[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5972-H5982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2601, FOREIGN RELATIONS
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 365 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 365
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2601) to authorize appropriations for the
Department of State for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on International Relations. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on International Relations now printed in the
bill modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.R.
2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and
2007. It is a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate and
provides for the orderly consideration of 38 separate amendments
specified in the text of the resolution. It is important to note that
the rules made in order the majority of the amendments that were filed,
even some that will be reconsidered here on the floor, and will provide
for a wide-ranging debate on virtually all aspects of U.S. foreign
policy. The rule also ensures that the bill fits within the budget
resolution, thereby also maintaining fiscal discipline within this
year's budget.
H.R. 2601 was reported out of the Committee on International
Relations with a unanimous vote which is a testament to the tremendous
efforts on both sides of the aisle which have gone into this bill. Even
though they have dealt with some of the most controversial issues
before us, this bipartisanship demonstrated in the unanimous vote by
the Committee on International Relations is all that more remarkable
and a testament to the fairness, the professionalism, and the
statesmanship of both the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), as
well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
We will also be joining in an en bloc amendment, further illustrating
their unique efforts in this particular matter.
They are to be commended for demonstrating to the rest of us how
Members can work through differences in a constructive manner to move
legislation forward for the best interest of our country. Indeed, the
Prime Minister of India just a few minutes ago on this floor said there
is much we can do together, and this committee has illustrated they can
do that.
That is not to say there will not be differences of opinions or views
on some of the matters. The rule which we are considering would provide
for adequate as well as a wide-ranging debate on all sides of different
issues.
The bill, H.R. 2601, is a 2-year authorization for the U.S.
Department of State, their activities and programs. Since 1985, or for
the past 20 years, the foreign assistance authorization measures have
been folded into the State Department authorization legislation. H.R.
2601 continues this pattern. It authorizes for fiscal year 2006 $10.8
billion and $10 billion for 2007. Included in that is $1.5 billion to
fortify U.S. embassies and $690 million to bolster security for
American diplomatic workers abroad.
It was significant that the ranking member did bring before testimony
of the Committee on Rules that this bill fully funds the administration
request for worldwide security for our embassies and our personnel
working abroad. As he illustrated in 2003, one of the terrorist
extremists attacked the British consulate and other British interests
in the city of Istanbul. When interrogated, he said that he considered
the U.S. consulate, but in his terms, even a bird cannot fly in there,
which means that our efforts for security since the tragic bombings in
East Africa in 1998 have had some success.
{time} 1200
This continues on with that particular practice.
$930 million will also be authorized for border security; $67 million
to continue broadcasts into Cuba. The ranking member also illustrated
that once again there is an initiative to disrupt the nuclear black
markets, that this initiative will help prevent nuclear weapons and
weapons technology from getting into the hands of terrorists or rogue
nations which is extremely important for our national security. The
measure also commits new international mechanisms to restrict the trade
in missiles and their components. As the ranking member also pointed
out, Secretary Rice is continuing the practices of Secretary Powell in
trying to reform the Department of State and this bill authorizes
adequate resources for a first-class and well-trained diplomatic
service and diplomatic corps.
These are some of the issues that were brought forth with a plethora
of amendments that were adopted on both sides of the aisle during the
International Relations Committee markup of this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 356 provides for a structured rule and makes in
order the majority of the amendments which were filed in the Rules
Committee. Once again, it is a fair, comprehensive and balanced rule. I
urge its adoption as well as the adoption of the underlying
legislation.
[[Page H5973]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah
for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive
rule. At a time when America's role in international affairs is greater
than it has been in over 60 years, it is reprehensible that the
majority is trying to block all but a select few from offering
amendments to improve the underlying bill.
Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, 70 amendments were
brought to the committee. Seventy amendments, Mr. Speaker. Predictably,
under the rule, barely 50 percent of those amendments were actually
made in order. And of the 39 amendments made in order under the rule,
only nine of them are Democratic amendments. In stark contrast,
Republican Members will be permitted to offer 24 amendments under this
rule, almost three times as many as those on this side of the aisle
will be able to offer. And of those 24 amendments, two are downright
inflammatory and completely unnecessary.
For starters, as public support for the war in Iraq wavers,
Republicans are pulling out every political maneuver they can to regain
the support of the American people for a war that has not uncovered any
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and certainly not made us any safer
today than we were 3 years ago. Later today, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) will offer an amendment in direct contrast
to language that her committee unanimously included in the underlying
legislation regarding the war in Iraq. The bill rightfully urges the
President to develop and provide to Congress a plan for the
establishment of a stable government in Iraq that will permit a
decreased presence. Three years after this war began and 1,700 American
casualties later, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment would provide the
President with the same blank-check, open-ended support that got us
into this mess in the first place. Have we not learned anything?
Additionally, the rule also fails to make in order amendments offered
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley)
regarding Haiti. While I am not 100 percent supportive of any of their
approaches toward bringing about peace and stability in Haiti, doing
nothing should not be an option. Congressional silence in improving the
lives of Haitians and Haitian refugees is completely unacceptable. I am
deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership has blocked the
House from debating the issue today.
Realize, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is generally
a decent bill. As a member of the Helsinki Commission and as the
president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's
parliamentary assembly, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for the bill's
commitment to the United States' role in the OSCE and the OSCE sphere,
including authorizations for OSCE religious tolerance and anti-Semitism
awareness programs.
The underlying legislation includes crackdowns on the trading of
nuclear material on the black market, establishes the Rangel Fellowship
Program to encourage minority recruitment at the State Department,
reexamines our export control laws, reaffirms Congress' position that
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and calls for a crackdown on
terrorist activities in the Gaza strip and West Bank.
Despite all of these positive measures, Mr. Speaker, I am most
concerned about what the bill does not do regarding the Sudan. The
underlying legislation includes a sense of Congress that the United
States should work with the International Criminal Court to bring to
justice those accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against
humanity. I support this provision but am deeply disappointed that
nothing exists in the bill that will actually bring an end to the
genocide in Sudan. When will the United States say enough is enough and
do the right thing to end the heinous act of genocide in Darfur? Our
inaction in Rwanda cost the lives of nearly 1 million and our absence
in Darfur has permitted instability to manifest itself into murder and
ethnic cleansing. I ask, at what point did we decide that the life of
an African is worth less than the life of anyone else? We must place
ending genocide anywhere in the world above anything else. Frankly, the
ignorance in the House about this particular issue is appalling.
Mr. Speaker, when history judges this Congress and this President, we
will be judged not only by what we do during these trying times but
also by what we have neglected. America must act responsibly not only
in helping to facilitate democracy in the world but also in combating
poverty, disease, famine and hunger in the world's poorest countries.
In all of these areas, despite the honest efforts of a few, we are
failing. Blocking Members from offering amendments that speak to these
and many other issues of critical importance to the United States' role
in the world today is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to reject
this restrictive rule and take into account my concerns throughout
consideration of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I
serve on the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
Last night, the Republican leadership decided to refuse this House
the right to debate U.S. policy towards Colombia. Out of 70 amendments
that were submitted to the Rules Committee, only two dealt
substantively with U.S. Colombia policy. I offered an amendment to
match language approved by the Senate that would strengthen the
accountability over U.S. funds for Colombia's demobilization of right-
wing paramilitary forces. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
offered another amendment to ensure that 40 percent of U.S. aid to
Colombia would be used for alternative economic development, human
rights, rule of law and strengthening democratic institutions.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to strengthening democratic
institutions, the Republican leadership certainly does not believe in
teaching the Colombians by example. At the end of June, I stood here on
the House floor during debate on military aid to Colombia and was
criticized by Republicans for not talking about what kind of policy I
stood for. But here we are today taking up a bill that only comes to
the House floor every 2 years and is one of the only bills where an
amendment on U.S. Colombia policy can actually be offered, and both the
Lee and the McGovern amendments are banned from the debate.
Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican leadership has rejected any
attempt to bring some kind of accountability to our policy on Colombia.
Once again, the Republican leadership is serving as the chief apologist
for the Colombian government. When it comes to Colombia, the Republican
leadership continues to engage in a policy of see no evil, hear no evil
and speak no evil. Once again, the House is being asked to look the
other way, to sit down and to shut up, as Colombia moves towards
carrying out what appears to be a deeply flawed plan for demobilizing
the right-wing paramilitary forces, forces that are on the State
Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. The State
Department estimates it will cost about $80 million to carry out the
demobilization. Who do you think the Colombian government is going to
ask to bankroll this process? The American taxpayer, that is who.
Well, before we spend one more single solitary U.S. tax dollar on
this demobilization process, I for one want to make sure that my tax
dollars are not paying for some sweetheart deal for Colombian drug
lords, terrorists and killers to escape extradition to the United
States or serve a couple of years under house arrest at their country
estate. These are the paramilitary masterminds and commanders who have
flooded our streets and our neighborhoods with cocaine and heroin. Yet
on July 1, President Uribe told the Voice of America that their
extradition warrants would have to be suspended. If Colombia wants to
stand in the way of these drug lords facing U.S. justice, then that is
Colombia's decision. They can just do it without U.S. tax dollar
support. I want to make sure that my
[[Page H5974]]
constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are not paying for a process that
will allow paramilitary money laundering and organizational structures
to remain intact so that they can transform themselves into Mafia-like
political, social and criminal networks.
The OAS has denounced the Colombian law on the paramilitary
demobilization. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have
denounced it. The U.N. High Commissioner For Human Rights in Colombia
has raised grave concerns about it. So why, then, Mr. Speaker, is it so
hard for this House to even have a debate over having some
accountability if the Colombian government asks us to fund this
process?
That is all I want, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit of accountability.
Quite frankly, the majority on the Rules Committee and the Republican
leadership should be ashamed of themselves for running away from this
debate and for being complicit in a policy that will very likely end up
protecting drug lords, terrorists, killers and their profits from
facing any kind of genuine justice.
Oppose this rule. Demand that the House be allowed to debate the Lee
and McGovern amendments on Colombia.
[From the New York Times, July 4, 2005]
Colombia's Capitulation
Colombia has just passed a law to demobilize paramilitary
fighters that the government calls the ``Justice and Peace
Law.'' It should be called the ``Impunity for Mass Murderers,
Terrorists and Major Cocaine Traffickers Law.''
Colombia's right-wing paramilitary armies, one party in a
40-year civil war, have massacred thousands of people. They
control 40 percent of Colombia's cocaine exports, and many
paramilitary leaders are wanted for extradition to the United
States. The State Department considers the paramilitaries
terrorists.
The new law, which reflects the paramilitaries'
considerable political power, will block the extradition of
paramilitary leaders wanted for trafficking to the United
States and allow them to continue their drug dealing,
extortion, land theft and other criminal activities
undisturbed. Even those responsible for the most heinous
crimes against humanity may go free because of strict time
limits for prosecutions. The few who are convicted will
likely serve sentences of only 22 months.
Several members of Colombia's Congress proposed a good law
that would have given reduced jail time to paramilitaries who
confessed in full, paid reparations, turned over their
illegal assets and provided authorities with the information
necessary to take apart their criminal gangs. The government
opposed the bill; it didn't pass.
The current law will bring neither justice nor peace. No
confession is required to get the shortened sentences offered
by the law. Paramilitary leaders are supposed to disclose
their illegal assets and describe their criminal
organizations. But there is no credible penalty for lying or
hiding their wealth.
The Bush administration could have pushed President Alvaro
Uribe to pass a good bill. Instead, Ambassador William Wood
enthusiastically backed the new law, giving Washington's
endorsement to Colombia's capitulation to a terrorist mafia.
IACHR ISSUES STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF THE ``LAW OF JUSTICE
AND PEACE'' IN COLOMBIA
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has
been advised of the passing by Congress of the so called
``Law of Justice and Peace'' in the Republic of Colombia.
This legislation, that requires the presidential signature in
order to enter into force, establishes a legal framework for
the demobilization of members of illegal armed groups
involved in the commission of serious crimes against the
civilian population in the context of the armed conflict.
In view of the recent adoption of this bill, the IACHR
makes public its general observations regarding the contents
in light of its mandate to promote the observance and defense
of human rights, as well as the task delegated to it by the
Permanent Council of the Organization of American States
(OAS) in the sense of ``ensuring that the role of the OAS be
completely in accordance with the commitments of the member
states regarding full compliance with human rights and
international humanitarian law'' in the process of dialogue
between the Colombian government and the paramilitary in
Colombia.
In its reports on the general situation of human rights in
the countries of the Hemisphere and on individual cases, the
IACHR has consistently insisted on the states' obligation to
establish adequate mechanisms to achieve truth, justice and
reparation for victims of human rights violations.
Establishing the truth about what happened during the
conflict, searching seriously for justice through the
determination of the responsibility of the perpetrators vis-
a-vis the victims, and the reparation of the damage cause--
far from generating obstacles for the agreements that can
lead to peace building--constitute basic pillars of its
strength.
Regarding the Law of Justice and Peace in Colombia, the
IACHR notes that the determination of the historical truth
regarding what happened during the last few decades of the
conflict does not appear as an objective. Nor does the
determination of who has sponsored paramilitarism or of the
degree of involvement of different participants in the
perpetration of crimes against the civilian population by
action, omission, collaboration or acquiescence.
The adopted bill concentrates upon the mechanisms to
establish individual criminal responsibility in individual
cases and involves demobilized members of illegal armed
groups receiving procedural benefits. However, its provisions
fail to establish incentives for a full confession of the
truth as to their responsibility in exchange for the generous
judicial benefits received. Consequently, the established
mechanism does not guarantee that the crimes perpetrated will
be duly clarified, and therefore in many cases the facts may
not be revealed and the perpetrators will remain unpunished.
The provisions of the law might favor the concealment of
other conduct that, once brought to light at a future date,
could benefit from the same alternative penalties. These
procedural benefits not only reach conduct directly related
to the armed conflict, but also can be invoked regarding the
commission of ordinary crimes such as drug trafficking.
The IACHR also observes that the institutional mechanisms
created by the law to administer justice--in particular the
Prosecutor's National Unit for Justice and Peace, composed of
20 prosecutors--lacks the strength necessary to undertake
effectively the task of prosecuting thousands of massacres,
selective executions, forced disappearances, kidnappings,
tortures, forced displacement and usurpation of lands,
amongst other crimes, committed by several thousand
demobilized individuals during the many years that
paramilitary structures have operated in Colombia. Regarding
the seriousness and complexity of the crimes perpetrated, the
short time limits and procedural stages provided for in the
legal mechanisms to investigate and prosecute the demobilized
individuals benefiting from the law also fail to offer a
realistic alternative to establish individual responsibility
in full measure. This circumstance will prevent the
uncovering of what happened to many of the victims, thus
frustrating the reparations process they are entitled to. The
investigation of serious violations of human rights requires
adequate time limits and the opportunity for necessary
procedural activity.
In terms of the reparation of the damage caused by those
responsible for the commission of heinous crimes, the law
places special emphasis on the restitution of unlawfully
acquired property rather than on the mechanisms that might
serve the full reparation of the victims. Particularly, it
does not provide for specific mechanisms to repair the damage
caused to the social fabric of the indigenous peoples, the
afro-descendant communities, or the displaced women, often
heads of household, who rank among the groups more vulnerable
to violence by the participants in the armed conflict. The
law fails to provide as part of the reparation owed to the
victims, measures directed to preventing the repetition of
the crimes committed, such as disqualification or separation
from official functions of state agents involved by action or
omission.
The IACHR acknowledges that, in such a complex, painful and
prolonged situation as the conflict in Colombia, the
deactivation of the armed participants by means of
negotiation is a priority. However, in order to secure a
lasting peace, guarantees for non-repetition of crimes of
international law, human rights violations and serious
infractions of international humanitarian law must be in
place. This requires the clarification and reparation of the
consequences of violence through mechanisms which prove to be
adequate to establish the truth of what has happened,
administer justice and provide reparation for the victims in
light of the American Convention on Human Rights and the GAS
Charter. The IACHR shall continue to excercise its mandate to
promote and protect human rights in Colombia vis-a-vis the
demobilization process and the interpretation and application
of its legal framework, both through the adoption of general
and special reports and the consideration and decision of
individual cases.--Washington D.C., 15 July, 2005
____
Human Rights Watch,
July 15, 2005.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We are writing, in response to a
letter dated July 12, 2005, from Luis Alberto Moreno,
Colombian Ambassador to the United States, concerning the new
legal framework that is to govern the demobilization of
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) in that country.
The establishment of an effective legal framework is of
great importance for the prospects for both peace and justice
in Colombia. It is essential that demobilizations be carried
out in a manner that accomplishes the goals of dismantling
these mafia-like organizations and holding accountable those
responsible for serious crimes of drug trafficking,
terrorism, and grave violations of human rights.
Regrettably, the Colombian ambassador's letter
mischaracterizes key elements of the new law governing
demobilization. To ensure
[[Page H5975]]
that you are fully informed about the processes established
under the law, we address below some of the most serious
factual inaccuracies in the letter:
1. No confession.
The ambassador's letter states that ``combatants will come
forward . . . and admit to past crimes. . . . Any crime the
individual intentionally does not confess to can be
investigated and tried . . . with no benefits from the law .
. .'' In fact, the law discourages confessions. This is
because:
The law does not require a full and truthful confession of
the FTO member's own involvement in crimes, his knowledge of
others' crimes, or any other information of the illegal
activities of the FTO, as a condition for members to receive
generous sentence reductions. The law only requires that FTO
members give an unsworn statement (a ``version libre''), in
which there is no obligation to tell the truth.
To receive sentence reductions, a member need only
``accept''--without confessing--whatever charges are brought
against him. If it is later found that a member did not tell
the whole truth, under the new law he can avoid additional
penalties by simply ``accepting'' any new charges levied
against him. A single reduced sentence applies to the
totality of accepted charges.
Only in the rare case where a court finds that the
defendant intentionally omitted his involvement in a crime
(something very difficult to prove, because Colombia's
Constitution presumes good faith), will there be an increase
in the sentence.
2. No incentives or penalties to ensure that members turn
over all illegally acquired assets, release kidnapping
victims, and disclose information.
The letter states that members of the demobilizing groups
must ``turn in weapons, release kidnap[ping] victims, and
identify and hand over illegally-gained assets'' as a
condition to receive sentence reductions. But under the new
law, if FTO members fail to do these things--if they are
later found to have lied to authorities, or if commanders
have hidden their fortunes, they will face no penalties. Once
sentence reductions are granted, they are locked in.
Another problem, not addressed in the letter, is that top
commanders can receive benefits even if their group continues
committing terrorist acts, drug trafficking, kidnappings and
atrocities. The law draws no distinction between leaders and
``members'' of FTOs--they can each receive the same benefits
by demobilizing ``individually'' (i.e., not as part of a
larger group) regardless of whether the troops under their
command demobilize or cease their illegal activities.
3. Time limits for investigation are drastically reduced.
The letter states that the law ``does not grant amnesty for
serious crimes committed, nor does it provide a statute of
limitations.'' This statement obscures the fact that the law
drastically reduces the terms for investigation:
A team of 20 prosecutors has only 36 hours after receiving
possibly hundreds of members' statements to bring charges
against these members for any crimes in which, based on their
statements or other available evidence, they may ``reasonably
be inferred'' to have participated.
If the defendant does not ``accept'' the charges, then
within a maximum term of 60 days prosecutors must complete
their investigations and bring the cases to trial. In
Colombia, investigations of criminal cases routinely last
many months and even years. It is virtually unheard of for
any investigations--much less investigations of complex
organizations involved in money laundering, drug trafficking,
and extortion--to be completed in such a short time. Because
of these drastic reductions, very few FTO members will likely
be charged, and even fewer convicted.
4. Sentences can be as low as 2-3 years for all terrorist
acts, narcotrafficking and atrocities.
The letter states that ``if they fulfill all these
conditions, they become eligible for a reduced sentence of
five to eight years. . . . With no possibility of further
reductions in time served.'' This is not accurate. In
practice, reduced sentences could be as low as two or three
years for the totality of their crimes because:
The law provides that a year and a half of the time members
have spent in a concentration zone (i.e., negotiating)
``shall be computed as time served;'' and
Constitutional jurisprudence in Colombia holds that all
prisoners, without exception, must be allowed to receive
generally available sentence reductions of up to one third
for work and study--a rule that convicted drug traffickers in
Colombia have consistently exploited to their benefit.
5. Extradition can be blocked.
The letter states that ``the question of extradition is not
addressed in the law.'' This statement obscures the fact that
the law gives FTO members tools to shield themselves from
extradition through double jeopardy:
The law allows individuals to receive sentence reductions
for all the crimes they committed during their membership in
the FTO, including drug trafficking.
To block extradition, members would only have to admit,
during their statements, the crimes for which their
extradition has been requested. This admission would trigger
a prosecution in Colombia. They would then be able to simply
accept the charges against them, and serve reduced sentences.
Once they have served sentences for those crimes in
Colombia, they could assert double jeopardy and block their
extradition to the United States. Two or three years on an
agricultural colony in Colombia is much more attractive than
life in prison in the United States.
6. Drug lords can benefit under the law.
The letter states that ``no drug traffickers can receive
legal benefits under the law.'' In fact, the law does allow
drug traffickers to receive benefits:
The law provides benefits to all persons ``linked to
illegal armed groups'' so long as the group was not
``organized for the trafficking'' of narcotics. But the
government does not consider paramilitaries or guerrillas to
have been ``organized for'' the purpose of drug trafficking.
Thus, they will receive benefits despite the fact that their
top commanders include notorious drug traffickers, who have
been requested for extradition to the United States on drug
charges.
Moreover, the Colombian government deleted a provision in
an earlier version of the law that would have barred
individuals from receiving benefits if they had been involved
in drug trafficking before joining the FTO. As a result, the
law can provide benefits even to drug lords who joined, or
even purchased, FTO units for the sole purpose of receiving
those benefits.
The law states that benefits will only be provided for
crimes committed during actual membership in the armed group.
But in most cases, prosecutors will probably have little
evidence of the date of entry in the group other than the
drug lords' own self-serving statements.
Under the newly approved law, the government will give up
all its leverage, including the threat of extradition, over
these FTOs and their commanders, but it will demand virtually
nothing in exchange. The law does not require individuals to
do anything more than admit crimes they have been charged
with. There is no requirement to disclose anything more about
their own or their groups' illegal activities, structures,
financing streams, or illegally acquired assets. Members can
easily be replaced through new recruitment and promises of
high pay. In the event they are convicted of serious crimes,
commanders will be able to serve sentences little longer than
two years, probably on ``agricultural colonies,'' not real
prisons. When they reenter society, their records will be
clean, and their wealth, power, and criminal networks will
likely be intact.
As a result, this law will undermine U.S. interests in the
fight against drugs and terror. It will impede
accountability, and yield no genuine progress towards peace
and the rule of law in Colombia.
Please let us know if we can provide you with additional
information on the demobilization law or Colombia. We look
forward to continued communication with your office, and
thank you for your interest in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jose Miguel Vivanco,
Executive Director, Americas Division.
____
Amnesty International,
July 19, 2005.
Dear Member of Congress: In the coming days you will be
debating and voting on the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act of 2006 and 2007. Included in this bill is language
authorizing U.S. assistance for ``demobilization and
disarmament of former members of the foreign terrorist
organizations . . .'' specifically Colombia's paramilitary
forces known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia
(AUC in Spanish). The AUC is considered a ``Foreign Terrorist
Organization'' by the Department of State.
While Amnesty International would welcome efforts by the
government to ensure that paramilitary groups are truly
dismantled, Amnesty International believes that the current
process underway in Colombia neither ensures that
paramilitary groups are effectively dismantled or ensures
that their members are removed from the conflict. The
recently passed law governing the demobilization is wholly
inadequate. It threatens to guarantee the impunity of those
responsible for heinous and widespread human rights
atrocities (See the attached summary of paramilitary human
rights atrocities for further background), not only
paramilitaries, but also those who have backed the
paramilitary such as wealthy landowners, and government and
military officials. The demobilization law is based on the
false premise that there are no links between the security
forces and paramilitary forces. The law therefore threatens
to ensure that paramilitary structures can remain intact and
facilitate a process that could allow paramilitarism to re-
emerge under a new legal guise.
The following is a review of some of the law's key
provisions and an explanation of its fatal flaws that will
almost certainly guarantee impunity and undermine the rule of
law in Colombia.
I. Confessions of wrongdoing: The heart of the
demobilization law is the requirement that potential
beneficiaries voluntarily admit to crimes they committed
while part of the paramilitary or guerrilla forces. Article
17 states that an individual can provide information on
offences they have committed, but there is no loss of
benefits if it is revealed that he or she lied in their
original statements to judicial authorities unless it can
be proved the combatant ``intentionally'' failed to
provide such information. In legal terms it is practically
impossible to prove ``bad faith.''
[[Page H5976]]
Fatal flaws: Full confessions are not guaranteed.
The law is structured in such a way that it will be
extremely difficult for the federal prosecutors to determine
whether the confessions offered are full and complete.
1. The law does not require a full judicial process whereby
confessions are submitted to cross-examination or
consideration is given to statements by witnesses, victims,
survivors or family members familiar with the case.
2. It is expected that thousands of combatants will come
forward seeking to benefit from the law, but the government
of Colombia will only have 20 prosecutors devoted to
investigating these cases. Worse, the prosecutors only have
60 days to verify the confessions and determine whether they
are truthful or complete. It is entirely possible that
paramilitary combatants (and possibly guerrillas in the
future) may provide only minimal information in their
statements and receive full benefits if prosecutors are
unable to prove they are lying or withholding information
within 60 days. In other words the 60-day time limit and the
restricted number of prosecutors make it extremely unlikely
that full and impartial investigations will be carried out
into the responsibility of demobilizing combatants in human
rights abuses or violations. It is extremely unlikely that
prosecutors will uncover evidence of other crimes committed
by the combatant other than those to which he or she freely
admits in his or her initial statements.
3. The law is focused primarily on individuals and does not
require beneficiaries to provide information about their
paramilitary organization and their illegal activities. It is
entirely possible that the demobilization law will leave
paramilitary organizations intact, and allow them to continue
functioning. The strict time limit on investigations means
that it is unlikely that criminal investigations would focus
on the nature and structure of the armed group to which the
combatant belonged leaving it concealed.
II. Inadequacy of penalties: The law provides for maximum
penalties of 5 to 8 years even for gross human rights
violations.
Fatal Flaws: De facto Amnesties.
While the law does not explicitly provide for an amnesty or
pardons for heinous crimes, it does provide for leniency and
some of its provisions may lead to de facto amnesty for many.
1. Sentences imposed may be reduced by the amount of time
(up to 18 months) the beneficiary spent waiting in the
``concentration'' zone pending the outcome of the
demobilization negotiations with the government. Human rights
violators and abusers could thus receive a reduced sentence
of 3.5 years.
2. It is not clear that the sentences will be served in
prison. Article 31 allows the government to decide where
sentences will be served. It has been suggested that
sentences might be served in agricultural communities
(``colonias agricolas''), potentially on lands paramilitary
forces illegally confiscated from indigenous, Afro-Colombian,
or peasant communities. They may therefore be able to derive
profit from lands and other assets they obtained through war
crimes or crimes against humanity.
3. Provisions in the law allow prosecutors to close
investigations into individual combatants if there are not
sufficient merits to submit charges. The danger is that with
only 60 days to advance criminal investigations a decision to
drop all charges could be taken on only superficial evidence.
This could constitute a de facto amnesty for many human
rights violators or abusers. It is clear that this law is
designed to bring the minimum number of people to trial and
only a small minority will be held to account and then will
only be subject to the extremely limited and lenient
sentences.
III. Extradition will become more difficult: The law grants
political status to the paramilitaries by defining their
activities as ``sedition.'' Sedition is a political offense
in Colombia.
Fatal Flaw: Political offenses are not extraditable crimes
under Colombia's 1991 Constitution.
1. If sedition is defined as a political offense, and the
activities of paramilitaries are defined as sedition, then it
will become extremely difficult for paramilitary forces to be
extradited.
2. Under the 1991 Colombian Constitution those responsible
for crimes related to sedition may be eligible for amnesties
or pardons. Again another door is opened to protect those who
have promoted or helped create paramilitary groups who may
escape justice by receiving pardons or amnesties on the basis
that these crimes are defined as forms of sedition.
IV. Lack of participation by victims: The law makes no
provision for the participation of victims and their families
in any part of the judicial process, except at the stage of
reparation after the sentencing of an offender.
Fatal Flaws: Those who have suffered the most from human
rights violations will have almost no role in determining the
penalties.
1. Victims and their families will only be eligible for
reparations for offenses for which a paramilitary is
sentenced. If the perpetrator's confession is incomplete or
inaccurate, there will be no way for families to dispute the
sentence handed down.
2. Only the perpetrator's illicitly obtained funds will be
subject to reparation, not their total wealth. Identifying
such illicit funds might prove difficult since money is often
laundered through apparently legal enterprises. Some
paramilitaries might not even have illicitly-obtained assets
from which to make reparations. Failure to ensure that
demobilizing combatants are subjected to a full and impartial
judicial investigation and court proceedings means it will be
difficult to identify all the assets the individual or the
armed group (paramilitary or guerilla) appropriated through
its activities including through human rights abuses. The law
could thereby result in the de facto legitimization of
illicitly obtained land and enable those responsible for war
crimes and crimes against humanity to profit from the assets
they obtained through these heinous acts.
Conclusion: Amnesty International is deeply concerned that
the demobilization law passed by the Colombian Congress will
not rid the country of the scourge of illegal armed activity
and human rights abuses against the civilian population. In
fact, it may make the situation worse by:
Providing de facto amnesties for paramilitaries and
guerillas responsible for serious human rights abuses and
violations;
Perpetuating impunity for human rights abusers and
violators thereby undermining the rule of law in Colombia;
Failing to guarantee the effective dismantling of
paramilitary structures by focusing solely on individual
combatants;
Failing to expose those Colombian security forces,
government officials, and private citizens who have supported
and benefited from the activities of the paramilitary;
Failing to establish a full and independent judicial
process to oversee the demobilization process;
Failing to respect the rights of victims of human rights
violations and abuses to truth, justice and reparation.
AI has urged President Uribe to refrain from ratifying the
demobilization law, and we urge the United States Congress to
oppose the use of U.S. assistance to fund this demobilization
process.
If you have any questions about this or any other human
rights matter in Colombia, please do not hesitate to contact
me via [email protected].
Sincerely,
Eric L. Olson,
Advocacy Director for the Americas.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the remarks that have been given so far by the gentleman
from Florida as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts. Saying there
were 70 amendments proposed happens to be rounding up the number, but
of those that were not allowed in the process, six were withdrawn by
their sponsors. The majority of the others were either duplicative or
not germane. And may I remind this body that why we are talking in a
structured rule is because the bulk of the issues should have been done
in the hearing and in the committee level. The committee who did hear
these issues did pass this bill, I remind you once again, unanimously
from both sides of the body. The issues that have been addressed so far
will have a chance because there is also another amendment that deals
with Colombia, so the gentleman from Massachusetts will have a chance
once again to give some dramatic rhetoric one more time on this
particular issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Let me thank the gentleman very, very much for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the rule. I was somewhat
disappointed, as expressed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), on the lack of a couple of amendments that we were
attempting to insert in the bill dealing with Haiti. Haiti is a
tragedy. There is no other way to describe it. They are kind,
wonderful, hardworking people who are desperate for a solution to their
ever-growing controversy. No matter whose side you believe in, no
matter what you thought of past presidents or future presidents, the
one thing that is abundantly clear to most of us is that Haiti is
drowning in despair. The people have been ravaged not only by political
unrest and upheaval, natural disasters, hurricanes and other things and
what I was trying to do in the amendment was to provide a new concept
much like a Peace Corps, taking Haitian citizens who are now here in
the United States who are learning a free economy, learning to be
teachers, police officers, pharmacists, to create a structure in the
State Department, in cooperation with NGOs, to use those talents and
capabilities to help bring some stability to Haiti.
{time} 1215
I know we have tried and the White House both past and present have
injected significant amounts of resources to try to help the island.
For whatever
[[Page H5977]]
reason, one side pits the other, the lack of any clear-cut direction,
and I believe to some degree the Haitian people lack trust in some of
our motives and motivations, which is why I thought of this concept of
bringing people who now had learned about the free market concepts of
America to send them back to Haiti for a limited time so that they too
could use that talent that they have learned here in the United States
to help their brothers and sisters in Haiti try to build an economy,
build an education system, build a health care dynamic, and try to
create a pathway for their future.
We have seen billions, honestly, squandered in Haiti from one regime
to the next. None seems to be better than the last. And at the same
time, the people in Haiti are starved, some are imprisoned. An election
is contemplated, and I do not know how in the world we will structure
an election based on the current chaos that is evidenced in Haiti.
However, many of us, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt),
many people in the room, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), I am just naming a couple
people. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) I know has had a
unique and particular interest in this area. We may come from different
political parties, but I think our motives are pure at least on the
point of view that it is about the people of Haiti, not about whoever
is running the country.
So I commend the bill and of course will support the very important
endeavors of our Committee on International Relations as they work
across the globe to try to bring unity of purpose to a very complicated
and convoluted and dangerous world. But for this Member from Florida,
my heart really does truly go out to the Haitian people. I pray that in
the days ahead we come up with some significant ways in order to look
at the concerns some members of the Congressional Black Caucus have
relative to our intervention or activities in Haiti and try to put
aside some of our animus towards recognizing that unless we get our act
together the people of Haiti will still be starving, they will still be
dying of disease, they will still be cleaning up after hurricane
debris, and they will still be wondering what is their future to be
like.
So I want to thank all who have participated in the debate. I want to
thank Members, both Republicans and Democrats, who have submitted
amendments yesterday that were not included in the rule. But I can
assure my colleagues that we will continue to endeavor to see that our
points of view are brought forward either in this vehicle or future
vehicles as we move down the road.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would be remiss not to compliment the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley) for his sincere and measured remarks.
But I am here today, Mr. Speaker, to speak of Uzbekistan. President
Bush stated that the United States ``will persistently clarify the
choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between
oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally
right. America will not pretend . . . that any human being aspires to
live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other
governments by making clear that success in our relations will require
the decent treatment of their own people.'' Certainly noble words.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and I offered an amendment
that would have provided real meaning to those noble words, but the
Committee on Rules did not make our amendment in order, thereby failing
the democratic aspirations of the people of a nation in Central Asia
called Uzbekistan.
One of our partners in the Coalition of the Willing is a bully. His
name is Islam Karimov, and he is the thug who rules Uzbekistan.
According to our own State Department, Karimov runs a regime that does
not allow freedom of speech or religion, that makes a mockery of
elections, that holds thousands of political prisoners where security
forces customarily utilize torture. Some of their victims have
literally been boiled alive, and 2 months ago his security forces
massacred hundreds of civilians who were simply asking for liberty and
justice. Yet we have given this thug some $350 million in aid. Our
amendment would have use that leverage to push Karimov to democratize,
to respect human rights, and to accept an independent investigation
into that massacre. As Bill Kristol said in the Weekly Standard just
recently, ``It would be unfortunate if the spring of 2005 went down in
the history books as a turning point, in favor of dictators.''
The choice is simple and we have made the wrong choice today. We are
standing with a thug rather than standing for democracy, and I urge
defeat of the rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the subcommittee chairmen, one who
has spent a great deal of time working on this significant piece of
legislation.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
This legislation that we bring to the floor is a comprehensive bill,
332 pages long. It will probably grow significantly during the course
of the day because there are a number of amendments that will be
offered and I believe accepted.
As chairman of the Africa, Global Human Rights, and International
Operations Subcommittee and as author of H.R. 2601, I am very proud of
the way we worked in a bipartisan way on crafting this legislation. I
point out to my colleagues that this legislation has been crafted over
the course of several months. I chaired eight hearings at which we
looked at various component parts of this bill and policies related to
this bill, and the full committee met twice to consider the State
Department request and the other associated requests that are contained
within this legislation. I would point out to my colleagues that I know
I have had amendments in the past that were not made in order over my
last 25 years as a Member of Congress. It is always disappointing. But
there were 10 amendments considered by our subcommittee. And then when
we moved to full committee, there were 52 additional amendments
considered. Today we have another 38 that will be considered as well.
So this bill will be subjected to an enormous number of amendments, and
I think that is good and healthy and very important.
I would point out to my colleagues that the bill passed the committee
42 to zero. People on the left and on the right, conservatives,
moderates, and liberals, came together realizing that we had crafted a
truly bipartisan piece of legislation for our Foreign Relations
Authorization Act.
We often debate money on the floor, and having the monetary resources
necessary to carry out our foreign policy tasks are indeed critical.
But equally if not more important, it is how we spend the money. This
authorization measure contains important new foreign policy directives
and reflects a consensus on both sides of the aisle. Together we have
produced a very strong piece of legislation that protects our national
interests abroad, robustly funds our public diplomacy efforts, and
promotes those values that we hold dear such as the protection of human
rights, support for democracy, and assistance to those in crisis or in
need.
H.R. 2601 fully funds the operations of the Department of State,
especially its diplomatic operations abroad, and meets the President's
budget request. It authorizes $22.3 billion over 2 years plus for the
Department of State, international broadcasting activities,
international assistance programs, and related agencies.
Again, I hope my colleagues will support the rule and the bill when
it comes to the floor.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is the
chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, my good friend and classmate.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that the Committee on Rules did not make
my
[[Page H5978]]
amendment in order. Our amendment on global climate change, which
passed both the House and the Senate in a previous version, simply says
that the United States must lead the world in the fight against global
warming.
In this Chamber of democratic ideals, the House of Representatives is
supposed to be the place where we take a stand on the issues. If one
disagrees, for example, with my amendments, fine. Then stand up and
vote against them.
The fact is that global warming exists and is fully acknowledged by
the scientific community. The fact is that a report which President
Bush himself commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences says
that human activity causes global warming. The truth is that the United
States should lead on climate change, not avoid it.
Let me be clear. I was not advocating for the Kyoto Protocol. Other
countries took the lead when we backed out, and it entered into force
earlier this year. But just because we rejected Kyoto does not absolve
us from working with other countries on climate change. Actually, it
means that we have to take the lead, be creative and find a solution.
The G-8 statement on climate change is a start, by acknowledging that
climate change is a serious challenge that human activities are
contributing to. Unfortunately, the administration reportedly exerted a
considerable amount of pressure to water down the G-8 statement and the
document falls far short of making a call for strong and immediate
action.
The truth is that the world's future depends on our actions today.
Global warming could devastate our environment and our economy.
President Bush's administration, in a report to the United Nations,
said that global climate change could mean greater storm surges on the
coasts, reduced snowpack and water supplies in the West, declining
water levels in the Great Lakes, stronger hurricanes, more extreme
weather events, and greater risk of both flooding and drought. If that
is not an incentive for the administration to act, nothing will be.
Finally, I am also concerned that the gentleman from Massachusetts'
(Mr. McGovern) amendment on the demobilization process in Colombia was
not made in order. The current Colombian demobilization framework, as
discussed in the bill, does not provide minimal guarantees on at least
three basic points. First, terrorist leaders who are under standing
indictments in our country for serious crimes can escape extradition to
the United States. Second, the bill does not require that these
terrorists provide complete information on their networks so they could
be dismantled. And, lastly, the law does not build in adequate
monitoring mechanisms to ensure that those who have forsworn violence
do not return to their terrorist activities.
We must address these issues before we authorize assistance to a
process that could cost the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $80 million over
3 years. The Colombia and global climate change amendments should have
been made in order so that Members would have had the opportunity to
debate and vote on these important issues.
I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, today we are failing the people of Darfur
in the Sudan.
In July of 2004, this Congress called what is happening in Sudan a
genocide. In September of 2004, President Bush said it was a genocide.
There is no place else on the face of the Earth today that carries such
a distinction. But both the President and the Congress have said there
is genocide going on.
The words we have spoken have not stopped the government in Khartoum.
Four hundred thousand people have died. Three and a half million people
are at risk.
Again, everything we have done so far is words, very little action.
We have supported the African Union Mission, assisting in the transport
of troops and providing funds, and we have helped some of that. But it
has been over a year since the African Union began their mission in
Darfur, and nothing has changed. There are currently only 2,600 troops
in a region the size of France with a plan for another 7,000 odd to be
there later on this year. Plus the mission does not even have a mandate
that includes the protection of civilians. We need troops there now. We
need the American Government to step up now.
The U.S. has been generous in its contributions in support of the AU
and humanitarian aid, but it is not enough. The regime that runs Sudan
is genocidal, as stated by this Congress and our President.
{time} 1230
We send incredibly mixed messages to both the people of Sudan and the
people around the world when we say there is genocide going on, we say
it is terrible, the people of Sudan are inflicting tremendous actions
on their own people; yet our own government, the CIA, sends an
executive jet to pick up the head of the Khartoum intelligence service
who is seen by many to be the architect of the genocide in Darfur, and
we fly him to Washington for secret talks. What message does that send?
We are failing the people of Darfur, who continue to die. We need to
stand up. The amendments that were offered yesterday should have been
allowed so that this Congress can make the decision whether to stand up
or whether to sit idly by while millions more die.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey),
my classmate and good friend.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
restrictive rule because it ignores, actually blocks, the important
issues and amendments that we should be talking about here and now,
including my amendment ensuring that the United States lives up to its
international commitment to reduce and eventually disarm its nuclear
weapons stockpiles and my amendment expressing the need for a sensible,
multilateral American response to terrorism, otherwise known as SMART
security. But most important of all, this bill fails to include any
Democratic amendments that address the war in Iraq.
This critical issue should not be neglected by a bill of this
magnitude, a bill that addresses and authorizes our Nation's
international programs over the next two fiscal years.
This authorization will not discuss an amendment that I would have
offered calling on the President to develop a plan for the withdrawal
of U.S. military forces from Iraq and to bring that plan to the
Congress. It also covers our responsibility to assist Iraq, not through
our military, but through international humanitarian efforts, to
rebuild their war torn economic and physical infrastructure.
Would the Republican leadership believe that we can wait two more
years to debate our role in Iraq, to debate when we will bring our
troops home? We need to declare for the record that we plan to leave
Iraq. Unfortunately, the rule before us today prevents us from having
this very important debate. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote
against this unfair and restrictive rule and to support every effort to
plan to bring our troops home.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the introduction of this particular rule,
this bill covers a wide range of issues. As you can see from the
discussion we have had so far, there are a wide range of issues that
are covered in this particular bill. That is why it is also remarkable,
one more time, that this particular bill came through its committee in
a uniquely bipartisan way, in which there were hearings and then a
markup, over 62 amendments presented, bipartisan, discussed, and once
again with a bipartisan result were submitted to us.
The committee process that we have in the House is of a unique and
supreme importance. Without trying to make any kind of value statement
on what is done on the other side of this particular Capitol, former
Senator McCarthy of Minnesota once said that the Senate has rules, but
it does not
[[Page H5979]]
matter because no one over there follows them.
We on the House side though, have an orderly process in which to
discuss issues and bring them in a timely and consistent manner, and
the specifics of those are the importance that we put on the committee,
and especially the hearing process in the committee. It is the
committee process in which issues of specifics as well as long-range
importance should be debated and discussed and allow that hearing
process to go forward, so that what is brought to the floor becomes a
significantly refined model, and that therefore on the floor we can
narrow our process and narrow our discussion into those particular
areas and into certain particular areas.
This bill is still a significant issue. It is a significant bill. It
is a 2-year authorization, and within that authorization is a blueprint
for the reform of the State Department. It is significant that that
move forward, because we are talking about how we fully authorize and
fully purport to have a well-balanced and strong core of diplomatic
personnel representing us in every institution.
Within this bill are specific and important issues that fully
authorize the safety and security of that personnel. Those are
significant issues, and though we may differ with specifics of what is
happening today, we must also look to the fact that this bill deals
with long-term results, long-term goals, long-term aspirations of our
State Department and our foreign policy.
Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is this bill has had significant
debate on a wide variety of issues within the committee process, and
that is the way the House tries to function, by also authorizing 38,
which is a majority of the resolutions. Once again, the majority of the
amendments not offered were taken away either from withdrawal or from
redundancy or from germaneness issues.
But by authorizing 38 and providing a process for that discussion
means that, once again, we are going to take these issues in a wide
range and a wide variety and move forward with those with that type of
discussion on the floor. My only hope at this stage is that as a floor,
we can be as wise as the Committee on International Relations was when
they came up with a bipartisan product and a 44-0 vote and presented it
here for our further considerations.
Hopefully we will maintain the same kind of collegiality and
standards that particular committee did, because I think it sets a
standard and a goal for us to try and emulate as we go through with the
floor discussion.
I am proud of the underlying bill and I am proud of the rule because
it provides the fair representation for this bill as a continuation of
the committee process, but does not supplant the committee process,
which is what we do here on the House floor for an orderly discussion
of those particular issues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am very tempted by my friend on the Committee on Rules
that I serve with when he says we follow these rules, this rule says
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill in item 3;
five, says waives all points of order; eight, it says waives all points
of order. There is a notwithstanding clause.
I want to know what part does the gentleman see as following the
rules. The simple fact of the matter is we are not going to be
discussing Darfur, we are not going to be discussing Colombia, we are
not going to be discussing Haiti, and somewhere along the line we could
have done that under the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend,
the distinguished the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
and for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this restrictive rule. It
prevents the House from discussing our policy toward the Andean region
and Colombia in particular in a serious way. Two important amendments
on these subjects were offered by Democrats in the Committee on Rules,
and the Committee on Rules, in refusing to make them in order for
debate, has denied Members the opportunity to address these critical
issues that were raised in the amendments.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) offered an amendment that
would have required at least 40 percent of Andean Counterdrug
Initiative funds to be dedicated for alternative economic and social
development in rural areas, encouraging human rights and protecting
democratic institutions.
I guess the majority thinks this is not a worthwhile discussion to
have. Clearly they are not interested in results or wise investment of
our funds in Colombia. As we know, despite billions invested in the
Andean region over the last several years in a largely supply side and
military drug eradication program, drug cultivation has gone up in the
Andean region and the availability of cocaine in the United States has
gone virtually unchecked, with prices low and products more potent than
ever.
The Republican leadership must know this bill is more of the same,
instead of a balanced policy that would provide some real results on
the ground.
The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern)
amendment sought to place serious conditions on any funding that goes
from the United States to the Colombian paramilitary demobilization
process, just as the Senate did, so that paramilitary and drug
trafficking organizations are fully dismantled and the worst criminals,
murderers and terrorists face real and tough prison sentences.
By denying Members a chance to debate the McGovern amendment, the
Republican leadership has made it clear they are not serious about
ensuring those terrorists are brought to justice. Without the McGovern
amendment, this bill is toothless. It does nothing to prevent U.S.
dollars from helping to set Colombia's worst criminals free. Colombia's
deceptively named ``peace and justice law'' fails to fully dismantle
paramilitary organizations and threatens to let criminals off the hook,
and without more stringent conditions, U.S. taxpayers should not
support what amounts to an allowance for individuals implicated in drug
trafficking and murder.
The McGovern amendment would replace the House's language, which
authorizes funds for the demobilization of Colombia's paramilitary
organizations, with the provisions adopted by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations. Unlike the Senate provision, the House bill carries
with it no accountability to the U.S. Congress or U.S. taxpayers for
how our money is spent.
We are talking about members of paramilitary death squads that have
massacred Colombian civilians and have trafficked drugs to our country.
I do not oppose Colombia's efforts to negotiate with armed groups to
foster peace for its people. I want peace and stability for Colombia.
However, I do object to U.S. dollars being used with no strings
attached in a process that may lead to known killers and
narcoterrorists going free without adequate punishment.
So I suggest that our colleagues make the following calculation: Do
you want U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund drug traffickers and murderers?
If not, oppose the rule and demand a new one that allows debate on
these important issues.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to my good friend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules I attempted to
strike an amendment that was put into this bill that I believe does not
belong there. I believe it was inflammatory and totally unnecessary. It
implied that those Americans who are concerned about the conduct of the
war and talk about withdrawal are unpatriotic. Despite 60 percent of
the American people being concerned about the war, the majority refused
to remove this amendment from the bill.
Mr. Speaker, all Americans support the troops in Iraq. They are our
sons and they are our daughters. We appreciate their commitment, we
honor
[[Page H5980]]
their service and we do not need another resolution to demonstrate that
appreciation. What we should do is live up to our commitment to the
troops.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Democrats that have fought to raise the
Veterans Administration budget the $2 billion it needs this year just
to take care of the wounded from Iraq. Think about that for a moment.
For what we spend on the war a week, $2 billion, we could take care of
our wounded veterans for a year. We care very much about that, and that
is how we honor our troops.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats in this House have pushed that debate, and
again unsuccessfully, that our troops are not well equipped, that we
have not given them the armored vehicles and things they need to save
their lives. Now this leadership is going to use rhetoric to try to
further divide the Nation. They would rather do that than take care of
the troops.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule and particularly, as I
mentioned, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment is fear politics at its worst.
The underlying message the Republican leadership is sending could not
be clearer. It is this: If you disagree with the policies of this
administration, you are un-American. If you dare to question them, you
will hurt our troops in the field. If you ask the tough questions, you
are helping the terrorists.
I feel compelled to advise my colleagues that this is a democracy.
What we need to do is defeat the previous question and consider the
Ros-Lehtinen amendment separately as a freestanding bill. The way it is
written now, there is no possibility even to amend it. It is either up
or down, shut up or put up.
This is not the way we do things here, and we are leaving out half
the population of this country who wants us to debate the war. Once
again, we are attempting to cut out the voice of the people here, and
we will try on the previous question to remove the Ros-Lehtinen
amendment from the bill and immediately consider it later as a
freestanding bill, giving Members the opportunity to amend it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the debate that we have heard so far. It has been very
riveting rhetoric that has gone on. Sometimes I am a little bit
surprised at it, as we are told we cannot debate the things we are
debating.
In specific, if I could mention something about the Colombia policy,
which, once again, it was said we are not going to be able to talk
about, even though we have, I think the United States has a great
record in what it has been doing so far down there. We are making
progress. There is much to do, but we are making progress.
{time} 1245
There is already a 17 percent reduction in South American purity of
heroin that is coming from Colombia. Hospital overdoses from that same
issue are down by one-third.
It is significant that that issue, that issue that was brought up
before was debated in the Committee on International Relations. They
debated demobilization of terrorists. They adopted two resolutions. The
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) presented a resolution on this same
issue that was adopted that dealt with section 944 on the issue, and it
was about the demobilization of Colombia, and it was passed with
bipartisan support in that particular committee.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) also had an issue
that dealt with Colombian tax policy. What I am trying to emphasize is,
once again, we have had opportunity to discuss these issues in the
committee process, which is the appropriate process. There will also be
other opportunities to discuss this issue, not only here but, again, in
other areas.
I appreciate what the gentlewoman from New York just said. On the
issue of Iraq, we have had a defense authorization bill as well as
defense appropriations for 3 days. We have had the opportunity to
debate these particular issues on the floor. There will also be one
other time to bring those positions up. Whether the amendment is
passed, either for or against, that opportunity will still be here.
These issues are before us; but, once again, what we are trying to do
with this rule is what we are trying to do with the House process, that
is, to do things in an orderly fashion so that the bulk of these issues
can be heard in the committee and could go forward in the committee
where the true interaction takes place in a much, much more specific
way by those people who become experts in this particular area.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentleman that
when the Committee on International Relations marked up the provisions
on the Colombia issues, this new law in Colombia had not been passed
yet. This is since the markup in the committee. So we are dealing with
a new law that may very well let go terrorists, killers, paramilitary
leaders who have done harm not only to Colombian citizens, but to our
citizens. So we need a debate on Colombia.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I will be asking members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the
House to consider the Ros-Lehtinen amendment on Iraq as a separate,
freestanding bill with an open amendment process instead of just
another amendment to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House have very strong opinions on the
war in Iraq. We also have many different viewpoints on our Nation's
continued role in that country. But regardless of our individual
positions on this conflict, we all support the courageous men and women
who put their lives on the line every day.
Any vote on Iraq significantly impacts these brave Americans and
should not be taken irresponsibly, and it should not be taken for
blatantly political purposes. The Ros-Lehtinen amendment, which came to
light only yesterday when it was submitted to the Committee on Rules,
is a good example of exploiting the current situation in Iraq purely
for partisan gain. The original version of this amendment submitted to
the Committee on Rules accused opponents of the President's plan,
whatever that is, of supporting a ``cut-and-run'' Iraq policy that is a
``craven surrender to terrorism.'' This inflammatory language has now
been removed, but it still appears that the sole intention of this
amendment is to polarize Members of this House on a crucial question of
national security.
Under this rule, Members can only vote up or down, take it or leave
it, with no opportunity for amendment or any position except that of
the amendment's author.
If we are going to discuss and vote on the U.S. presence in Iraq, it
deserves a thorough and respectful debate. We owe our brave young men
and women more than a divisive and meaningless sense of Congress
resolution.
Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent
consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill, and it will
not affect any of the other amendments that are in order under this
rule.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, (a) the amendments by Representative Dreier of
California, Representative Crowley of New York,
Representative King of Iowa, and Representative Rohrabacher
of California at the desk at the time of adoption of this
resolution and numbered 3A, 18A, 21A, and 37A, shall be in
order in lieu of the amendments in part B of House Report
109-175 and numbered 3, 18, 21, and 37, respectively, and (b)
the amendment numbered 2 in part B of House Report 109-175
shall be debatable for 20 minutes.
[[Page H5981]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, as we continue on after the passage
of this rule, I am looking forward to an hour of general debate, which
will be as riveting as what we have had discussing this particular
rule.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today commits a
small but significant act of principle over convenience: In addition to
providing for the consideration of the Foreign Relations bill, it
firmly establishes the precedent that this House will not consider
legislation on the floor if it exceeds the levels established by the
budget resolution. This choice will not make us heroes; it will not win
us accolades in The Washington Post. But it does show that we will
stick to our budget disciplines, and I rise to commend Chairman Dreier
and the Rules Committee for this very important decision.
By way of explanation: As originally reported by the Committee on
International Affairs, the bill increases mandatory spending by $103
million over 5 years. Specifically, the bill as reported would allow
the State Department to automatically spend leftover funds on other
purposes without further legislative action. Traditionally these
transfers are subject to appropriations. But the reported bill
eliminated that requirement. As a result, the bill converted
discretionary spending to mandatory at a time when we are trying to
restrain mandatory spending.
This increase in mandatory spending breaches the spending limit, or
``allocation,'' established for the IR Committee in the budget
resolution. In technical terms, this violates section 302(f) of the
Budget Act, which precludes the House from considering a bill that
exceeds the 302(a) allocation of the committee that reported the bill.
Now, the Rules Committee could have let this slide: The rule could
simply have waived the Budget Act restriction, and let the authorizing
committee fix the problem through a floor amendment. After all, many
will say it wasn't really a large amount of money to worry about--and
hardly anyone would have noticed anyway.
While that step might have fixed the problem with this particular
bill, it would have done it the wrong way. The principle underlying the
congressional budget process is that we should not consider bills on
this floor until they comply with spending limits established in the
budget resolution. In other words, the burden is on the committee
reporting the bill to comply with the budget before the measure reaches
the floor. If compliance were left to a floor amendment or a subsequent
point of order, it would cost budgetary commitment to the winds of the
moment--which is no commitment at all. Chairman Dreier and the Rules
Committee have shown the appropriate kind of leadership: They have
upheld this important principle of fiscal discipline.
Once again, I commend Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for
enforcing the budget resolution and upholding the integrity of the
budget process. We may not win any medals for this; we won't get to
brag about it to Chris Matthews on Hardball. But this is the right
thing to do, and that should be all the reason we need. This is an
excellent rule and merits all of our support.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any provision of this resolution,
amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109-175 shall not be in
order.
Sec. 3. That immediately upon disposition of H.R. 2601 the
Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for
consideration of a bill proposing to add a new section 1111
as contemplated in amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109-
175. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
International Relations. After general debate the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the
resolution.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do need to have an
explanation. I am not familiar with this process, and I do not know
whether there has been an agreement reached, and I am trying to learn
the answer to that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah has moved the
previous question, both on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question is on ordering the previous question on the amendment
and the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the amendment and the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 196, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 383]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
[[Page H5982]]
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Becerra
Brown (SC)
Frelinghuysen
Hinojosa
Hulshof
Istook
Jones (OH)
Payne
Pearce
Reyes
Sweeney
{time} 1314
Messrs. SALAZAR, McDERMOTT, STUPAK, TAYLOR of Mississippi and KENNEDY
of Rhode Island changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. EVERETT and Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 190, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 384]
AYES--228
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Becerra
Brown (SC)
Dicks
Eshoo
Frelinghuysen
Hinojosa
Istook
Jones (OH)
McIntyre
Meehan
Payne
Pearce
Reyes
Sweeney
Waters
{time} 1322
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________