistance
for Vietnam
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act under
the heading ``international military education and training''
may be used to provide assistance for Vietnam.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order, and I do so
until we have had a chance to see the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta
Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I intend to withdraw this amendment, and the gentleman from Arizona
(Chairman Kolbe) has been kind enough to agree to engage in a colloquy
with me on the issue of International Military Education and Training,
or IMET, funding for Vietnam.
I strongly support the IMET program. Sitting on the Committee on
Armed Services, I understand that it is a vital tool for furthering
regional security cooperation and promoting United States interests
overseas.
Vietnam held off on agreeing to participate in the IMET program for
quite a while because they were concerned about scrutiny of their human
rights record, and those concerns are well-founded. Vietnam is
responsible for a broad range of human rights abuses, including the
repression of ethnic minorities, detention and torture of political
dissidents, and the repression of religious freedom.
The U.S. designated Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' in
2004 because of its violations of religious freedoms. With this
designation, Vietnam joins a club including Burma, China, Iran, and
North Korea.
So, should the United States provide IMET for these countries? Why
should Vietnam be any different?
The Vietnamese military has reportedly been involved in numerous
cases of human rights violations, including violence and brutal
suppression of the peaceful Montagnard people in demonstrations in
April of 2004.
Providing humanitarian assistance to a country is one thing.
Establishing trade relations is yet another. But military assistance
such as IMET requires an even higher standard. Why would we want to
establish military relations with a repressive regime, one in which our
potential counterparts are directly involved in that repression? I
think Vietnam should not be eligible for IMET assistance until it has
demonstrated a willingness to treat all its citizens with the
fundamental dignity and respect that they deserve.
Can the chairman provide me with assurances that Vietnam's human
rights record and the record of its military in particular will be
taken into consideration as part of Vietnam's eligibility for IMET
funding?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, first, I withdraw the reservation of the
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I appreciate the gentlewoman's
concern about the human rights situation in Vietnam. I share those
concerns, and I believe our foreign policy should stress its
importance.
I can assure the gentlewoman that improved relations between the
United States and Vietnam, particularly in the area of military
relations, will not ignore our objectives for improved human rights
protection in that country. However, I do not wish to make engagement
through IMET contingent on a specific action by the Vietnamese. I think
it could have very well the opposite effect if we were to do that.
One purpose of IMET funds is to provide English language instruction
to the Vietnamese military. In a fundamental way, it thus serves as a
tool to give the Vietnamese military exposure to U.S. instructors, to
professionalism, to progressive ideas, and to the role of the military
in civil society. IMET would promote mutual understanding and provide
an additional context for the Vietnamese to understand how important it
is for the United States to see improvements in human rights. Besides
providing this context for understanding, I believe that IMET for
Vietnam will help us address transnational issues such as
counterterrorism and counternarcotics and contribute to greater
security and regional stability in Southeast Asia.
[[Page H5349]]
I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue and look forward to
working with her in the future on this.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
I thank the gentleman for his interest in the issue, and I am glad to
hear that our policy towards Vietnam will not ignore human rights
objectives. I sincerely appreciate the chairman taking the time with
this important matter.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
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 132, after line 13, insert the following:
limitation on military assistance in contravention of the child
soldiers protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act under
the heading ``international military education and training''
or ``foreign military financing program'' may used in
contravention of the child soldiers protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) 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.
I have worked on this issue for a long time, and I hope to be able to
withdraw this amendment and engage the chairman in a colloquy.
I think all of us are reminded of the terrible wars in Liberia,
Sierra Leone, and Rwanda. And, in addition to the enormity of the loss
of life, one of the most troubling and very sad aspects was the use of
child soldiers. In fact, even now, there are programs on the continent
of Africa to restore the childhood to these children, children who had
guns instead of soccer balls or basketballs or baseballs; children who
had guns instead of sitting in classrooms and learning about science
and math and the study of the stars.
So, it is unfortunate that even today, in 2005, we find the fact that
child soldiers are still utilized. They are utilized in places like
Burma, in the Republic of the Congo, and other places where wars arise.
I would think in this day and time of terrorism, we know that child
soldiers are being used as terrorists around the world.
On June 18, 2002, the U.S. Senate gave unanimous consent to U.S.
ratification of the Child Soldiers Protocol which was the optional
protocol to the convention on the rights of children on the involvement
of children in armed conflict.
{time} 2100
This decision meant that the United States would not put anyone under
the age of 18 in combat, nor would we approve or sanction any such
activity. However, despite that fact, there are many nations throughout
the world that sign and ratify the protocol. The problem of children
being put into combat situations is still prevalent in many regions of
the world. Despite gains in awareness and better understanding of
practical policies that can help reduce the use of children in war, the
practice persists; and globally the number of child soldiers, about
300,000, is believed to remain fairly constant.
In some continued armed conflicts, child recruitment increased
alarmingly. And I have cited some of the countries where they are being
used to fight wars, boys and girls, which is enormously tragic. They
have even been used as laborers and sexual slaves. We know that the
governments of Burma, Burundi, the DRC, Liberia, and Sudan and other
governments have used children to fight wars. Burma's National Army
alone includes an estimated 70,000 child soldiers, which is nearly one
quarter of the world's total and routinely sends children as young as
12 into battle against armed ethnic opposition groups.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this Congress would go on record in
some manner. Even as this amendment may be subject to a point of order,
I believe it was worthy of our discussion that we oppose the use of
children as soldiers. We have certainly opposed violent conflicts
around the world and we wish to promote peace; but we will do
everything we can to ensure that our children of the world, the ones
who can be leaders for peace if given half the chance, if given the
chance to live in a free and open society where they can be children
and learn to be the best that they can be, I would hope that these
children would not be put to the test of fighting in battles.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my Amendment to this Foreign
Operations Appropriation bill, which states that none of the funds made
available in this Act under the heading ``INTERNATIONAL MILITARY
EDUCATION AND TRAINING'' or ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'' may
be used in contravention of the child soldiers protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child. The nations known to use child
soldiers do not deserve military assistance from our nation.
On June 18, 2002 the U.S. Senate gave unanimous consent to U.S.
ratification of the child soldiers protocol, which was the optional
protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
involvement of children in armed conflict. This decision meant that the
United States would not put anyone under the age of eighteen in combat.
However, despite that fact that many nations throughout the world
signed and ratified the protocol, the problem of children being put
into combat situations is still prevalent in many regions of the world.
Despite gains in awareness and better understanding of practical
policies that can help reduce the use of children in war, the practice
persists and globally, the number of child soldiers--about 300,000--is
believed to have remained fairly constant. In some continuing armed
conflicts, child recruitment increased alarmingly. In Northern Uganda,
abduction rates reached record levels in late 2002 and 2003 as over
8,000 boys and girls were forced by the Lord's Resistance Army to
become soldiers, laborers, and sexual slaves. In the neighboring
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where all parties to the armed
conflict recruit and use children, some as young as seven, the forced
recruitment of children increased so dramatically in late 2002 and
early 2003 that observers described the fighting forces as ``armies of
children.''
However, it is not just non-governmental armed opposition groups who
continue to use children to fight wars. Governments including those in
Burma, Burundi, the DRC, Liberia, Sudan, and Ugandan have continued to
recruit and use children in armed conflict. Burma's national army alone
includes an estimated 70,000 child soldiers, which is nearly one-
quarter of the world's total and routinely sends children as young as
twelve into battle against armed ethnic opposition groups. Both Uganda
and the DRC have ratified the optional protocol, but flout their
obligations by using child soldiers. The Ugandan People's Defense Force
has recruited children who escaped or were captured from the rebel
Lord's Resistance Army, and has trained and deployed children recruited
into local defense units. The government of DRC maintains children in
its ranks despite a 2000 presidential decree calling for the
demobilization of child soldiers.
While none of these nations are specifically targeted to receive any
military assistance in this Appropriation, it is important that this
amendment is passed so that a message against the use of child soldiers
is sent throughout the world. Regardless of how unlikely it is that
such funding may ever take place, we as a nation can not allow even the
slightest possibility that taxpayer money may go to pay for military
assistance to other nations who continue to use child soldiers. It is
also important to note that these military assistance funds do not
cover any humanitarian assistance, only funds under the International
Military Education and Training and Foreign Military Financing
Programs. It's a travesty that here in America we talk of holding our
children above all else, but around the world children are being used
as tools for war. I urge support for the Jackson-Lee Amendment to
prohibit military assistance to nations that continue to use child
soldiers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. I hope this
will not be necessary. I think the gentlewoman's concern is certainly a
very real one. None of us want to see child
[[Page H5350]]
soldiers. None of us want to see this kind of child labor and abuses of
children. And I would hope that this is a priority as far as I think
the United States policy is concerned. I think the United Nations
agencies, I think all of them have this as a policy. But I just would
hope that the gentlewoman, we will continue to work with her on the
right language here. But I hope the gentlewoman would withdraw this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I might, to the gentleman,
I would simply say I would like to work with the Chair and the ranking
member. Again, I would like to call on your good graces to look at
language during conference and work with you and have the language that
is appropriate and of course acceptable to all of us and acceptable to
the Chair and the ranking member.
I do think that silence on child soldiers is not helpful because
there is continued recruitment, and so I would like to withdraw the
amendment. I would like to yield to the gentleman, just to say can we
work together on it.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, she has the
assurance of the chairman that we will work with her on language in
conference that would address this issue. I obviously cannot commit
with the Senate exactly how that language would be worded, but
certainly we will take this issue to the Congress, and we will work on
language in the report language for the conference.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman and
let me ask and thank the chairman for his reservation of point of
order. But let me thank him for entering into a discussion on this
matter and allowing me to discuss it and bringing it to the attention
of my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 6 by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), amendment by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Beauprez), amendment by the gentleman New York (Mr. Weiner),
amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), amendment by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), amendment by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 234, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 329]
AYES--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Ford
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--234
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Cox
Doolittle
Hayes
Hinojosa
Kingston
Lynch
McIntyre
McKinney
Ortiz
Ross
{time} 2127
Mrs. NORTHUP and Messrs. BACA, KENNEDY of Rhode Island and HOSTETTLER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TANCREDO and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 329, had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
[[Page H5351]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Beauprez
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez)
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 327,
noes 98, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 330]
AYES--327
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--98
Ackerman
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (FL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Dreier
Ehlers
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillmor
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hobson
Holt
Honda
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Olver
Oxley
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (KY)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherwood
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--8
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Hayes
Kingston
Lynch
McIntyre
Ortiz
Ross
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2136
Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. NORTHUP
and Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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 293,
noes 132, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 331]
AYES--293
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
[[Page H5352]]
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norwood
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--132
Aderholt
Allen
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Dreier
Ehlers
Etheridge
Everett
Foley
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Granger
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
Mica
Mollohan
Murphy
Murtha
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Stark
Sweeney
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Doolittle
Hayes
Kingston
McIntyre
Meehan
Ortiz
Ross
Shays
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2144
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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 313,
noes 114, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 332]
AYES--313
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Drake
Duncan
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--114
Alexander
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bonilla
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Case
Castle
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
DeLay
Dicks
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Etheridge
Feeney
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall
Hart
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Keller
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
McCrery
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Oberstar
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--6
Doolittle
Hayes
Kingston
McIntyre
Ortiz
Ross
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2151
Mr. LEACH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
[[Page H5353]]
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) 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 294,
noes 132, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 333]
AYES--294
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--132
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Biggert
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonilla
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cantor
Capuano
Carson
Carter
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Granger
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherwood
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Stark
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--7
Doolittle
Hayes
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kingston
McIntyre
Ortiz
Ross
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 2158
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 333, I
inadvertently voted ``aye'' when I intended to vote ``no.'' Please have
the Record reflect that I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 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 117,
noes 309, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 334]
AYES--117
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Cardoza
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McHenry
McMorris
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Tiberi
Upton
Walden (OR)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--309
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
[[Page H5354]]
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Doolittle
Hayes
Kingston
McIntyre
Ortiz
Ross
Waters
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 2204
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I am not rising because it happens to be my 19th
wedding anniversary.
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to express my great appreciation for
the fantastic work done by the chairman and the ranking member on this
bill, and for all of us to come together to recognize the birthday of
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. It is a few more than 19, too.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Let us all join in extending happy birthday
wishes to the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006''.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) 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. 3057)
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes, had directed him to report the bill back to the House
with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be
agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 341, the
previous question is ordered.
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 393,
nays 32, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 335]
YEAS--393
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
[[Page H5355]]
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--32
Bartlett (MD)
Berry
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Duncan
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Hefley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Keller
Lucas
Miller (FL)
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Petri
Pombo
Rahall
Rohrabacher
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Stark
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
NOT VOTING--8
Doolittle
Hayes
Kingston
Lewis (CA)
McIntyre
Mollohan
Ortiz
Ross
{time} 2226
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________