[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.

                          ____________________