[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6117-H6173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica). Pursuant to House Resolution
[[Page H6118]]
365 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2601.
{time} 1117
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2601) to authorize appropriations for the Department of
State for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Foley (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
July 19, 2005, amendment No. 19 printed in part B of House Report 109-
175 by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Issa
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Issa:
At the end of title II, add the following new section:
SEC. 217. PASSPORT SECURITY ENHANCEMENT.
(a) Report on Documents Related to Passport Issuance.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
that describes existing security weaknesses of identification
documents, including birth certificates, required for the
issuance of a passport, and that includes, in accordance with
paragraph (3), recommended criteria for birth certificates
that will be acceptable to establish valid proof of identity
and national origin of individuals for the issuance of
passports to such individuals.
(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with
appropriate officials of States and cities identified as
vital registration jurisdictions in the preparation of such
criteria.
(3) Acceptance criteria.--The criteria referred to in
paragraph (1) shall include the establishment of minimum
acceptance criteria for identification documents issued by
such jurisdictions, including criteria related to--
(A) vital records security and procedures;
(B) security paper and printing for birth certificates;
(C) customer identification requirements;
(D) issuance of birth certificates, including duplicates;
(E) controlling access to birth certificate records to
prevent identity fraud;
(F) data element definitions to facilitate electronic
exchange of birth and death registration information with the
Department of State for purposes of issuing passports; and
(G) routine matching of all birth and death records.
(b) Background Investigation and Establishment of Training
Program for Passport Acceptance Agents.--
(1) Background Investigation.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
State shall establish a mandatory requirement for background
investigations of passport acceptance agents.
(2) Establishment of Training Program.--Not later than one
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under
Secretary for Management of the Department of State, acting
through the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department,
shall--
(A) establish a comprehensive training program for passport
acceptance agents that includes instruction and training
relating to identification document fraud detection, customer
identification authentication, and the penalties for passport
fraud by employees, agents, and passport applicants;
(B) establish a database that records when passport
acceptance agents complete such training;
(C) require all newly appointed passport acceptance agents
to complete such training before initial processing of
passport applications; and
(D) establish a training schedule so that all existing
passport acceptance agents have completed such training no
later than three years after the date of the establishment of
the training program under this paragraph.
(c) Expanded Authority of Special Agents.--Section 203 of
the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Public
Law 99-399; 22 U.S.C. 4823) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Special agent
positions'' and inserting ``(a) Special agent positions'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) In connection with investigations of corruption,
waste, fraud, and abuse by officers and employees of the
United States Government, including the illegal sale of
United States passports and visas and other United States
criminal offenses, the Federal District Court for the
District of Columbia shall have authority to issue warrants
with respect to properties within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined
under section 7(9) of title 18, United States Code. Special
agents under the direction of the Director of the Diplomatic
Security Service shall have authority to execute such
warrants.''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, or to
reprogram funds otherwise obtained through receipts from the
issuance of passports and visas, to carry out this section.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before we take up amendment 20, I would like to step
back to amendment 6 of yesterday. I had submitted an amendment made in
order under the rule to strike proposed changes to U.S. economic and
military aid to Egypt yesterday. I decided not to offer this amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to continue to work with the
gentleman from California and the administration in order to protect
the national interests broadly considered and help Egypt achieve the
economic and political reform it needs.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman and I are prepared to deal with all
members of the committee on their ideas. We have explored the issue of
the appropriate level of economic and military aid to Egypt; and the
committee, as well as the House, has acted on this matter. But as with
all matters, we have an open mind to discuss additional and new ideas.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from California. I appreciate the offer by the chairman and ranking
Democrat to look at this, and I look forward to working with them and
the administration on this matter.
On that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to amendment No. 20.
Amendment 20 was made in order because it is dealing with an
important matter. This amendment takes the necessary and commonsense
steps to enhance the security of American passports. It will help to
eliminate three major loopholes currently present in the passport
acquisition process that have been exploited by criminals, especially
over the last 5 years.
First, it requires the Secretary of State to submit a report that
describes the weaknesses of identification documents, including birth
certificates, required for the issuance of passports. This report will
lay out the minimum acceptable criteria for birth certificates issued
by State and county governments in order for the certificates to be
accepted by the State Department for the purpose of obtaining a
passport.
Second, the amendment establishes a requirement that all passport
agents undergo background investigations and comprehensive training
programs to improve fraudulent document detection and thereby reduce
fraud. This will make it harder for insiders to sell passports to
criminals and terrorists and easier for government authorities to
discover those who do. The Secretary of State would be authorized to
determine requirements for both background checks and oversight of
these agents.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, and without a doubt most importantly, this
amendment expands the authority of the United States Government to
investigate cases of illegal sales of passports and visas by U.S.
Government personnel. It authorizes the Federal District Court of the
District of Columbia to issue warrants in such cases and authorizes
special agents under the direction of the director of the Diplomatic
Security Service to execute such warrants.
[[Page H6119]]
It will also require foreign service officers and other personnel
serving abroad in diplomatic positions, including ambassadors, to waive
any challenge to the Federal court jurisdiction over matters involving
the illegal sale of a passport or a visa or any other matter involving
official corruption. The waiver would include any legal challenges to
the diplomatic security conducting investigations for the same.
This will resolve the current impasse that happens in a significant
number of foreign countries when local magistrates and police officials
are barred under respective local laws from allowing investigations by
anybody into the homes of diplomats.
Mr. Chairman, the requirements laid out in this amendment will raise
the State Department's ability to detect and eliminate passport fraud.
It is critical for our Nation's security that we implement the measures
I have laid out.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, passport security is a critical issue, and we need to
be sure that the administration is doing everything it can to ensure
that only U.S. citizens receive U.S. passports. However, while we are
prepared to accept this amendment, we hope we can make some
modifications as the legislative process moves forward.
Birth certificates are used by the State Department to help establish
the nationality of an applicant, not their identity, and the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 establishes a
Federal process to standardize U.S. birth certificates. The State
Department is a full participant in that process, along with other
Federal agencies, the States and the association that represents the
registrars of vital statistics. That process should be allowed to run
its course, and it would be counterproductive for the Department of
State to establish its own criteria for evaluating birth certificates.
In addition, it is unclear whether the training mandated by this
provision should be the responsibility of the State Department or the
U.S. Postal Service, which employs most of the passport acceptance
agents.
We hope to address these issues as this amendment moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of this amendment. It is
important. I think that we need to do all we can to make sure the
feeder documents, the primary documents upon which passports are
issued, are safer than they are today. I think it is important that the
Secretary of State and those in responsibility have a more thorough
reporting process to us as to how these can be made safe.
So I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this forward. It is a
good amendment, and we ought to support it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to offer my assurances to the
ranking member that it was never the intention of this amendment to
eclipse the postal service's good efforts; and the portion of the
amendment that deals with State Department developing in no way, shape,
or form is intended to stop the training from being conducted by the
appropriate agency in the appropriate place. I look forward to working
with the ranking member to clarify that in any language necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21A
made in order under the rule.
Amendment No. 21A Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting Chairman. Is the gentleman from New Jersey acting as the
designee of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King)?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21A offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
Page 300, after line 20, insert the following new section:
SEC. 1027. FUNDING FOR NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS UNDER
THE PRESIDENT'S EMERGENCY PLAN FOR AIDS RELIEF.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report that--
(1) identifies by name each nongovernmental organization
that has received funding under the President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief on or after the date of the enactment of
the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-25), the date on
which the funding was provided to the organization, and the
date on which the organization filed a statement with the
Government of the United States certifying that the
organization has in effect a policy explicitly opposing
prostitution and sex trafficking; and
(2) contains a description of the plan of the Department of
State to audit compliance by each nongovernmental
organization that receives funding under the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to have and adhere to a policy
explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking and to
submit to the appropriate congressional committees the
results of such audit.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires that the State
Department submit a report to Congress that one, identifies by name all
NGOs receiving funding under the President's emergency plan for AIDS
relief, the date that the funding was provided, and the date on which
the NGO filed the statement certifying its policy explicitly opposing
prostitution and sex trafficking.
Number two, it describes the Department of State's plans to audit the
compliance by nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. funding
under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief to have and adhere
to an explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking and a
description of the plan of the Department of State to transmit the
results to the appropriate congressional committees.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, I would just note for my colleagues, this is a very
simple amendment. When the Hyde historic legislation on HIV/AIDS was
considered by the committee, I offered the amendment that was included
in that bill to ensure that the NGOs, to which we provide considerable
amounts of money and, in many cases, we are talking tens of millions of
dollars, are not in any way complicit in sex trafficking nor in the
promotion of prostitution and its legality.
I would point out to my colleagues that by way of historical
background, I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
Reauthorization and Expansion Act of 2003. We take very seriously our
obligation to ensure that we as a government, we as a provider of
significant Federal funding, in no way are enabling this modern-day
slavery called sex trafficking or prostitution, which is its very close
cousin.
I would hope that Members would realize that this is a very simple
amendment. It just requires that we get basic information, which I
think in our oversight capacity we have an obligation to do as a
Congress and as certain committees of the Congress.
So I hope that Members will support this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment; I ask
[[Page H6120]]
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shaw). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I comment substantively on the gentleman's amendment, let me
pay tribute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for his
leadership in this House in our joined fight against trafficking.
Mr. Chairman, there is no disagreement among Members of this body as
to whether overseas recipients of U.S. HIV/AIDS funds should be
promoting prostitution or trafficking. They obviously should not. To
this end, in the original HIV/AIDS legislation Congress required that
any grantee or subgrantee legally certify that they have a written
policy against prostitution and trafficking.
This amendment, if approved, will place an onerous burden on the
thinly staffed administrators of the global HIV/AIDS program to prepare
within 90 days a report listing hundreds of grants and subgrants and
retrieving policy statements from each one to satisfy the amendment. If
Congress wants to set forth specific and reasonable guidelines for NGOs
to follow, that is a different matter and should be addressed
appropriately.
Mr. Chairman, because I support the intent of this amendment, I will
not oppose it, but I believe that there are less burdensome ways to
achieve this end, particularly by allowing for a greater period of time
to prepare this information. I hope we will have a chance to work out
appropriate language in conference.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is
actually the prime sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) for picking up this amendment and introducing it on my
behalf. I introduced this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), and we have all been working on this same cause;
it has to do with sex trafficking and the dehumanization that comes
from sex trafficking, Mr. Chairman.
I will just add to this debate that we know that it is dehumanizing
and it is against the policy of the United States.
There was legislation that was introduced last year that went into
the Federal code that would prohibit any funds from going to
organizations that do not have a policy specifically opposing sex
trafficking and prostitution. But we have not gotten a report back from
the Secretary of State's office, in spite of the fact that there have
been a number of letters written, by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) in particular, requesting that report.
This amendment requires a report from the Secretary of State be
delivered to the appropriate committees and allows this Congress to
oversee the funding that we appropriated. Mr. Chairman, I will insert
for the Record the letters that have been sent by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder). I would conclude my remarks with a request for
support for this amendment.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2005.
Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, Department of State, Harry S Truman
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Secretary: Attached you will find a letter dated
October 22, 2004, in which the State Department was asked to
provide the Subcommittee with a listing of any grants that
have been awarded under the authority of the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of
2003 or the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2003 that did not fully comply with anti-prostitution
and sex trafficking provisions therein.
The deadline for the provision of this information,
November 1, 2004, has long passed. Please update the
Subcommittee regarding the status of this request by
Wednesday, February 16, 2005.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, October 22, 2004.
Hon. Colin Powell,
Secretary of State, Department of State, Harry S Truman
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: According to the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-25), funds must not be used ``to promote
or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or
sex trafficking'' and organizations must have a policy
``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.''
(citations are provided in the attached copy of the Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC) guidance on the enforcement of this law).
On July 8th of this year, an amendment to the FY05
Committee, Justice, State Appropriations specifically
reiterating this policy passed in the House by an
overwhelming 306 to 115 vote.
Proper implementation of this provision of law is critical
because it guarantees that our surrogates in foreign
countries are not giving mixed messages to the victims of
prostitution and sex-trafficking. Although the guidance
attached to this letter is addressed to the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice has
informed us that copies of this letter were provided to your
agency and is binding upon it.
No later than November 1, please provide the Subcommittee a
listing of any grants that have been awarded under the
authority of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 or the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 that did not
fully comply with the above-cited provisions or the OLC
guidance of September 20, 2004.
As the next round of AIDS grant proposals are submitted, I
remain confident that you will see to it that the grants are
implemented and awarded in accordance with the law.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legal Counsel,
September 20, 2004.
Hon. Alex M. Azar II,
General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Alex: I understand that earlier this year the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked the
Department of Justice (DOJ) whether HHS could implement
certain provisions of the TVPRA and of the AIDS Act. At this
time, I understand that DOJ gave its tentative advice that
the so-called ``organization restrictions'' set forth in 23
U.S.C.A. Sec. 7110()(2) and 22 U.S.C.A. Sec. 7631(f) could,
under the Constitution, be applied only to foreign
organizations acting overseas.
We have reviewed the matter further and are withdrawing
that tentative advice. The statures are clear on their face
that the organization restrictions were intended by Congress
to apply without the limitations identified in our earlier
advice. We have consulted with the Civil Division and, in
these circumstances, given that the provisions do not raise
separation of powers concerns and that there are reasonable
arguments to support their constitutionality, we believe that
HHS may implement these provisions. If the provisions are
challenged in court, the Department stands ready to defend
their constitutionality in accordance with its longstanding
practice of defending congressional enactments under such
circumstances.
Please do not hesitate to contract me if you have any
further questions. I apologize for any confusion or
inconvenience cause by our earlier tentative advice.
Sincerely,
Daniel Levin,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
____
House of Representatives,
Committe on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, July 15, 2005.
Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Secretary: On October 22, 2004, and again on
February 11, 2005, the State Department was asked to provide
the Subcommittee with information relating to grants awarded
under he authority of the United States Leadership Against
HIV/AIDS, Turberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 [Public Law
108-25].
Now, nine months later, I find it necessary to file
amendments on the State Department authorization bill with
the House Rules Committee to provide your Department some
additional incentives for its full cooperation with the
oversight requests made by this subcommittee.
By August 22, 2005 (ten months to the day of my original
request) I ask that the following information be provided to
the Subcommittee (both paper and electronic copies): an Excel
spreadsheet containing, in separate cells, the names and
addresses, and points of contact of all Non-Governmental
Organizations which, after the date of enactment of Public
Law 108-25, received funding under authority of the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or the United
States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
Act of 2003. The spreadsheet must include the dates on which
funding was awarded, the date the identified Non-Governmental
Organizations filed statements with the Federal government
asserting the Non-Governmental Organization has
[[Page H6121]]
a policy ``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex
trafficking,'' and paper and electronic copies of the
statements of the Non-Governmental Organizations arraigned
alphabetically.
If there are any questions, please contact Malia Holst,
clerk of the subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
____
July 15, 2005.
Hon. Andrew Natsios,
Administrator, United States Agency for International
Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Administrator: As Members of Congress who advocate
for the faith community, we write to express our deep concern
about the way in which the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) is implementing the
Communities Responding to the HIV/AIDS Epedemic (CORE). As a
pillar of the Administration's faith-based outreach abroad,
CORE is an innovative initiative that partners USAID with
faith communities to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
CORE's operating consortium is composed of five groups
including CARE USA, the World Council of Churches (WCC), the
International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), the
International HIV/AIDS Alliance (the Alliance), and the Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for
Communication Programs. We draw your attention to the first
four organizations because their policies often run contrary
to U.S. HIV/AIDS policy and frequently promote policies that
are offensive to people of faith.
Most disconcerting is the consortium's primary contractor,
CARE USA. The President of CARE, Peter Bell, has signed
public attacks on the Administration's pro-life policies,
calling them ``undemocratic'' and ``unethical''--and this is
only the beginning of CARE's opposition to American policy.
CARE's programs in India, most notably the Sonagachi
Project in Calcutta, have promoted a pro-prostitution agenda.
Samarjit Jana, CARE's Assistant Country Director in India, is
one of the world's leading crusaders for the legalization of
prostitution for the right of HIV-infected prostitutes to
have sex without a condom.
In Lesotho, CARE and USAID funding to campaign for a so-
called ``rights-based'' approach to prostitution--in other
words, for legalization of prostitution and its cultural
acceptance as a legitimate form of employment. Despite the
Administration's policy directive that all grantees of
taxpayer monies for work overseas must pledge to oppose the
legalization of prostitution, CARE continues to lead the CORE
consortium.
We are also concerned about the policies of ICRW, another
CORE member. In 2001, ICRW held a conference to plan strategy
for an agenda that included the legalization of prostitution.
Its pro-prostitution stance is radical that ICRW even
objected to the late Senator Paul Wellstone's Trafficking
Victims Protection Act (S. 1842, 106th Congress) because
``the legislation does not currently distinguish between
forced prostitution and voluntary prostitution. Thus [ICRW
argued] it may be used as a punitive measure against
voluntary sex workers.
ICRW also holds other policy views that most faith-based
groups would find offensive. ICRW president Geeta Rao Gupta
is a strong critic of abstinence programs, arguing that ``the
traditional norm of virginity for unmarried girls that exists
in many societies, paradoxically, increase young women's risk
of infection because it restricts their ability to ask for
information about sex out of fear that they will be thought
to be sexually active.'' Gupta also objects to the
``stigamatizing [of] sex workers'' because it ``increase[es]
their vulnerability to infection and violence.
The Alliance is the third CORE consortium organization of
concern. The Administration's own policy may prohibit this
group from receiving government grants because of its veiled
support for the legalization of prostitution. The Alliance
appears to be the vanguard of prostitution legalization
efforts through its many activities. In one instance, it
employs two highly placed associates of the Network of Sex
Work Projects, an outspoken pro-prostitution advocacy group.
In another instance, the Alliance purposefully organizes with
pro-prostitution groups. Nonetheless, USAID is working with
the Alliance to implement the Administration's HIV/AIDS
policy among faith-based groups.
The fourth disturbing CORE consortium member is the WCC.
With a reputation for more than half a century of unrelenting
criticism of the United States, WCC consistently seeks to
undermine American foreign policy.
A study published in 2004 by the well-regarded Institute on
Religion and Democracy surveyed WCC's public statements on
human rights over the past several years. The report
discovered that 21% of all WCC complaints about human rights
were directed against the United States and 43% were directed
against Israel, though WCC cited no human rights violations
in China. Apparently, WCC believes that China is not culpable
for any violation of human rights, while the United States
and Israel account for two-thirds of the world's violations.
This is a distortion of the meaning of ``human rights.''
Astonishingly, such propagandistic condemnation is not an
isolated incident. WCC issued a statement which linked the
tsunami in the Indian Ocean to the U.S. refusal to sign the
Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming. After September 11, WCC
General Secretary Konrad Raiser attacked the U.S. war against
terrorism as ``outside the rule of law,'' and claimed that
our anti-terrorism efforts have led to the ``harsh
suppression'' of the ``people's struggles for social
justice'' because they appear as ``potential manifestations
of terrorism.'' Raiser also dismissed the tragedy of
September 11, stating that it would ``create a sense of
solidarity in pain with those who had been exposed to the
structural violence of a global economic system which serves
the interests of a minority of rich people and countries.
Last year, three of USAID's CORE consortium members (CARE,
the International HIV/AIDS Alliance and the World Council of
Churches) joined with eight other organizations to produce a
so-called ``Code of Good Practice for NGOs Responding to HIV/
AIDS,'' which includes statements antithetical to American
policy. The document states that, ``In the context of
individual behavior change, abstinence, fidelity and use of
condoms all have a role to play in reducing HIV transmission.
However, it is critical that abstinence and fidelity are not
promoted as the preferred approach, with condoms as a last
resort, thereby stigmatizing [sic] condom use.''
The code also calls for ``the full range of prevention
options'' to be available to injecting drug users ``in a
manner that is free of judgment,'' including ``utilizing
[sic] non-injecting methods of drug use and effective use of
sterile injecting equipment.'' The code states that ``the
illegality and stigma associated with injecting drug use
invariably lead to discrimination against people who use
drugs and create barriers to accessing services'' and
protests the ``failure to protect the human rights of people
who inject drugs,'' linking it to the ``undermining [of] HIV
prevention efforts.'' If the sponsors of this code seriously
believe that legalizing drug use and making drugs and
equipment available--protecting the ``human rights'' of drug
users--will prevent the spread of HIV, then we cannot
understand why USAID would contract with these organizations.
Furthermore, the code advances the legalization of
prostitution, stating that ``the stigma associated with sex
work in many countries around the world creates significant
barriers to sexual health and HIV prevention efforts among
sex workers and their clients. . . . Supporting sex workers,
including through collective action, empowers them to
negotiate transactions, and address the health and social
contexts that increase their vulnerability to HIV
infection.'' Apparently, the code considers the legalization
of prostitution to be a way to improve HIV prevention
efforts.
Such policy statements are clearly contrary to American
foreign policy and offensive to a vast majority of religious
adherents the world over--though they are made by contractors
for the Administration's central faith-based response to the
HIV/AIDS policy.
Any reasonable pre-award evaluation by USAID of its
contractors should have confronted the records of CARE, ICRW,
the Alliance and WCC. If such an evaluation failed to uncover
the concerns we have enumerated above, we must question
USAID's procedures for selecting its contractors. We would be
most concerned, however, to learn that USAID had initiated
its collaboration with these CORE consortium members with
full knowledge of their policy positions.
U.S. government outreach to the range of faith-based
communities delivered by anti-American, anti-abstinence, pro-
prostitution and pro-drug use groups should not be allowed to
undermine the work of the Administration. Organizations
entrusted with taxpayers' money and charged with a mission to
represent our nation to people abroad must themselves
represent the values inherent in American foreign policy.
Thank you for considering these views, and for your work to
ensure that people of faith may participate fully in the
public square.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my friend and colleague, Representative Steve King. This amendment
seeks to obtain information necessary for Congressional oversight of
State Department activities, to ensure that the Congressional policy
against prostitution and human trafficking for the sex trade is
reflected by those activities.
The King amendment will assist the Congress in ensuring compliance
with current law. Specifically, this amendment would require a report
(within 90 days) describing by name all non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) which received funding for AIDS relief after the enactment of
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003
(Public Law 108-25). That law required that any recipient of funding
under the act have taken an official, public stand opposing the
legalization of prostitution.
Regrettably, many NGOs involved in AIDS-related work have promoted
legalizing prostitution, in the misguided belief that this will somehow
reduce the spread of AIDS. In fact, promoting prostitution not only
threatens to increase risky sexual behavior and thereby worsen the AIDS
epidemic, it also legitimizes this degrading ``business'' that has
enslaved so many women and children in the Third World and elsewhere.
[[Page H6122]]
Despite the enactment of Public Law 108-25, we have learned that the
State Department in fact awarded grants to NGOs that support legalizing
prostitution. The Department has refused, however, to provide a
complete accounting of this funding. Hence, this amendment would
require the State Department to inform Congress about the dates on
which funding was awarded, the date each identified NGO filed a
statement with the Federal Government asserting the NGO has a policy
``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,'' and a copy of
the statement.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman King for his efforts on this
important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Page 312, after line 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 1110A. STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING THE ATTACKS ON
UNITED STATES CITIZENS BY PALESTINIAN
TERRORISTS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Since the late Yasser Arafat renounced violence in the
Oslo Peace Accords on September 13, 1993, at least 53 United
States citizens, including one unborn child, have been
murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
(2) On December 1, 1993, in a drive-by shooting north of
Jerusalem, Hamas killed United States citizen Yitzhak
Weinstock, 19, whose family came from Los Angeles.
(3) On October 9, 1994, Hamas kidnapped and murdered United
States citizen Nachshon Wachsman, 19, whose family came from
New York City.
(4) On April 9, 1995, an Islamic Jihad bomb attack on a bus
near Kfar Darom killed United States citizen Alisa Flatow,
20, from West Orange, New Jersey.
(5) On August 21, 1995, in a Hamas bus bombing in
Jerusalem, United States citizen Joan Davenny, from New
Haven, Connecticut, was killed.
(6) On September 9, 1995, Mara Frey of Chicago was stabbed
in Ma``ale Michmash resulting in her unborn child''s death.
(7) On February 25, 1996, three United States citizens,
Sara Duker of Teaneck, New Jersey, Matthew Eisenfeld of West
Hartford, Connecticut, and Ira Weinstein of New York City,
were killed in a Hamas bus bombing in Jerusalem.
(8) On May 13, 1996, United States citizen David Boim, 17,
of New York City, was killed in a drive-by shooting near Beit
El, north of Jerusalem.
(9) On June 9, 1996, United States citizen Yaron Ungar was
killed in a drive-by shooting near Beit Shemesh.
(10) On July 30, 1997, United States citizen Leah Stern of
Passaic, New Jersey, was killed in a Hamas bombing in
Jerusalem"s Mahane Yehuda market.
(11) On September 4, 1997, a Hamas bombing on Ben-Yehuda
Street, Jerusalem, killed Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles.
(12) On April 19, 1998, an attack near the Israeli town of
Maon killed United States citizen Dov Dribben, 28.
(13) On October 8, 2000, Rabbi Hillel Lieberman, 36, of New
York City, was stabbed and killed near Nablus.
(14) On October 30, 2000, United States citizen Esh-Kodesh
Gilmore, 25, was shot in Jerusalem.
(15) On December 31, 2000, Rabbi Binyamin Kahane, 34, and
his wife, Talia Hertzlich Kahane, both formerly of New York
City, were killed in a drive-by shooting near Ofra.
(16) On May 9, 2001, Jacob ``Koby'' Mandell, 13, of Silver
Spring, Maryland, was killed in an attack near Tekoah.
(17) On May 29, 2001, Sarah Blaustein, 53, of Lawrence, New
York, was killed in a drive-by shooting near Efrat.
(18) On August 9, 2001, two United States citizens, Judith
L. Greenbaum, 31, and Malka Roth, 15, were killed in the
Jerusalem Sbarro pizzeria bombing.
(19) On November 4, 2001, Shoshana Ben-Yishai, 16, of New
York City, was shot and killed during an attack on a
Jerusalem bus.
(20) On January 15, 2002, Avraham Boaz, 72, of New York
City, was killed in a shooting near Bethlehem.
(21) On January 18, 2002, United States citizen Aaron Elis,
32, was killed in a shooting in Hadera.
(22) On February 8, 2002, United States citizen Moranne
Amit, 25, was killed in a stabbing in Abu Tor Peace Forest,
Jerusalem.
(23) On February 15, 2002, United States citizen Lee
Akunis, was shot and killed near Ramallah.
(24) On February 16, 2002, Keren Shatsky, 14, of New York
City and Maine, and Rachel Thaler, 16, of Baltimore,
Maryland, were killed in a bombing in Karnei Shomron.
(25) On March 24, 2002, Esther Kleinman, 23, formerly of
Chicago, was shot and killed near Ofra.
(26) On March 27, 2002, United States citizen Hannah Rogen,
90, was killed in a bombing at a hotel Passover seder in
Netanya.
(27) On June 18, 2002, Moshe Gottlieb, 70, of Los Angeles,
was killed in a bus bombing in Jerusalem.
(28) On June 19, 2002, United States citizen Gila Sara
Kessler, 19, was killed in a bombing at a Jerusalem bus stop.
(29) On July 31, 2002, five United States citizens were
killed in a bombing of a Hebrew University cafeteria: Marla
Bennett, 24, of San Diego, Benjamin Blutstein, 25, of
Susquehanna Township, Pennsylvania, Janis Ruth Coulter, 36,
of Massachusetts, David Gritz, 24, of Peru, Massachusetts
(and of dual French-United States citizenship), and Dina
Carter, 37, of North Carolina.
(30) On March 5, 2003, Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in
Lebanon, New Hampshire, died in a bus bombing in Haifa.
(31) On March 7, 2003, a shooting occurred in the home of
United States citizens Rabbi Eli Horowitz, 52, who grew up in
Chicago, and Dina Horowitz, 50, who grew up in Florida, and
both were killed.
(32) On June 11, 2003, Alan Beer, 47, who grew up in
Cleveland, was killed in a bus bombing in Jerusalem.
(33) On June 20, 2003, a shooting attack on a car driving
through the West Bank killed United States citizen Tzvi
Goldstein, 47, who grew up in the State of New York.
(34) On August 19, 2003, Mordechai Reinitz, 49, Yitzhak
Reinitz, 9, Tehilla Nathanson, 3, of Monsey, New York, Goldie
Taubenfeld, 43, of New Square, New York, and Shmuel
Taubenfeld, 3 months, of New Square, New York, were killed in
a homicide bombing on a bus in Jerusalem.
(35) On September 9, 2003, a homicide bomber killed United
States citizens David Applebaum, 51, originally of Cleveland,
and Nava Applebaum, 20, originally of Cleveland, in a cafe in
Jerusalem.
(36) On October 15, 2003, United States citizens John
Branchizio, 36, of San Antonio, Texas, John Martin Linde,
Jr., 30, of Washington, Missouri, and Mark T. Parson, 31, of
the State of New York were killed in a car bombing in Gaza.
(37) On September 24, 2004, a mortar strike on a housing
community killed Tiferet Tratner, 24, a dual United States-
Israeli citizen.
(38) At least another 83 United States citizens have been
injured in Palestinian terrorist attacks.
(39) Palestinian terrorism continues to happen as
demonstrated by the bombing in Tel Aviv on February 25, 2005,
despite the recent elections and a new sense of optimism in
the region.
(40) The United States is willing to continue to work with
Palestinian leaders under the condition that the newly
elected Palestinian leadership reject and take verifiable
steps to prevent terrorism.
(b) Statement of Policy.--Congress--
(1) condemns the attacks on United States citizens by
Palestinian terrorists and demands that the Palestinian
Authority work with Israel to protect all innocent
individuals, regardless of citizenship, from terrorist
atrocities; and
(2) offers its condolences to the families and loved ones
of United States citizens who were killed by Palestinian
terrorist attacks.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge support of this amendment which condemns
the attacks made by radical Muslims since the Oslo Peace Accords in
September of 1993. These attacks claimed the lives of 53, at least 53
innocent American victims and at least one unborn child in Israel.
My amendment is simple in procedure, but it is sincere in its
substance. It honors those innocent Americans that have fallen victim
to the terror of radical Islam by listing each victim's name, age,
place of residence, location of his or her death, and the cause of
their death. My amendment also demands that the Palestinian Authority
work with Israel to protect all innocent individuals, regardless of
citizenship, from terrorist atrocities.
We should honor the victims killed by terrorists in Israel and all
over the world with the same spirit that we have honored our victims of
September 11. The September 11 victims and those killed in Israel are
all victims of radical Islam and, sadly, the death toll continues to
rise as evidenced by the recent London bombings of July 7.
The terrorists who attacked us on
9/11 are the same kind of terrorists who blow themselves up on buses or
in
[[Page H6123]]
crowded shopping areas in Israel and kill our soldiers on the streets
of Baghdad. Terrorism does not discriminate between women and men or
between children and adults. This is because terrorists hate freedom
and worship death. It is with heavy hearts that we as freedom-loving
people are bound together across language barriers and religious
beliefs. Together, we fight radical Islam which preaches a culture of
death.
My amendment is a small, heartfelt measure to honor those Americans
killed in Israel by radical Islamists. I am hopeful that it will send a
message to their loved ones that we are all in this together. Our fight
to defend our God-given rights to freedom will honor those who have
died at the hands of the culture of death and properly preserve our
freedom for future generations.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment, and I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to commend my friend from Iowa for offering this amendment. As
the amendment soberly points out, 52 American citizens have been
murdered by Palestinian terrorists since the PLO forswore the use of
violence in the 1993 Oslo Accords.
This amendment acts, in effect, as a memorial, recording the name of
each victim and offering condolences to their families.
It also demands that the Palestinian Authority work with Israel to
protect all innocent individuals, of whatever citizenship, from
terrorist atrocities. This is an important message at any time, but
particularly now as Israel prepares to undertake a historic
disengagement from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority must do
its best, and it certainly has not done so lately, to ensure that this
disengagement takes place in an orderly fashion and not under a hail of
grenades and Kassam rockets that would only cast doubt on the viability
of a Palestinian controlled Gaza as a neighbor for Israel.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the Palestinian Authority takes the
antiterrorist message of this resolution to heart.
Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that as our distinguished Secretary of
State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, leaves for the region she could not be
going at a more appropriate and urgent time, and she fully understands
that her prime responsibility is to make it clear to the Palestinian
Authority that it must guarantee order and peace by using its military
forces in Gaza to break the back of militant terrorist groups.
I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his remarks
and his support and his defense for the freedom and the safety of
people across this globe for decades. I say to the gentleman, as to the
small part that I add to the effort that he has brought, I feel it a
privilege to be standing on this floor together with the gentleman
speaking for freedom and safety of freedom-loving people everywhere. We
so often and so easily forget that there are people dying in the Middle
East that do not show up on the front page of our papers, and we stand
with the people in Israel, we stand with all freedom-loving people.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment that honors them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 printed in part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 312, after line 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 1110A. INTERNATIONAL TREATY BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS
AND THE USE OF WEAPONS AGAINST OBJECTS IN SPACE
IN ORBIT.
The President shall direct the United States
representatives to the United Nations and other international
organizations to immediately work toward negotiating,
adopting, and implementing an international treaty banning
space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or
damage objects in space that are in orbit.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Kucinich amendment would require the President to direct the U.S.
representatives to the United Nations and other international
organizations to commence negotiations on an international treaty
banning space-based weapons. Though the U.S. and the former Soviet
Union long dominated the use of space, currently many states are
investing in space assets and have developed or are developing the
ability to use space peacefully.
Serious multilateral discussions about rules of the road for space
are needed. This is especially important for the United States, as we
own and operate the vast majority of satellites orbiting today, and
space has become critical to U.S. economic, scientific, and military
interests. Continuing the peaceful use of space will require refined
international laws for space-faring States. The legal framework
addressing the weaponization of space is far from comprehensive.
The international community, including Russia, China, Canada, and the
EU, support creating a ban on weapons through a treaty to ban weapons
from outer space. The United Nations has called for peace in space.
For nearly a half century, the cooperative and peaceful uses of space
have yielded immense benefits to humans worldwide. Despite Cold War
tensions and the technical capability to do so, no nation has deployed
destructive weapons in space or destroyed the satellites of another
nation.
The policy of preserving peace in space has not only been an
international policy, Mr. Chairman, it has also been a national policy.
The National Aeronautic and Space Act passed in 1958 stated that it
``is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be
devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.''
Yet despite any amendment to law or consideration by Congress, the
policy of preserving peace in space changed significantly, behind
closed doors.
{time} 1145
Why this policy has changed is a mystery. No other country has taken
any steps to develop space-based weapons. Space assets of the United
States have received no national security threats. Our national
security threats are far from outer space. They are on the ground. Yet,
with little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of
dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them.
The Air Force has recently sought President Bush's approval of a
national security directive that could move the U.S. closer to fielding
space weapons. This new policy would alienate our friends and mobilize
our potential enemies.
Moving forward with plans to weaponize space would create an arms
race in space. It would be counterproductive to U.S. national security
to give potential adversaries reasons to accelerate development of
space weapons technology. Pursuing space weapons would also bankrupt
our Nation
[[Page H6124]]
with a hefty price tag of up to $1 trillion according to published
studies by leading weapons scientists, physicists, and engineers. The
financial repercussions of a space-based weapons system would trickle
down to every sector of our society: our national security, economy,
health care, education, social services, and foreign policy.
It would be very easy to prevent the inevitable catastrophe that
would result from an armed race in space. The United States, the only
country moving forward with plans to put weapons in space, despite any
national security threat, would need to stop in its tracks and work
with other nations to negotiate an international legal framework for
the peaceful use of space.
Support the Kucinich amendment to commence negotiations for an
international treaty banning space-based weapons. This country should
not make of the planet Earth a death star. We need to support
international cooperation for the peaceful use of technology in space.
Support the Kucinich amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Everett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to this amendment. This amendment attempts
to commit the United States to a policy that would be detrimental to
our national security. U.S. space assets underpin the economic
livelihood of our Nation and provide critical capabilities for our
warfighters around the world. It would be irresponsible not to ensure
that we have the means to protect these assets and our troops. We
should not be forced to enter into an agreement that would prematurely
tie our hands from the ability to freely and peacefully operate in
space.
This Congress and the administration are seriously concerned with the
potential problems we have with our existing space satellites, both
economically and militarily. As a Member of the House Armed Services
Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, we have
had several sessions in order to fully understand how to best protect
these assets. We are currently engaged in constructive discussions on
how to best proceed on this very complex issue. The American people
deserve and the Congress must engage in the first ever national
discussion on space control before we can even begin to think of
approaching the rest of the world, as this amendment would have us do.
This amendment forces a course that would greatly hamper our economy
and our national security. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I will
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama, my
colleague and friend, yielding to me. I join with the gentleman in
opposition to this amendment.
As my colleague knows, just this morning we were at a Space Power
Caucus breakfast. My colleague has emphasized that we have a tremendous
amount invested in our space assets. It would be a shame and actually
worse than that to have those assets jeopardized.
I think this amendment harms our ability to protect our assets in
space. We have assets out there that are protecting us, giving us
intelligence information, protecting us, giving us weather information.
And I think this amendment charts a dangerous course that would not
allow us to continue to invest money in research and development and
protect those assets. I think we should oppose this amendment.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama has 2 minutes left.
The gentleman from Ohio has 1 minute left.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong
opposition to the Kucinich amendment. A key element in a robust defense
against ballistic missiles is the deployment of space-based weapons to
intercept them in flight. We are talking about in all cases nonnuclear
interceptors to stop an incoming nuclear device.
I think the amendment, while well intentioned, and I respect the
gentleman from Ohio, is very counterproductive and puts our cities and
our population at risk. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my
colleagues to defeat it.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is the ranking member of my
committee, unfortunately or fortunately we have moved the discussion
this morning on this bill forward kind of rapidly. And I am at liberty
to say that he was going to also oppose this amendment. As I said, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is the ranking member of the strategic
subcommittee. And I might point out that the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Cramer) is the ranking member of the Intelligence oversight
committee.
We do not even know what a weapon in space is. We are having the
first-ever hearings in the history of this country to try to define the
course of action that we should take in the future regarding our space
assets. Our space assets underpin the economy of our Nation, in
addition to being so helpful, as a matter of fact, very necessary to
our military. It is a multibillion dollar economy. If we were to go
blind in space, if for some reason someone should shut down our assets
in space, you would not be able to use a cell phone. You would not be
able to use any communications, television or any other kind of
communications. You would not be able to use your ATM machine. It would
literally cause this entire country to go blind.
This is not a well-conceived amendment. I do not know the purpose of
the amendment. I know the gentleman is not on the House Armed Services
Committee. I know he is also not on the Intelligence Committee. And I
just would have to say I am not real certain of the gentleman's
knowledge of this subject.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If the gentleman had the opportunity to read the amendment, he would
see that it has to do with commencing negotiations on an international
treaty banning space-based weapons. The U.S. Space Command has a
program called Vision 2020 which really is about U.S. domination of
space.
Now, the American people ought to know whether their Members of
Congress are prepared to spend up to a trillion dollars so we start the
next arms race in outer space. This is apart from the issue of
protecting our Nation with antiballistic missiles. It is a whole
different debate. This is about taking the arms race into outer space.
And what I am asking for is for an international treaty where all
nations would agree we should not do that.
But some in this Congress want to take weapons to go to outer space
so the United States can control the world from outer space. Mr.
Chairman, that is simply nuts. And what I am suggesting is that we
ought to be talking to other nations about eliminating an arms race in
outer space to protect future generations. You know, a long, long time
ago in a galaxy far, far away people were not talking about killing
each other. We should be talking about a treaty to ban weapons in
space.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Lantos
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H6125]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Lantos:
Redesignate title XI as title XII and redesignate sections
1101 through 1126 as sections 1201 through 1226,
respectively.
Insert after title X the following new title:
TITLE XI--OPENING DOORS FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS
SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Opening Doors for Foreign
Students Act of 2005''.
SEC. 1102. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Opening doors to well-intentioned foreign students and
exchange visitors has wide-ranging benefits to the United
States.
(2) Upon their return to their countries of origin, foreign
students and exchange visitors disseminate the core values of
the United States as they relate their positive experiences
with the democratic form of governance, the dynamic
multicultural society, and the entrepreneurial spirit of the
United States.
(3) The United States earns approximately $13,000,000,000 a
year in tuition and living expenses paid by foreign students,
making higher education the United States' fifth largest
service export.
(4) Since the terrorist attacks on America on September 11,
2001, the United States institutions of higher education and
nongovernmental exchange sponsors have faced great challenges
in retaining their competitive position in the market for
foreign students.
(A) During the 2002-2003 academic year, the first year
after the 9/11 attacks, the growth of overall international
student enrollment in the United States slowed to 0.6 percent
after having increased by 6.4 percent in the two previous
academic years. During the 2003-2004 academic year, according
to the Institute of International Education, the number of
international students studying in the United States declined
2.4 percent to 572,509. This was the first overall decline in
international students studying in the United States since
the 1971-72 school year.
(B) Community Colleges have been particularly hard-hit by
overall declines in enrollments of foreign students. During
the 2003-2004 academic year, the number of foreign students
enrolled a public two-year schools fell by 10 percent,
according to the Institute of International Education.
(5) Some foreign students have expressed anxiety and alarm
about the new visa processes. A survey conducted in 2004 at
the University of California of 1,700 foreign students found
that 60 percent reported that they had to endure
``unreasonable delays'' to obtain student visas.
(6) Competitors in the marketplace for higher education,
including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the
United Kingdom, are aggressively recruiting students to take
advantage of changed perceptions of the United States.
(7) If the United States is to regain its competitive
advantage in attracting foreign students and exchange
visitors, it will be essential for the Department of State to
work to ensure that new visa procedures are administered in
the most efficient and user-friendly possible manner.
Furthermore the Department must continue to engage in public
outreach designed to dispel negative perceptions about study
in the United States.
SEC. 1103. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO ATTRACT
FOREIGN STUDENTS TO STUDY IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Development of Strategy.--Not later than one year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of
Commerce, shall develop a comprehensive strategy to counter
widespread perceptions among foreign students that the United
States no longer welcomes them to study in the United States
or to participate in exchange programs, and to increase
applications by foreign students to come to the United States
for study and exchange. Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a written account
of this strategy.
(b) Consultations With Stakeholders.--Beginning not later
than 180 days after date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of State shall undertake annual consultations with
individuals and organizations involved in international
education, including consultations with nongovernmental
institutions concerned with the recruitment of foreign
students to the United States; officials from United States
educational institutions concerned with the recruitment of
foreign students, foreign student representatives,
nongovernmental organizations designated by the Department of
State as sponsors in the Exchange Visitor Program, and other
concerned parties for the purpose of discussing and seeking
input on the development of the comprehensive strategy
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 1104. IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY MISSIONS AND MISSIONS
EMPLOYING BEST PRACTICES FOR ATTRACTING STUDENT
VISA APPLICANTS.
(a) Review of Student Visa Applications.--The Secretary of
State shall review the application and issuance rates for F-1
and J-1 nonimmigrant visas (issued under subparagraphs (F)
and (J) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) at every diplomatic or
consular mission of the United States providing consular
services. Such review shall encompass the five-year period
immediately preceding the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall be used to identify missions that have experienced
significant declines in such visa applications, the issuance
of such visas, or both, and shall also identify diplomatic or
consular missions that have experienced recovery in the rate
of such applications or such issuances after experiencing
significant declines in such applications, such issuances, or
both.
(b) Obtaining Information on Best Practices for Gaining
Increases.--Upon identifying diplomatic or consular missions
that have experienced recoveries in the rates of such visa
applications, issuances, or both, the Secretary shall direct
the chiefs of mission of such missions to submit to the
Secretary a report concerning consular, public diplomacy,
public outreach, or other practices that may have contributed
to such recoveries.
(c) Corrective Measures.--Upon identifying diplomatic or
consular missions in key foreign policy countries that have
suffered significant declines in the rates of such
applications, issuances, or both without experiencing
recovery in either or both of such rates in accordance with
the review required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
direct the chiefs of mission of such missions to develop a
plan appropriate to each such mission to attract additional
F-1 and J-1 visa applicants and to address any inefficiencies
in processing visa applications specific to each such
mission.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and one year thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report concerning trends in the application and
issuance rates for F-1 and J-1 visas at all diplomatic and
consular missions of the United States providing consular
services.
(2) Report elements.--
(A) Statistical information.--The first report submitted
pursuant to this section shall contain data from the five-
year period immediately preceding the date of the enactment
of this Act. The second report shall contain updated data
covering the calendar year preceding the issuance of the
report and comparisons with previous data.
(B) Best practices.--Each report shall contain a ``Best
Practices'' section identifying diplomatic or consular
missions that have experienced a recovery in the rates of
such applications, such issuances, or both after experiencing
declines in the rates for such applications, such issuances,
or both. For each diplomatic or consular mission so
identified, the report shall include post activities that may
have contributed to such recovery.
(C) Priority posts.--Each report shall also contain a
section entitled ``Priority Posts'' that identifies critical
diplomatic and consular missions from key foreign policy
countries that have experienced declines in the rates of such
applications, such issuances, or both without experiencing a
significant recovery in any of such rates. For each
diplomatic or consular mission so identified, the report
shall contain an action plan that describes new initiatives,
such as consular services, public diplomacy, and public
outreach, that are designed to improve the rates of such
applications and such issuances.
SEC. 1105. ENHANCED TRAINING IN PROCESSING AND FACILITATING
STUDENT VISAS.
(a) Training Programs.--Chapter 7 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.) (relating to career
development, training, and orientation) is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 708. TRAINING IN PROCESSING AND FACILITATING VISA
APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS AND EXCHANGE VISITORS
FOR STUDY IN THE UNITED STATES.
``The Secretary shall establish a training program for
members of the Service who have responsibilities related to
the issuance of visas to prepare such members for the unique
challenges that visa applicants face in completing the F-1
and J-1 nonimmigrant visa application process and to provide
such members with proven tools, including in the area of
consular services, public diplomacy, outreach to non-
governmental institutions and educational institutions, and
public outreach to combat perceptions that the United States
is no longer a welcoming place for foreign citizens to study
or to participate in exchange programs.''
SEC. 1106. ENHANCED DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE FAVORABLE
RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
CONCERNING STUDENT VISA TERM LIMITS.
The Secretary of State should undertake a sustained
diplomatic dialogue with key foreign governments, including
the Government of the People's Republic of China and the
Government of the Russian Federation, aimed at renegotiating
the terms of existing reciprocal agreements to provide for
extended validity of student and exchange visas in order to
reduce the need for frequent renewals of F-1 and J-1
nonimmigrant visas by foreign students.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
[[Page H6126]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to offer my sincere thanks to the chairman of the
International Relations Committee (Mr. Hyde), my dear friend, for
working closely with me in a joint effort to tackle the critical
problem of declining rates of foreign students seeking to study in the
United States.
I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum),
who has worked with us on this problem for years.
Mr. Chairman, opening doors to well-intentioned foreign students is
as critical to the security of the United States as is the task of
identifying those who are engaged in terrorism and other hostile acts
against us.
Foreign students who come to the United States to study and
disseminate the core values of the American people as they relate their
positive firsthand experience when they return to their countries of
origin.
The education of foreign students is a critical part of the United
States economy as well, and it is a key American export. Not many
people know, Mr. Chairman, the United States earns $13 billion a year
in tuition and expenses paid to us by foreign students.
Since 9/11, U.S. colleges and universities have faced great
challenges in retaining their competitive position in the market for
foreign students. These challenges have begun to erode our dominance as
the world's leading and most desired destination for foreign students.
During the 2003-2004 academic year, according to the Institute for
International Education, the number of international students studying
in the United States declined by almost 2\1/2\ percent. This was the
first overall year-to-year decline in the number of international
students since the 1971-1972 school year.
It appears, Mr. Chairman, that much of the problem stems from
negative misperceptions by potential foreign students about new U.S.
visa processes and fears that the United States has become a less
friendly place for them to study.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to address this problem by
encouraging the Department of State to work with the U.S. educational
and academic community and with other Federal agencies to develop
effective practices aimed at reversing these negative perceptions so
that we may once again re-establish our competitive position as the
choice destination for the world's best and brightest international
students. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in
opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we are delighted to accept this
amendment. It is a far-reaching visionary help to public diplomacy, an
area where we can use all the help in the world possible.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) on
producing this very useful, important amendment. And we are delighted
to accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Hyde). This is a very creative amendment; 9/11
should not mean that the welcome mat has been pulled. As the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) points out in the amendment's findings,
$13 billion every year is earned from foreign students coming in. But
it is not the money, per se, although that helps our colleges and
universities. It is the fact that these students have the opportunity
to learn what democracy is all about, to learn what a capitalist system
can produce for their people when they return. They can also learn
skills that will save lives in the area of medicine as well as in law
and so many other areas.
{time} 1200
It is a very, very creative amendment, I think, and will lead to best
practices that will result in more students taking the good infection
back to their respective countries. I again want to congratulate the
gentleman on this excellent amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friends, Chairman
Hyde and Chairman Smith, for their words and their comments. I hope we
can all support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 printed in part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Mack
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Mack:
Page 24, beginning line 4, add the following new paragraph:
(5) Broadcasting to venezuela.--For broadcasting to
Venezuela, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2006
and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2007, to
remain available until expended, to allow the Broadcasting
Board of Governors to carry out broadcasting to Venezuela for
at least 30 minutes per day of balanced, objective, and
comprehensive television news programming, radio news
programming, or both.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
want to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their strong
leadership in moving this important legislation forward. As a member of
the International Relations Committee, it has been an honor in my short
career here to serve with both of them and all of the members of the
committee on this fine piece of legislation.
As a new member of the committee, I have closely followed the events
in Latin America and particularly in Venezuela. In fact, this weekend
during his weekly radio and television program, President Hugo Chavez
urged Venezuelans to embrace, and I quote, his 21st century socialism.
This is not surprising considering that since he has taken office in
1999, Chavez has forged strong relations with his Communist friend
Fidel Castro. As part of his fiery nationalist rhetoric, Chavez makes
almost daily verbal attacks against the United States Government and
against freedom, calling it an imperialist menace to world peace and
accusing it of trying to topple his regime and kill him.
Most of us are concerned by Chavez's anti-American, anti-freedom
speech. However, this rhetoric, coupled with his ever-growing crackdown
on freedom and his rapidly increasing domination of the Venezuelan
airwaves, has caused many of us to become increasingly alarmed.
Chavez, who already dominates the Venezuelan airwaves, is financing a
new state-run TV network patterned after Al-Jazeera. What is more, new
laws, including the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and
Television, are being used to snuff out anyone who uses the airwaves to
oppose Chavez and his government. Many Venezuelan journalists believe
that Chavez is trying to squelch criticism before it starts.
My amendment would focus the resources of the United States
Government to counter Chavez's anti-American, anti-freedom messages. It
would provide an outlet to the Venezuelan people to hear about the
positive ideals of freedom, security and prosperity.
[[Page H6127]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment. I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I commend my good friend from Florida for offering this important
amendment to increase the flow of objective information about the
United States and world events into Venezuela. Recently, Reuters
reported that Chavez had launched a new television station, Telesur, to
counter what he considers to be pro-globalization bias in European and
American news networks, like CNN. Chavez has also reportedly entered
into a $200 million deal with China's National Space Administration to
launch a satellite into orbit from which he could beam his anticipated
hateful media content into homes across Latin America, the Caribbean
and beyond.
As Chavez ramps up his information campaign, we should be prepared to
present balanced news to the people of Venezuela so that they can be
better able to make informed decisions about the activities of their
government. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment
of my friend from Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack). I want to
commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on this very
important issue.
We are currently engaged in a war on terror halfway around the world,
a war to bring freedom and democracy to a part of the world that has
never seen it. That is a noble and just fight. However, we must also
ensure the viability of freedom and democracy in our own neighborhood.
Twenty years ago, we fought against Communist forces attempting to gain
footholds in the Western hemisphere, and now we face threats from an
agent of Castro, China and Iran.
On several occasions, President Chavez has attempted to intimidate
the United States and has launched unfounded attacks on our President.
He has threatened to shift all oil sales away from the United States
and towards China. He has aligned himself with the only remaining
Communist dictator in the Western hemisphere. And he has allegedly
approached Iran in search of nuclear technology.
Since his election, Chavez has worked to break down the most basic
principles of freedom, including the right to free speech and unbiased
information. He has restricted the media that has been critical to his
government and he has opened a state-run media outlet. This amendment
would create parity of information and allow the people of Venezuela
the opportunity to hear more than just the propaganda of Hugo Chavez.
It will allow the people of Venezuela to hear the truth.
I urge my colleagues to support this pro-democracy amendment. I thank
the gentleman from Florida for bringing this to the floor.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Simply put, this amendment would authorize the Broadcasting Board of
Governors to initiate radio and television broadcasts to Venezuela much
like we currently do with Radio and TV Marti in Cuba. Since Chavez came
to power, he has moved sharply away from democracy and closer to
socialism and maybe even beyond. The United States must take action to
ensure that the message of freedom reaches the people of Venezuela. I
urge my colleagues to support and vote for this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
Page 312, after line 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 1110A. STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY OVER THE GREAT LAKES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The water resources of the Great Lakes Basin are
precious public natural resources, shared and held in trust
by the Great Lakes States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and
by the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
(2) Authority over the Great Lakes is vested in the
Governors of the Great Lakes States by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
(3) Section 1109(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20(b)(2)) encourages the Great
Lakes States, in consultation with the Canadian Provinces of
Ontario and Quebec, to develop and implement a mechanism that
provides a common conservation standard embodying the
principles of water conservation and resource improvement for
making decisions concerning the withdrawal and use of water
from the Great Lakes Basin.
(4) Section 1109(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20(d))
requires the approval of the Governor of each of the Great
Lakes States prior to the diversion or export of Great Lakes
water.
(5) The Great Lakes Charter of 1985 is a voluntary
international agreement that provides the procedural
framework for prior notice and consultation by the Great
Lakes States and the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec
concerning the withdrawal of water from the Great Lakes
Basin.
(6) Whereas the Council of Great Lakes Governors and
Premiers has drafted amendments to the Great Lakes Charter of
1985, known as ``Annex 2001''.
(7) One of the primary purposes of Annex 2001 is to
strengthen the authority of Great Lakes Governors and
Premiers to make decisions concerning proposals to divert or
export Great Lakes water by establishing a common
conservation standard by which such decisions will be made.
(8) The final commitments proposed in Annex 2001 to affirm
in-basin authority by way of enacting a basin-States compact
and a cross-border accord with the Provinces of Ontario and
Quebec will be presented to Congress for final approval.
(b) Statement of Policy.--Congress--
(1) recognizes and affirms the efforts of the Great Lakes
Governors and Premiers in developing a common standard for
decisions relating to the withdrawal of water from the Great
Lakes that lead to improvement of this binational resource;
and
(2) urges that the management authority over the waters of
the Great Lakes should remain vested with the Governors and
Premiers of the eight Great Lakes States and two Great Lakes
Provinces that share stewardship over this vast and valuable
natural resource.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important day for the Great Lakes
and an important amendment to tell the rest of the country how really
important they are--about 94,000 square miles of fresh water, beautiful
lakes, beautiful not only in the summer but beautiful in the winter.
What we have done over time in the Great Lakes is come to the
realization that the people best suited to make the decisions about the
Great Lakes are not bureaucrats from Washington, DC, whose only
experience with Lake Superior might have been an article in the
National Geographic, or our friends from Texas or Arizona or California
that certainly have an interest in diverting some of our water but do
not understand the environmental impact that that may make to the
States that count so dearly on our water. And we have made progress.
After the 1986 annex bill that allowed the States to work together to
solve issues of common interest, issues that Wisconsinites and
Michiganders and folks from Ohio and Indiana understand are so
important, this really reaffirms that. It says we believe that
[[Page H6128]]
these folks, including Canada, the provinces that touch the Great
Lakes, should have the ability to control water diversion. It is
working. We have gotten progress. We have come together. It was really
the first piece of legislation that brought Canada to the table to talk
about the issues important to all of the Great Lakes States.
Mr. Chairman, there are 18 Great Lakes Members that support this
language. The chairman supports this language. Why? Because we
understand that 20 percent of the world's fresh water is worth fighting
for. It is worth protecting. But it is worth protecting in the sense
that we give the authority to Great Lakes Governors and Great Lakes
legislators for the purpose of protecting what they know. If you want
our water, you really should have to live there in February. It is a
beautiful place. Beautiful lakes. Beautiful fresh water. And it is
worth protecting. Let us not diffuse the issue. Let us not stop the
progress of the Great Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes legislators
and the provincial leaders in Canada. We have made huge progress. The
lakes are starting to turn around. We have identified mutual areas of
interest where we can make even more progress to keep those Great Lakes
alive.
This is the amendment, Mr. Chairman, that says we will and we do
understand the importance of the Great Lakes Governors and the Great
Lakes legislators making the determinations in accordance with law that
has passed these bodies several times before.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise only to say we
are very pleased to accept this excellent amendment. We hope it passes.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as someone who has worked more than 12 years to protect
the Great Lakes, I have serious concerns about this amendment and I
would urge my colleagues to oppose it. To be clear, I strongly support
the amendment's stated intent. Congress should encourage the Great
Lakes Governors to work together to develop a common standard for Great
Lakes water withdrawal. But there is little similarity between the
gentleman from Michigan's stated intent and the real effect of his
amendment.
The Rogers amendment would, for the first time ever, put Congress on
record as granting all management authority over the Great Lakes to the
eight State Governors and two provincial governments of Canada. In
doing so, it would undermine our efforts to protect the lakes from oil
and gas drilling, wastewater blending, invasive species, and water
diversions. In short, the Rogers amendment would be a recipe for
disaster for the Great Lakes.
This amendment is absurd. Would Congress cede control of coastal
portions of the Atlantic Ocean to a foreign government? Would we allow
Mexico the power to decide whether or not to drill for oil and gas in
the Gulf off the coast of Florida, Louisiana or Mississippi? The answer
is absolutely not. So why would Congress cede management control over
the Great Lakes, the source of drinking water for over 33 million
Americans, to Canada or any other foreign power? If you vote for the
Rogers amendment, that is exactly what you would be doing, giving away
our national sovereignty.
{time} 1215
Current law already allows the States a great deal of input into
Great Lakes management. It strikes the appropriate balance between the
State and the Federal Government. It is the right way to protect the
Great Lakes. It ensures that we have one smart policy to protect the
Great Lakes, not eight. That is why Annex 2001 requires congressional
approval.
Specifically, this amendment uses the phrase ``remain vested'' when
referring to the Great Lakes States' management authority. Congress has
never provided full management authorities of the Great Lakes to the
States. How can the States ``remain vested'' with authority that
Congress has never granted?
This language is not a minor detail. In reality, it would mean the
Federal Government would be ceding its lead role in protecting the
Great Lakes to several States and to Canada. This is not a recipe for a
smart, coordinated effort to protect our Great Lakes.
As Members decide how they will vote on the Rogers amendment, I ask
them to consider the following: The Federal Government does have a role
in the policies regarding the Great Lakes, just as we have a role in
policies governing coastal issues along our ocean borders.
If Members support the environment and want to protect our country's
largest source of fresh water, vote no on the Rogers amendment. We
cannot risk having eight different policies from eight different Great
Lakes States.
If Members support the Constitution, vote no on the Rogers amendment.
We should never cede control of our natural resources to two Canadian
premiers.
This amendment is inconsistent with constitutional interpretation,
and could provide States more leverage to negotiate directly with other
countries on interests of national concerns regarding the Great Lakes.
A simple reading of the Rogers amendment, especially the last
paragraph, could only lead to two conclusions: Either the amendment
fails to understand law or it is purposely attempting to undermine
existing Great Lakes protections. In either case, the amendment should
be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague from Michigan and echo
a couple of points that he made in opposition to the Rogers amendment.
This is nothing but a backdoor attempt to permit oil drilling in the
Great Lakes. We have all cited the statistic that 20 percent of the
world's fresh water comes from the Great Lakes, that in fact 30 million
Americans get their daily drinking water from the Great Lakes. If we
were to have eight separate policies, the impact just to Lake Michigan,
if Michigan decided to start drilling in the Great Lakes and have an
accident, it would affect Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois and all of the
individuals of the States who get their fresh drinking water from that
area.
This is a backdoor attempt to do what has been tried before. We tried
in past legislation to deal with banning an official because the
moratorium is up on oil drilling in the Great Lakes. This is a backdoor
attempt to allow oil drilling in the Great Lakes and endanger what has
been a bipartisan consensus when it came to the Great Lakes. We should
not concede Federal responsibility and role in maintaining a standard
for the Great Lakes and for the 20 million Americans who get their
daily drinking water from the Great Lakes.
I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his opposition
to this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
It is horribly unfortunate to see partisanship creep into this
amendment. Nowhere in this amendment does it talk about oil drilling.
This is about the stewardship of the Great Lakes. This recognizes
current law that we passed in 2000 by over 300 votes and in 1986 by
over 300 votes.
This is about stewardship of the Great Lakes and recognizing the
successes of those Governors and those legislatures and the progress
that we have made. It is disappointing that we have reached this point.
I urge support of this amendment. The Great Lakes Governors and the
Great Lakes legislatures deserve our praise.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who has been a champion on
this issue.
(Ms. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we
were unable to have a full hearing on this. It is most unfortunate that
it is on the floor without a hearing.
There is nowhere in current law the word ``vested'' is used with the
Governors. This is a radical change. This amendment is a radical change
to current law. Thirty-five million people
[[Page H6129]]
whose water source is not only for drinking but for working and their
way of life is dependent upon a quality that has jointly been
maintained in the Great Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As a
fellow Member of a Great Lakes state, I appreciate what a valuable
resource the Great Lakes are to my state, our region, our country and
the world.
I regret that this amendment does not share those sentiments. This
amendment gives broad and unconditional authority over the management
of the Great Lakes to the governors and premiers of the Great Lakes
states and provinces. While I support the role these governors and
premiers play in developing a common standard for water withdrawal, the
authority granted by this resolution is too vast and the responsibility
too great to cede to ten individuals.
I believe there is a better model for honoring the diverse interests
of the 35 million people whose water, work, and way of life depend on
the Great Lakes. Two weeks ago, in my home state of Minnesota, local,
state, federal, tribal, and other diverse stakeholders came together to
develop a Great Lakes Regional Collaborative Strategy. This is the kind
of approach I believe is needed for the issues facing this large and
complex ecosystem.
Instead, this amendment, on which no public hearings have been held,
calls for a simplistic and unilateral approach. I have serious concerns
with the implications of this amendment and urge my colleagues to join
me in opposing this amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
amendment before us for consideration. Although the Gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Rogers, is a capable Member whom I am pleased to call my
friend, I believe that this approach to the very serious issue of Great
Lakes water diversion is misguided.
Mr. Chairman, the language is this amendment is overly broad,
governing more than just water diversion. In fact, it urges that
``management authority'' over the Great Lakes should ``remain vested''
with the eight Great Lakes States and Canada. This put Congress, for
the very first time, on record as providing full and broad management
to the states.
Now, I have the deepest respect and admiration for the Governor of
Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. I have the utmost confidence in her
ability to protect Michigan greatest natural resources, the Great
Lakes. However, there is so much more are issue here.
For example, this amendment gives our neighbors to the north, Canada,
broad authority over all of the Great Lakes, including Lake Michigan,
which lies completely within the United States. Second, this language
puts at risk any national protection and restoration strategy that many
of us from the Great Lakes states have been working on for several
years now. One of the biggest issues facing the Great Lakes right now
is invasion species. How can we deal with this issue if eight states
and another Nation all have different policies, Mr. Chairman?
Unfortunately, these pesky little critter do not now to stop at the
border between Illinois and Michigan. What about sewage blending or oil
and gas drilling? Should we have eight different standard for those
also?
This also brings into questions who would be responsible for
negotiating treaties and international agreements regarding the Great
Lakes if not the federal government. Are we now designating that
authority to individuals states? Mr. Chairman, this hardly seems wise
or reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, we are in Michigan are blessed with the Great Lakes. We
owe our tourism industry largely to the Great Lakes, where people come
from around the country to recreate, hunt, fish and relax. This Lakes
as a transportation system provided Michigan with the means to turn our
great State into a manufacturing powerhouse.
We owe it to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we do our
utmost to protect this national treasure. The best way we can do this
is by defeating this unwise amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Rogers) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 printed in part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
In subtitle B of title XI, add at the end the following new
section:
SEC. 1127. UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the comments by Chinese General Zhu Chenghu advocating
the use of nuclear weapons against the United States are both
damaging to United States-China relations and a violation of
China's commitment to resolve its differences with Taiwan
peacefully; and
(2) the Government of China should renounce the use of
force against Taiwan, disavow General Zhu's statements, and
relieve General Zhu from his command.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this week Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu
told a group of reporters that China should consider nuclear first
strikes against the United States. Zhu made these comments in the
course of threatening a Chinese invasion of the democratic nation of
Taiwan. General Zhu Chenghu's comments are one of many examples that
reveal China's hostile intentions toward both Taiwan and the United
States.
In 1995, another Chinese general, who is now the Deputy Chief of the
General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, told a former Pentagon
official that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan
conflict, then warned that Americans should worry more about Los
Angeles than Taipei.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. decision to recognize Communist China in 1979
was predicated on China's commitment to resolve its differences with
Taiwan peacefully. But General Zhu Chenghu's statements, coupled with
the ``anti-secession law'' passed by China's rubber stamp congress a
short time ago, made it increasingly clear that China has no interest
in adhering to this commitment.
These developments have caused damage to an already tense U.S.-China
relationship. My amendment would call on the Chinese government to deal
with General Zhu Chenghu the same way President Truman dealt with
General MacArthur when he made similar statements during the Korean War
that did not reflect official U.S. policy.
The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the Communist
government in Beijing disavow General Zhu Chenghu's statements and
remove him from his position. It also asks the Chinese authorities to
reiterate their commitment to resolving differences with Taiwan
peacefully, and to unequivocally renounce the use of force against the
island nation. I ask for an aye vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, although I do not object to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and urge all of my
colleagues to do so as well. The bilateral relationship between the
United States and China has become increasingly complex and nuanced
over the past decade. A new generation of Chinese diplomats has come
into power, fluent in the language of diplomacy and international
negotiations.
Unfortunately, the comments made by Chinese General Zhu demonstrate
that key elements of the Chinese military continue to live in the long
forgotten past when the United States and China were bitter enemies.
General Zhu's comment that China might launch a preemptive nuclear
strike against the United States in the event of a conflict over Taiwan
are the height of lunacy, recklessness and irresponsibility. A nuclear
strike by China against the United States would trigger a nuclear
exchange which would
[[Page H6130]]
leave hundreds of millions of casualties.
China's political leadership fully understands that fact of life, and
it is my hope that they will quickly repudiate General Zhu's comments
and ease him into a long overdue retirement. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tancredo
amendment. I think it is high time that we brought this to the floor of
the Congress. I also associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos).
We have a lot of broad international issues, and we are here debating
them on this floor. I have an issue that I think has not been properly
heard, and I appreciate the time to address it. It is the issue of AIDS
in Africa.
Mr. Chairman, I have traveled to Africa. First, I sat on this floor,
and I believe the date was January 28, 2003, when about 10 feet behind
me the President of the United States in his State of the Union address
spoke to the issue of committing our resources to AIDS in Africa. I
watched as we had a standing ovation that was led from this side of the
aisle and with great enthusiasm I applauded the President's initiative
because I had been reading the information on Uganda and the ABC policy
that had come from Uganda on AIDS prevention, which they had done
without resources from the United States: Abstinence, Be faithful, and
if those fail, then Condoms.
I went to Africa less than a year ago, particularly Southern Africa,
and I went to the AIDS orphanages and to the hospitals and to the
clinics. I met with the people distributing the anti-retroviral drugs
and the condoms. I looked for the A, the abstinence, and the B, Be
faithful, and I had a lot of trouble finding its existence in Southern
Africa.
So when I raised the issue before a large meeting in one of those
countries in Southern Africa, and in that meeting I recall there were
24 people, among them USAID people, Peace Corps people, Centers for
Disease Control people, people from the U.S. Council and others, the
team that is administering the resources that are going to AIDS in
Africa. And I asked them, What are you doing about promiscuity?
Their answer was we cannot change the culture, so we are distributing
drugs and condoms.
But if they have a sexual life expectancy of another 25 to 30 years,
how many more people are infected? Can we treat our way out of this
problem, or must we find another way to solve it in conjunction with
our anti-retroviral drugs?
Their answer was you cannot change the culture. But what they are
doing is seeking to change the culture by promoting condoms, not by
promoting a lifestyle that will protect them from this disease. So we
are not addressing promiscuity.
I will agree with the USAID, the Peace Corps, the CDC, and a number
of others that are out there, sometimes you cannot change the culture.
Our difficulty is changing their culture, not the difficulty in
supporting the people in Africa who have a culture that can be
supported that can help eradicate this disease.
So I call for that. I appreciate the work done by the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) as well. We have had good discussions on this.
We have some insight into this, and they are working with the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), but I am asking sincerely that we can have
some hearings to have some insight into the actual results of the U.S.
resources that are committed into Africa. I want to protect them and
get them cured of this disease, but we need to do it in the appropriate
way so we save the maximum number of lives.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to briefly respond to the comments by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on efforts to promote abstinence in
Africa.
America's efforts to stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS overseas are
firmly based on the ABC model: Abstinence, Being faithful, and Condoms.
As we have seen in Uganda, the successful reduction in HIV/AIDS
infection rates is dependent upon using all three elements of the ABC
approach, not simply one.
Our committee has conducted extensive investigations into U.S. HIV/
AIDS efforts abroad, and we have seen no evidence whatsoever that
abstinence efforts are being denigrated by NGOs receiving U.S. funds.
Groups across Africa receiving HIV/AIDS funds from our country are
effectively implementing abstinence programs as part of the ABC model,
exactly as Congress intended.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1230
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 28 printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Watson
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 28 offered by Ms. Watson:
Page 312, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 1110A. STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING TRANSFER OF CHARLES
TAYLOR FOR TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES.
It shall be the policy of the United States Government to
seek the expeditious transfer of Charles Ghankay Taylor,
former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the
jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to undergo
a fair and open trial for war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and other serious violations of international
humanitarian law.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment, which I am offering with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce), would confirm that it is the policy of the
United States to bring Charles Taylor to justice.
Charles Taylor is one of the most notorious criminal thugs loose in
the world today. He bears great personal responsibility for the series
of wars that have wracked West Africa over the last 2 decades.
The Liberian civil war was noted for its barbarism, and Taylor was
the most barbaric of the bunch. He was celebrated for his widespread
use of child soldiers, which he organized into the so-called ``Small
Boys Units.''
Taylor's efforts extended beyond the borders of Liberia. The Special
Court for Sierra Leone has indicted Taylor on 17 counts of war crimes.
According to the court, Taylor provided ``guidance and direction'' to a
``joint criminal enterprise which was to take any actions necessary to
gain and exercise political power and control over the territory of
Sierra Leone . . . ''
The court's indictment says Taylor and his cronies were responsible
for ``unlawful killings, abductions, forced labor, physical and sexual
violence, use of child soldiers, looting and burning of civilian
structures.'' Taylor ``participated in this joint criminal enterprise
as part of his continuing efforts to gain access to the mineral wealth
of Sierra Leone and to destabilize the government of Sierra Leone.''.
Mr. Chairman, I include the full text of the court's indictment of
Taylor in the Record:
The Special Court for Sierra Leone, Case No. SCSL-03-I, The Prosecutor
Against Charles Ghankay Taylor Also Known as Charles Ghankay MacArthur
Dapkpana Taylor
indictment
The Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone, under
Article 15 of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra
Leone (the Statute) charges: CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR also
known as (aka) CHARLES GHANKAY MACARTHUR DAPKPANA TAYLOR with
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II and
OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW,
in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute as set
forth below:
[[Page H6131]]
THE ACCUSED
1. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR aka CHARLES GHANKAY MACARTHUR
DAPKPANA TAYLOR (the ACCUSED) was born on or about 28 January
1948 at Arthington in the Republic of Liberia.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2. At all times relevant to this Indictment, a state of
armed conflict existed within Sierra Leone. For the purposes
of this Indictment, organized armed factions involved in this
conflict included the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), the
Civil Defence Forces (CDF) and the Armed Forces Revolutionary
Council (AFRC).
3. A nexus existed between the armed conflict and all acts
or omissions charged herein as Violations of Article 3 common
to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II and
as Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian
Law.
4. The organized armed group that became known as the RUF,
led by FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH aka POPAY aka PAPA aka PA, was
founded about 1988 or 1989 in Libya. The RUF, under the
leadership of FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH, began organized armed
operations in Sierra Leone in March 1991. During the ensuing
armed conflict, the RUF forces were also referred to as
``RUF'', ``rebels'' and ``People's Army''.
5. The CDF was comprised of Sierra Leonean traditional
hunters, including the Kamajors, Gbethis, Kapras, Tamaboros
and Donsos. The CDF fought against the RUF and AFRC.
6. On 30 November 1996, in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, FODAY
SAYBANA SANKOH and Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, President of the
Republic of Sierra Leone, signed a peace agreement which
brought a temporary cessation to active hostilities.
Thereafter, the active hostilities recommenced.
7. The AFRC was founded by members of the Armed Forces of
Sierra Leone who seized power from the elected government of
the Republic of Sierra Leone via a coup d'etat on 25 May
1997. Soldiers of the Sierra Leone Army (SLA) comprised the
majority of the AFRC membership. On that date JOHNNY PAUL
KOROMA aka JPK became the leader and Chairman of the AFRC.
The AFRC forces were also referred to as ``Junta'',
``soldiers'', ``SLA'', and ``ex-SLA''.
8. Shortly after the AFRC seized power, at the invitation
of JOHNNY PAUL KOROMA, and upon the order of FODAY SAYBANA
SANKOH, leader ofthe RUF, the RUF joined with the AFRC. The
AFRC and RUF acted jointly thereafter. The AFRC/RUF Junta
forces (Junta) were also referred to as ``Junta'',
``rebels'', ``soldiers'', ``SLA'', ``ex-SLA'' and ``People's
Army''.
9. After the 25 May 1997 coup d'etat, a governing body, the
Supreme Council, was created within the Junta. The governing
body included leaders of both the AFRC and RUF.
10. The Junta was forced from power by forces acting on
behalf of the ousted government of President Kabbah about 14
February 1998. President Kabbah's government returned in
March 1998. After the Junta was removed from power the AFRC/
RUF alliance continued.
11. On 7 July 1999, in Lome, Togo, FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH and
Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, President of the Republic of Sierra
Leone, signed a peace agreement. However, active hostilities
continued.
12. The ACCUSED and all members of the organized armed
factions engaged in fighting within Sierra Leone were
required to abide by International Humanitarian Law and the
laws and customs governing the conduct of armed conflicts,
including the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, to which
the Republic of Sierra Leone acceded on 21 October 1986.
13. All offences alleged herein were committed within the
territory of Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996.
14. All acts and omissions charged herein as Crimes Against
Humanity were committed as part of a widespread or systematic
attack directed against the civilian population of Sierra
Leone.
15. The words civilian or civilian population used in this
Indictment refer to persons who took no active part in the
hostilities, or who were no longer taking an active part in
the hostilities.
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are incorporated by reference.
17. In the late 1980's CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR received
military training in Libya from representatives of the
Government of MU'AMMAR AL-QADHAFI. While in Libya the ACCUSED
met and made common cause with FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH.
18. While in Libya, the ACCUSED formed or joined the
National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL). At all times
relevant to this Indictment the ACCUSED was the leader of
the NPFL and/or the President of the Republic of Liberia.
19. In December 1989 the NPFL, led by the ACCUSED, began
conducting organized armed attacks in Liberia. The ACCUSED
and the NPFL were assisted in these attacks by FODAY SAYBANA
SANKOH and his followers.
20. To obtain access to the mineral wealth of the Republic
of Sierra Leone, in particular the diamond wealth of Sierra
Leone, and to destabilize the State, the ACCUSED provided
financial support, military training, personnel, arms,
ammunition and other support and encouragement to the RUF,
led by FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH, in preparation for RUF armed
action in the Republic of Sierra Leone, and during the
subsequent armed conflict in Sierra Leone.
21. Throughout the course of the armed conflict in Sierra
Leone, the RUF and the AFRC/RUF alliance, under the
authority, command and control of FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH,
JOHNNY PAUL KOROMA and other leaders of the RUF, AFRC and
AFRC/RUF alliance, engaged in notorious, widespread or
systematic attacks against the civilian population of Sierra
Leone.
22. At all times relevant to this Indictment, CHARLES
GHANKAY TAYLOR supported and encouraged all actions of the
RUF and AFRC/RUF alliance, and acted in concert with FODAY
SAYBANA SANKOH and other leaders of the RUF and AFRC/RUF
alliance. FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH was incarcerated in Nigeria
and Sierra Leone and subjected to restricted movement in
Sierra Leone from about March 1997 until about April 1999.
During this time the ACCUSED, in concert with FODAY SAYBANA
SANKOH, provided guidance and direction to the RUF, including
SAM BOCKARIE aka MOSQUITO aka MASKITA.
23. The RUF and the AFRC shared a common plan, purpose or
design (joint criminal enterprise) which was to take any
actions necessary to gain and exercise political power and
control over the territory of Sierra Leone, in particular the
diamond mining areas. The natural resources of Sierra Leone,
in particular the diamonds, were to be provided to persons
outside Sierra Leone in return for assistance in carrying out
the joint criminal enterprise.
24. The joint criminal enterprise included gaining and
exercising control over the population of Sierra Leone in
order to prevent or minimize resistance to their geographic
control, and to use members of the population to provide
support to the members of the joint criminal enterprise. The
crimes alleged in this Indictment, including unlawful
killings, abductions, forced labour, physical and sexual
violence, use of child soldiers, looting and burning of
civilian structures, were either actions within the joint
criminal enterprise or were a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of the joint criminal enterprise.
25. The ACCUSED participated in this joint criminal
enterprise as part of his continuing efforts to gain access
to the mineral wealth of Sierra Leone and to destabilize the
Government of Sierra Leone.
26. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, by his acts or omissions, is
individually criminally responsible pursuant to Article 6.1.
of the Statute for the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3
and 4 of the Statute as alleged in this Indictment, which
crimes the ACCUSED planned, instigated, ordered, committed or
in whose planning, preparation or execution the ACCUSED
otherwise aided and abetted, or which crimes were within a
joint criminal enterprise in which the ACCUSED participated
or were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the joint
criminal enterprise in which the ACCUSED participated.
27. In addition, or alternatively, pursuant to Article 6.3.
of the Statute, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, while holding
positions of superior responsibility and exercising command
and control over his subordinates, is individually criminally
responsible for the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4
of the Statute. The ACCUSED is responsible for the criminal
acts of his subordinates in that he knew or had reason to
know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or
had done so and the ACCUSED failed to take the necessary and
reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the
perpetrators thereof.
CHARGES
28. Paragraphs 16 through 27 are incorporated by reference.
29. At all times relevant to this Indictment, members of
the RUF, AFRC, Junta and/or AFRC/RUF forces (AFRC/RUF),
supported and encouraged by, acting in concert with and/or
subordinate to CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, conducted armed
attacks throughout the territory of the Republic of Sierra
Leone, including, but not limited, to, Bo, Kono, Kenema,
Bombali and Kailahun Districts and Freetown. Targets of the
armed attacks included civilians and humanitarian assistance
personnel and peacekeepers assigned to the United Nations
Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), which had been created by
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1270 (1999).
30. These attacks were carried out primarily to terrorize
the civilian population, but also were used to punish the
population for failing to provide sufficient support to the
AFRC/RUF, or for allegedly providing support to the Kabbah
government or to pro-government forces. The attacks included
unlawful killings, physical and sexual violence against
civilian men, women and children, abductions and looting and
destruction of civilian property. Many civilians saw these
crimes committed; others--returned to their homes or places
of refuge to find the results of these crimes--dead bodies,
mutilated victims and looted and burnt property.
31. As part of the campaign of terror and punishment the
AFRC/RUF routinely captured and abducted members of the
civilian population. Captured women and girls were raped;
many of them were abducted and used as sex slaves and as
forced labour. Some of these women and girls were held
captive for years. Men and boys who were abducted were also
used as forced labour; some of them were also held captive
for years. Many abducted boys and girls were given combat
[[Page H6132]]
training and used in active fighting. AFRC/RUF also
physically mutilated men, women and children, including
amputating their hands or feet and carving ``AFRC'' and
``RUF'' on their bodies.
Counts 1-2: Terrorizing the Civilian Population and
Collective Punishments
32. Members of the AFRC/RUF supported and encouraged by,
acting in concert with and/or subordinate to CHARLES GHANKAY
TAYLOR committed the crimes set forth below in paragraphs 33
through 58 and charged in Counts 3 through 13, as part of a
campaign to terrorize the civilian population of the Republic
of Sierra Leone, and did terrorize that population. The AFRC/
RUF also committed the crimes to punish the civilian
population for allegedly supporting the elected government of
President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah and factions aligned with that
government, or for failing to provide sufficient support to
the AFRC/RUF.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute,
is individually criminally responsible for the crimes
alleged below:
Count 1: Acts of Terrorism, a VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON
TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II,
punishable under Article 3.d. of the Statute;
And:
Count 2: Collective Punishments, a VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3
COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL
II, punishable under Article 3.b. of the Statute.
Counts 3-5: Unlawful killings
33. Victims were routinely shot, hacked to death and burned
to death. Unlawful killings included, but were not limited
to, the following:
Bo District
34. Between 1 June 1997 and 30 June 1997, AFRC/RUF attacked
Tikonko, Telu, Sembehun, Gerihun and Mamboma, unlawfully
killing an unknown number of civilians;
Kenema District
35. Between about 25 May 1997 and about 19 February 1998,
in locations including Kenema town, members of AFRC/RUF
unlawfully killed an unknown number of civilians;
Kono District
36. About mid February 1998, AFRC/RUF fleeing from Freetown
arrived in Kono District. Between about 14 February 1998 and
30 June 1998, members of AFRC/RUF unlawfully killed several
hundred civilians in various locations in Kono District,
including Koidu, Tombodu, Foindu, Willifeh, Mortema and
Biaya;
Bombali District
37. Between about 1 May 1998 and 31 July 1998, in locations
including Karina, members of AFRC/RUF unlawfully killed an
unknown number of civilians;
Freetown
38. Between 6 January 1999 and 31 January 1999, AFRC/RUF
conducted armed attacks throughout the city of Freetown.
These attacks included large scale unlawful killings of
civilian men, women and children at locations throughout the
city, including the State House, Parliament building,
Connaught Hospital, and the Kissy, Fourah Bay, Upgun, Calaba
Town and Tower Hill areas of the city.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute, is
individually criminally responsible for the crimes alleged
below:
Count 3: Extermination, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY,
punishable under Article 2.b. of the Statute;
In addition, or in the alternative:
Count 4: Murder, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable under
Article 2.a. of the Statute;
In addition, or in the alternative:
Count 5: Violence to life, health and physical or mental
well-being of persons, in particular murder, a VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL
PROTOCOL II, punishable under Article 3.a. of the Statute.
Counts 6-8: Sexual violence
39. Widespread sexual violence committed against civilian
women and girls included brutal rapes, often by multiple
rapists. Acts of sexual violence included, but were not
limited to, the following:
Kono District
40. Between about 14 February 1998 and 30 June 1998,
members of AFRC/RUF raped hundreds of women and girls at
various locations throughout the District, including Koidu,
Tombodu, Kissi-town (or Kissi Town), Foendor (or Foendu),
Tomendeh, Fokoiya, Wondedu and AFRC/RUF camps such as
``Superman camp'' and Kissi-town (or Kissi Town) camp. An
unknown number of women and girls were abducted from various
locations within the District and used as sex slaves;
Bombali District
41. Between about 1 May 1998 and 31 July 1998, members of
AFRC/RUF raped an unknown number of women and girls in
locations such as Mandaha. In addition, an unknown number of
abducted women and girls were used as sex slaves;
Kailahun District
42. At all times relevant to this Indictment, an unknown
number of women and girls in various locations in the
District were subjected to sexual violence. Many of these
victims were captured in other areas of the Republic of
Sierra Leone, brought to AFRC/RUF camps in the District, and
used as sex slaves;
Freetown
43. Between 6 January 1999 and 31 January 1999, members of
AFRC/RUF raped hundreds of women and girls throughout the
Freetown area, and abducted hundreds of women and girls and
used them as sex slaves.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute, is
individually criminally responsible for the crimes alleged
below:
Count 6: Rape, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable under
Article 2.g. of the Statute;
And:
Count 7: Sexual slavery and any other form of sexual
violence, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable under Article
2.g. of the Statute;
In addition, or in the alternative:
Count 8: Outrages upon personal dignity, a VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL
PROTOCOL II, punishable under Article 3.e. of the Statute.
Counts 9-0: Physical violence
44. Widespread physical violence, including mutilations,
was committed against civilians. Victims were often brought
to a central location where mutilations were carried out.
These acts of physical violence included, but were not
limited to, the following:
Kono District
45. Between about 14 February 1998 and 30 June 1998, AFRC/
RUF mutilated an unknown number of civilians in various
locations in the District, including Tombodu, Kaima (or
Kayima) and Wondedu. The mutilations included cutting off
limbs and carving ``AFRC'' and ``RUF'' on the bodies of the
civilians;
Freetown
46. Between 6 January 1999 and 31 January 1999, AFRC/RUF
mutilated an unknown number of civilian men, women and
children in various areas of Freetown, including the northern
and eastern areas of the city, and the Kissy area, including
the Kissy mental hospital. The mutilations included cutting
off limbs.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute, is
individually criminally responsible for the crimes alleged
below:
Count 9: Violence to life, health and physical or mental
well-being of persons, in particular cruel treatment, a
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND
OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II, punishable under Article 3.a. of
the Statute;
In addition, or in the alternative:
Count 10: Other inhumane acts, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY,
punishable under Article 2.i. of the Statute.
Count 11: Use of child soldiers
47. At all times relevant to this Indictment, throughout
the Republic of Sierra Leone, AFRC/RUF routinely conscripted,
enlisted and/or used boys and girls under the age of 15 to
participate in active hostilities. Many of these children
were first abducted, then trained in AFRC/RUF camps in
various locations throughout the country, and thereafter used
as fighters.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute, is
individually criminally responsible for the crimes alleged
below:
Count 11: Conscripting or enlisting children under the age
of 15 years into armed forces or groups, or using them to
participate actively in hostilities, an OTHER SERIOUS
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARlAN LAW, punishable under
Article 4.c. of the Statute.
Count 12: Abductions and forced labour
48. At all times relevant to this Indictment, AFRC/RUF
engaged in widespread and large scale abductions of civilians
and use of civilians as forced labour. Forced labour included
domestic labour and use as diamond miners. The abductions and
forced labour included, but were not limited to, the
following:
Kenema District
49. Between about 1 August 1997 and about 31 January 1998,
AFRC/RUF forced an unknown number of civilians living in the
District to mine for diamonds at Cybord Pit in Tongo Field;
Kono District
50. Between about 14 February 1998 and 30 June 1998, AFRC/
RUF forces abducted hundreds of civilian men, women and
children, and took them to various locations outside the
District, or to locations within the District such as AFRC/
RUF camps, Tombodu, Koidu, Wondedu, Tomendeh. At these
locations the civilians were used as forced labour, including
domestic labour and as diamond miners in the Tombodu area;
[[Page H6133]]
Bombali District
51. Between about 1 May 1998 and 31 July 1998, in Bombali
District, AFRC/RUF abducted an unknown number of civilians
and used them as forced labour;
Kailahun District
52. At all times relevant to this Indictment, captured
civilian men, women and children were brought to various
locations within the District and used as forced labour;
Freetown
53. Between 6 January 1999 and 31 January 1999, in
particular as the AFRC/RUF were being driven out of Freetown,
the AFRC/RUF abducted hundreds of civilians, including a
large number of children, from various areas within Freetown,
including Peacock Farm and Calaba Town. These abducted
civilians were used as forced labour.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute, is
individually criminally responsible for the crimes alleged
below:
Count 12: Enslavement, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable
under Article 2.c. of the Statute.
Count 13: Looting and burning
54. At all times relevant to this Indictment, AFRC/RUF
engaged in widespread unlawful taking and destruction by
burning of civilian property. This looting and burning
included, but was not limited to, the following:
Bo District
55. Between 1 June 1997 and 30 June 1997, AFRC/RUF forces
looted and burned an unknown number of civilian houses in
Telu, Sembehun, Mamboma and Tikonko;
Kono District
56. Between about 14 February 1998 and 30 June 1998, AFRC/
RUF engaged in widespread looting and burning in various
locations in the District, including Tombodu, Foindu and
Yardu Sando, where virtually every home in the village was
looted and burned;
Bombali District
57. Between 1 March 1998 and 30 June 1998, AFRC/RUF forces
burned an unknown number of civilian buildings in locations
such as Karina;
Freetown
58. Between 6 January 1999 and 31 January 1999, AFRC/RUF
forces engaged in widespread looting and burning throughout
Freetown. The majority of houses that were destroyed were in
the areas of Kissy and eastern Freetown; other locations
included the Fourah Bay, Upgun, State House and Pademba Road
areas of the city.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute, is
individually criminally responsible for the crimes alleged
below:
Count 13: Pillage, a VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE
GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II, punishable
under Article 3.f. of the Statute.
Counts 14-17: Attacks on UNAMSIL personnel
59. Between about 15 April 2000 and about 15 September
2000, AFRC/RUF engaged in widespread attacks against UNAMSIL
peacekeepers and humanitarian assistance workers within the
Republic of Sierra Leone, including, but not limited to
locations within Bombali, Kailahun, Kambia, Port Loko, and
Kono Districts. These attacks included unlawful killing of
UNAMSIL peacekeepers, and abducting hundreds of peacekeepers
and humanitarian assistance workers who were then held
hostage.
By his acts or omissions in relation, but not limited to
these events, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR, pursuant to Article
6.1. and, or alternatively, Article 6.3. of the Statute, is
individually criminally responsible for the crimes alleged
below:
Count 14: Intentionally directing attacks against personnel
involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping
mission, an OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
HUMANITARIAN LAW, punishable under Article 4.b. of the
Statute;
In addition, or in the alternative:
Count 15: For the unlawful killings, Murder, a CRIME
AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable under Article 2.a. of the
Statute;
In addition, or in the alternative:
Count 16: Violence to life, health and physical or mental
well-being of persons, in particular murder, a VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL
PROTOCOL II, punishable under Article 3.a. of the Statute; In
addition, or in the alternative:
Count 17: For the abductions and holding as hostage, Taking
of hostages, a VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA
CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II, punishable under
Article 3.c. of the Statute.
Dated this 3rd day of March 2003, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
DAVID M. CRANE,
The Prosecutor.
Mr. Chairman, today war criminals such as Milosevic and Saddam
Hussein are behind bars; yet Charles Taylor lives on a Nigerian estate.
The message we risk sending is that European and Middle Eastern despots
will be brought to justice and African despots will be given oceanside
villas.
But it is more than a principle at stake. Charles Taylor remains a
major source of instability for West Africa. Taylor has recently been
accused of seeking to assassinate the President of Guinea. It is also
alleged that Taylor worked hand in hand with al Qaeda operatives,
helping them to move their financial resources around using diamonds. A
recent ``Dateline NBC'' report details the al Qaeda allegations. I
include this report in the Record:
Liberia's Former President, a Friend to Terror?
(By Chris Hansen)
[From Dateline NBC, July 17, 2005]
Even before the recent bombings in London, it was the
question many Americans were asking: Is our government doing
everything it should to stop terrorism?
A ``Dateline'' investigation reveals that some of the
world's most dangerous terrorists may have found a new safe
haven, a new source of money, and are thriving unchecked.
Have U.S. officials missed--or dismissed--a vital link in
the terror network?
A global war on terror?
On September 11, 2001, President Bush put America's enemies
on notice: ``We will make no distinction between the
terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor
them,'' he said.
And in the days that followed, he defined who our enemies
are in the war on terror. ``Every nation in every region now
has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are
with the terrorists,'' the president said.
He sent American forces to Afghanistan to destroy al-
Qaida's sanctuary. When he deemed Saddam Hussein a threat, he
sent troops to Iraq. He enlisted nations around the globe to
help target al-Qaida terrorists.
But some investigators fear al-Qaida may have moved into
another hot spot, one they say is fast becoming a terrorist
outpost: West Africa.
West Africa is a place most Americans and their government
haven't paid much attention to--war-torn, remote and
desperately poor. But that might be about to change. War
crimes investigators have uncovered evidence that al-Qaida
terrorists--before and after 9/11--were using West Africa as
a hideout and a place to launder money. And they say U.S.
inaction has allowed al-Qaida to move into West Africa.
``Right now, it's a safe haven for terrorist activity,''
says Al White, who for 16 years served as a senior
investigator at the Pentagon, handling sensitive intelligence
and law enforcement matters. ``They are actively setting up
shop. They're training in various countries over there.
They're recruiting.''
White says West Africa could become the next Afghanistan.
``If we fail to act, and act soon-mark my words, that's
exactly what's going to happen,'' he says.
White says, those terrorists may be planning new attacks on
America.
``Mad Max Thunderdome'' in West Africa
For the last three years, White was on loan from the
Pentagon to the special court for Sierra Leone, set up by the
U.N. to prosecute war crimes that took place when Charles
Taylor was president of Liberia.
Taylor allegedly sent a rebel force into neighboring Sierra
Leone to seize that country's diamond mines, in a conflict
that resulted in the murder, rape and mutilation of 1.2
million people.
And in 1998, White says, Charles Taylor went into business
with al-Qaida.
``This man is a terrorist,'' White says of the former
Liberian president. ``He's also aided and abetted al-Qaida
operatives. Now he's actively working with these people
again. If we don't bring him to justice immediately, there
will be some significant consequences in the future.''
But why would al-Qaida flock to West Africa in the late
1990s? According to investigators, it's simple.
``There was no accountability, there was no rule of law.
And so, it was literally Mad Max Thunderdome here in West
Africa for 10 years,'' says David Crane, who served as a
high-level Pentagon and defense intelligence official and was
that U.N. court's chief prosecutor.
He says al-Qaida found a friend in Charles Taylor who was
looking to sell the diamonds he'd seized in Sierra Leone. The
group turned to diamonds, he says, because they're virtually
untraceable--the perfect currency for terror financing.
Hansen: Do you believe that Taylor himself was personally
involved in these dealings with the al-Qaida operatives?
Crane: Yes.
Hansen: In what way?
Crane: Physically handing over diamonds for cash.
Hansen: And you have witnesses who have seen this?
Crane: Yes. We don't make this stuff up. This is stuff that
is told to us by our informants who have been living and
breathing in this area for decades.
Both Crane and White say they have developed information
that proves al-Qaida has been, and still is operating in West
Africa.
``We've been able to positively identify ten of the 21
FBI's most wanted terrorists, operating actively and freely
in West Africa, from 1997 up to modern day,'' says White.
And they say they have the witnesses to prove it. Witnesses
that include Charles Taylor's own brother-in-law--Cindor
Reeves.
[[Page H6134]]
AL-Qaida presence
Reeves, who ``Dateline'' interviewed in disguise, is
currently in witness protection. He told investigators that
as a trusted insider, he escorted Taylor's special guests
around Liberia, including a man who went by the name
``Mustafah.''
Although Reeves didn't know it at the time, he now believes
that ``Mustafah'' was, in fact, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, the
alleged mastermind of the 1998 al-Qaida bombings of U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Cindor Reeves: I know the man. I didn't just see him one
day in '98. He came back the second time, he came back the
third time, and we stayed together for more than two, three
months.
Hansen: You're positive that this man was actually Abdullah
Ahmed Abdullah?
Reeves: Exactly. A 100 percent positive.
He says other al-Qaida operatives were there as well--all
with cash in hand to buy diamonds from Liberia's president,
Charles Taylor. Reeves told us the men first stayed at a
hotel in the capital, Monrovia, before moving to the safe
house. On the wall of the safe house is a photo of a familiar
face.
Hansen: And who did this picture turn out to be?
Reeves: Osama Bin Laden.
Hansen: Osama Bin Laden?
Reeves: Yeah.
Shortly after September 11, Reeves told his story to Doug
Farah, who at the time was a reporter for the Washington
Post.
Doug Farah: I said, you know, ``You gotta be kidding
right?'' He said, ``No, I knew--I know these people.'' And I
sold diamonds with them. And my first thought was, `Well
then, how would you ever verify this, right?' And I said,
`You know, I only have my reputation. You only have your
reputation. If you're lying to me on this, we're both
hamburger meat.' ''
Farah's article piqued the interest of officials in
Washington D.C. But the CIA and FBI said they found his
source, Cindor Reeves, unreliable. Still, the FBI, under
pressure from Congress, continued to investigate.
``We couldn't establish that al-Qaida had in fact been
involved in conflict diamonds,'' says Dennis Lormel, who
headed the FBI's terror financing section.
What about all this information that Charles Taylor had
provided safe haven for some al-Qaida operatives?
``We investigated that,'' says Lormel. ``The people around
Taylor and other people denied that that ever happened.''
But as ``Dateline'' discovered, one of the people the FBI
relied on to discredit the story was Ibrihim Bah, who Middle
Eastern intelligence sources tell ``Dateline'' has
longstanding terrorist ties of his own in Afghanistan,
Lebanon and Libya.
The 9/11 Commission investigation
The 9/11 Commission, which conducted its own investigation,
agreed with the FBI.
Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: Our conclusion, the conclusion
of the commission was that there was simply no persuasive
evidence of a link between al-Qaida and diamonds.
Hansen: We have talked to the chief prosecutor and the
chief investigator for the Special Court of Sierra Leone.
They remain adamant that not only were al-Qaida operatives in
Liberia but they were----
Hamilton: We don't deny that.
Hansen: That they were----
Hamilton: Yeah.
Hansen:--trying to do diamond deals with Charles Taylor and
others.
Hamilton: We don't even deny that. Trying to do is one
thing, doing it is another. We were not charged with the
responsibility of finding out what people were trying to do,
we were charged with the responsibility of finding out what
they did.
The commission's mandate was narrowly focused on the events
and failures directly leading to 9/11.
But Al White, who was the war crimes tribunal's chief
investigator says, when it comes to al-Qaida in West Africa,
the 9/11 Commission didn't look hard enough.
``The 9/11 Commission missed the boat. I'll just be very
candid,'' says White.
White says the 9/11 Commission failed to interview credible
witnesses offered by the court.
``How can you assess the credibility of someone you've
never talked to?'' questions White. ``That's what I find
suspicious. And that's what I find quite frankly
unprofessional.''
The 9/11 Commission says while it may not have interviewed
the court's witnesses, the FBI did, and that both the FBI and
the 9/11 Commission concluded they were not credible.
But could it be that the 9/11 Commission--along with the
CIA and FBI--just got it wrong?
``Dateline'' in Liberia
Mike Shanklin is a U.S. intelligence veteran. Now retired,
Shanklin headed the CIA's operations in Liberia in the 1990s,
at a time when Taylor was coming to power.
``Dateline'' asked Shanklin, who had previously been
consulted by the special court, to come on our behalf to
Sierra Leone and Liberia to help sort out allegations of al-
Qaida's presence and diamond-dealing in the region. Together,
we uncovered evidence that U.S. officials appear to have
missed.
``Al Qaida, Bah, Taylor, they were there,'' says Shanklin.
``There is no question in my mind these people were there.
They were there during the period in question. And clearly
they were involved in some sort of a diamond business. That's
a fact.''
Ironically, Shanklin says, a few years ago, a top Liberian
security official--unaware that his boss, Charles Taylor
might have been doing business with al-Qaida--naively
launched an investigation into the terrorist group's
activities in Liberia.
But the investigation ended before it could begin.
``Charles Taylor quashed it, said, `You don't need to worry
about this.' And that was the end of it,'' says Shanklin.
Several witnesses at the hotel (where al-Qaida operatives
are said to have met) confirmed to ``Dateline'' that al-Qaida
fugitives had stayed there as quests about six years ago.
What's more, a senior Liberian official told ``Dateline''
that around the same time, a couple of unwitting Liberian
investigators apparently went to the hotel and tried to have
the men arrested--again, not realizing they were guests of
their president, Charles Taylor.
``Taylor had the government investigators arrested . . .
and freed the al-Qaida operatives,'' says Shanklin.
Hansen: What does that say about the relationship between
al-Qaida operatives and Charles Taylor?
Shanklin: Well, it certainly says that Charles Taylor
didn't want these people under arrest.
What's most ominous is that the special court's former
chief investigator believes al-Qaida is still active in the
region. And he's desperately trying to convince the U.S.
government to do something about it.
``They're here. They're absolutely here,'' says White. ``I
can't tell you the number. But, what I can tell you is that
there's a significant presence in West Africa. I don't know
exactly what the al-Qaida operatives are doing. That's what
concerns me. And, again, the problem is that's not my
mission. It's the FBI's mission to come over and find that
out.''
Is the U.S. government doing enough?
There is one man who could settle the disagreement over al-
Qaida's presence and diamond-dealing in West Africa: former
Liberian president Charles Taylor.
Two years ago, after the special court charged Taylor with
17 counts of war crimes committed in Sierra Leone, the U.S.
helped broker a deal in which Taylor left office in Liberia
and went into exile at his estate in Nigeria.
Despite repeated requests from the international community,
Nigeria's president has so far refused to turn Taylor over to
the special court for prosecution.
And the United States--which considers Nigeria a vital ally
and oil supplier--has seemed reluctant to really press the
issue.
But Al White, who's just finished a three-year stint in
West Africa, says Charles Taylor is still conspiring with
terror suspects, and that bringing him to justice may be the
only way to prevent further bloodshed.
Al White: We've lost three years. Three years of time in
actively pursuing these terrorists. Can we afford to waste
another three years by denying that their presence is over
there?
Hansen: And what has al-Qaida gained in those three years?
White: [In the three years] they've gained momentum. They
have absolutely no problem pursuing their agenda and training
in West Africa because they're off limits.
Shanklin agrees: ``We're fighting a war and we're talking
about going after al-Qaida. We had an opportunity to go after
al-Qaida here. Maybe we didn't do it as aggressively as we
should have. Charles Taylor was dealing with these people.
And we should be doing something about Charles Taylor. This
isn't tough. This doesn't even fall in the category of tough.
This is pretty easy. Let's do it.''
There is new evidence that Charles Taylor may be meddling
in his former nation's coming election, and thus violating
the terms of his exile agreement. With that in mind, the
United States has joined the chorus of nations requesting
that Taylor be turned over to the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal.
Taylor's host, the Nigerian president, still refuses to
cooperate.
Mr. Chairman, these allegations are controversial, but what should be
clear is that instability in West Africa creates a national security
challenge for the United States. Charles Taylor is a source of that
instability. Both the national security imperatives of the United
States and the cause of justice compel us to make sure that the policy
of our government remains seeking Taylor's expeditious transfer to the
jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
I ask the Members to please vote for the Watson-Royce amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H6135]]
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
I am pleased to join the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), a
colleague on the Committee on International Relations, in offering this
important amendment. As the gentlewoman has explained, this amendment
states that it shall be the policy of the United States to seek the
expeditious transfer of Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra
Leone so that he can be tried for war crimes.
Mr. Chairman, Charles Taylor has been indicted on 17 counts of war
crimes and crimes against humanity by the Special Court for the role
that he played in Sierra Leone's brutal war. This hybrid court, which
has been supported by this body, has been given jurisdiction over those
who bear the greatest responsibility for the atrocities and the human
rights violations.
And those atrocities were, indeed, widespread. Human rights
violations there were grave. During the 1990s, then-President Taylor of
Liberia supported what was called the Revolutionary United Front. That
was designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization. He
supported them in Sierra Leone, and they were notorious for hacking off
the limbs and the arms and the legs even of young children. When I
chaired the Africa Subcommittee, we hosted some of those victims on
Capitol Hill, child victims; and we held numerous hearings examining
the chaos in West Africa caused by this one man, Charles Taylor.
In May, the House overwhelmingly passed Resolution 127, and the
Senate concurred, calling on the Nigerian Government to transfer Taylor
to the Special Court. I still have hope; yet today, Charles Taylor
continues to safely reside in exile in Nigeria. In August of 2003, some
believed that removing Taylor from Liberia and giving him exile would
prevent Liberia and West Africa from destabilization.
Instead of facing justice at the Special Court in Freetown, though,
Taylor was given a seaside villa in Calabar, Nigeria; and in exchange,
Taylor was supposed to refrain from political activity, but Taylor
broke that deal. So 2 years after the exile deal, Taylor is still very
much involved in undermining Liberian politics as the nation prepares
for elections. He is working to undermine a peace process that has been
supported by the United States and Congress with hundreds of millions
of dollars, and he said he will return to Liberia.
I believe, and I think my colleagues believe, that he is going to try
to return because we remember his words. He said, when he got on that
plane, ``God willing, I'll be back.''
Mr. Chairman, Charles Taylor remains a serious and continuing threat
to West African peace and security, which is counter to U.S. interests.
I am convinced that there will be no chance for peace in West Africa
until Taylor is removed. We underestimate him at our peril, and it must
be the policy of the United States to seek the transfer of Charles
Taylor to the Special Court. This has to be a pillar in our policy
towards West Africa. We need to press harder than we have been.
Bringing Charles Taylor to justice will help further U.S.-Nigeria
relations, help bring peace to Liberia, and strengthen the rule of law
on the continent.
It is time for Charles Taylor to face up to his crimes. This
amendment deserves the strong support of this House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time, and I strongly support this most important amendment by the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson). I encourage all
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that our friend and ally,
the country of Nigeria, should transfer Charles Taylor to the Special
Court for Sierra Leone without any delay.
Taylor has been charged personally with 17 counts of war crimes and
crimes against humanity. These charges include mutilations, rape,
sexual slavery, forced recruitment of child soldiers, child abduction,
and multiple killings. Many Members of this Congress witnessed the
testimony of some of Charles Taylor's child victims, all of whom had
amputated arms and legs, their bodies disfigured, and their lives
transformed forever.
Mr. Chairman, there will be no justice for the people of Sierra Leone
until Charles Taylor stands in the dock. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Africa, Global
Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for his outstanding
work on this issue, and I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman
from California's (Ms. Watson) very important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in August of 2003, the Government of Nigeria, at the
urging of the governments of the United States and Great Britain, gave
asylum to then-Liberian President Charles Taylor. The purpose was to
prevent further bloodshed and to allow for a transition back to a
democratically elected government in Liberia. The deal was struck in
spite of the indictment of Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone
in June of that year on 17 counts of war crimes, including mass murder,
sexual slavery, rape, hostage-taking, amputations, forced conscriptions
of children and adults, arson, looting, and many other abuses of human
rights.
Nevertheless, the action by the Nigerian Government likely saved
thousands of lives and is providing at least a chance for free
elections in Liberia in October. However, the deal was not without
conditions, and there is ample evidence that Charles Taylor has
violated this asylum agreement.
For example, Taylor is alleged to be cooperating with international
terrorist organizations. He is engaged in illicit trade in blood
diamonds in violation of U.N. sanctions and is linked to the
proliferation of small arms throughout the region. He has also
destabilized the entire subregion of West Africa, leaving thousands
dead and millions displaced in its wake.
Nigerian President Obasanjo refuses to end the asylum agreement,
however, unless there is irrefutable evidence of violations by Taylor.
I would point out to my colleagues that on March 17, Kofi Annan
reported to the Security Council that Taylor's former military
commanders, party leaders, and business associates maintain regular
contact with him and are planning to undermine Liberia's return to
democracy.
I urge strong support for this amendment. It is an outstanding one.
A few days later, Jacques Klein, the UN Special Representative to the
Secretary-General on Liberia confirmed that Taylor is ``still very,
much involved'' in Liberian politics.
Outgoing Chief Prosecutor for the Sierra Leone Court, David Crane
continues to accuse Taylor of ``ruling the country from his house
arrest in Calabar'' In southern Nigeria.
So, yes President Obasanjo, there is plenty of evidence that Charles
Taylor has violated the terms of his asylum. Has he continued to
destabilize not only Liberia, but also Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea? That
has yet to be proven in court, but there is enough evidence for him to
be sent to the court in Sierra Leone to find out.
President Bush raised this issue with President Obasanjo at a meeting
in May, but U.S. policy must consist of more than a brief discussion.
Whatever evidence we have must be shared with the Nigerian government,
and then they must make up their mind if they want to continue in the
direction of helping West Africa to heal or if they want to close their
eyes to continued interference and further upheaval.
Surely, the time has come for Charles Taylor's reign of terror in the
region to reach its final, conclusive end.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Watson) will be postponed.
[[Page H6136]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Ms. Watson
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 29 offered by Ms. Watson:
Page 24, after line 3, insert the following:
SEC. 107. ENHANCING PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS.
In addition to such amounts as may otherwise be authorized
to be appropriated for such purpose, there are authorized to
be appropriated for the Department of State, $5,000,000 to
carry out the following activities to enhance intellectual
property laws and enforcement in countries that are not
members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD):
(1) Provision of equipment and training for foreign law
enforcement, including in the interpretation of intellectual
property laws.
(2) Training for judges and prosecutors, including in the
interpretation of intellectual property laws.
(3) Assistance in complying with obligations under
appropriate international copyright and intellectual property
treaties and agreements.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment, which I am offering with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa), would authorize $5 million for the State
Department to work to improve intellectual property law and enforcement
in developing countries. Specifically, the Watson-Issa amendment would
direct the funding to activities in countries that are not members of
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development under the
auspices of the State Department's Economic Bureau. These funds could
be used for a wide range of activities, including posting IP experts
abroad to help train foreign officials and improve enforcement of
intellectual property laws.
According to the recent figures from the International Intellectual
Property Association, worldwide motion picture piracy losses for 2003
are estimated to be between $3 billion and $4 billion. More than 52
million illegal optical discs of MPAA member companies were seized
worldwide during the same year, a result of 31,000 raids and more than
65,000 investigations. These numbers do not include the illegal file-
sharing on the Internet.
Our government continues to work to secure legal protections for
American-produced intellectual property.
{time} 1245
We work with numerous countries to improve their legal codes and law
enforcement training, to enforce intellectual property protections, but
we also found that if the political will in foreign capitals to enforce
these protections is lacking, all the training in the world will fail
to reduce piracy and counterfeiting. For that reason, we must make sure
that our State Department has adequate funding and tools to engage
foreign governments and convince them of the need to enforce these
laws.
I want to note that this sensible, bipartisan amendment has been
adopted twice in the full House within the past 2 years. Unfortunately,
the Senate never passed this authorization. So I look forward to having
this amendment adopted once again as part of the foreign relations
authorization bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). Without objection, the gentleman
from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support and to help offer this
amendment along with my colleague the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Watson). We have worked together in the past to address these issues of
intellectual property theft, and I look forward to continuing to work
with her to address these issues in the future.
Intellectual property theft continues to be one of the biggest
threats to American companies doing business abroad. While we have
begun to focus on the biggest offenders, China and Russia, where
intellectual property theft costs American companies billions of
dollars each year, we cannot afford to ignore the copyright piracy
taking place in other regions of the world.
This amendment would direct the funding to activities in countries
that are not members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, OECD, under the auspices of the State Department's
Economic Bureau. These funds will be used for a wide range of
activities, including assistance in procuring equipment to combat
piracy, posting intellectual property experts abroad to help train
foreign officers and to improve local enforcement of intellectual
property laws.
This amendment will help ensure that the State Department has the
adequate tools to engage with foreign governments and to assist them in
developing an infrastructure to enforce their laws. I urge my
colleagues to support the Watson-Issa amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Watson) for her continued leadership on behalf of the protection of
intellectual property. The gentlewoman's amendment will provide a
modest authorization of $5 million to assist less developed countries
in their efforts to draft and to enforce laws aimed at protecting
intellectual property in compliance with international treaties and
agreements. This authorization would also be available to train judges
and prosecutors in these countries in the proper application of new and
existing statutes related to the protection of intellectual property.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very worthwhile amendment. The potential
benefits to the American economy in terms of the protection of
intellectual property of our artists and of our inventors that could
result from this amendment passing are enormous, far outweighing its
modest costs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this thoughtful
measure.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the majority of
the committee, I want to express our strong support for this amendment.
This amendment, the Watson-Issa amendment, will continue to support
programs similar to those that were begun in fiscal year 2004. The
State Department has designed programs to target areas of the world
that have significant rates of intellectual property rights piracy with
unique law enforcement assistance. This assistance has been tailored to
particular activities in various regions of the world. It is critical
to support the intellectual property rights community, Mr. Chairman, as
the United States is the world's single largest creator, producer and
exporter of copyrighted materials.
Rampant piracy of creative works poses a significant risk to U.S.
creative work products, including music, movies, video games and other
software. As the U.S. copyright industry alone accounts for nearly 6
percent of this Nation's GDP, it is an economic security issue as well
for the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my two colleagues for offering this very
important amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will
[[Page H6137]]
now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 109-
175 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King);
amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich);
amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos);
amendment No. 26 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers);
amendment No. 28 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Watson).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423,
noes 0, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 390]
AYES--423
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Davis (KY)
Feeney
Hinojosa
Jindal
McMorris
Simmons
Slaughter
Sullivan
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1314
Mr. DOYLE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, the King
amendment No. 22, I was unavoidably detained and am not recorded. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, I was detained due
to a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124,
noes 302, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 391]
AYES--124
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
[[Page H6138]]
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--302
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Davis (KY)
Hinojosa
Jindal
Rush
Sullivan
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1322
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 391, the
Kucinich amendment, I was unavoidably detained and am not recorded. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Lantos
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 373,
noes 56, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 392]
AYES--373
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
[[Page H6139]]
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--56
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Bonilla
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Coble
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gohmert
Goode
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kingston
Manzullo
Marchant
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Norwood
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Pombo
Radanovich
Renzi
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sessions
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Walden (OR)
Westmoreland
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Hinojosa
Jindal
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1332
Messrs. ROHRABACHER, SHAW and ROYCE changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Rogers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 273, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 393]
AYES--156
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--273
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kline
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--4
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Hinojosa
Jindal
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1340
Mr. MEEK of Florida changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Watson
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422,
noes 2, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 394]
AYES--422
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
[[Page H6140]]
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--2
Dreier
Paul
NOT VOTING--9
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Cantor
Diaz-Balart, M.
Hinojosa
Jindal
McKinney
Simmons
Waters
{time} 1347
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 30 printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Berkley
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 30 offered by Ms. Berkley:
Page 220, after line 15, insert the following:
(a) Declaration of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States to promote the emergence of a democratic
Palestinian government that--
(1) denounces and combats terrorism;
(2) has agreed to disarm and dismantle any terrorist
agency, network, or facility;
(3) has agreed to work to eliminate incitement and the
commemoration of terrorists in Palestinian society;
(4) has agreed to respect the boundaries and sovereignty of
its neighbors; and
(5) acknowledges, respects, and upholds the human rights of
all people.
Page 220, line 16, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
Page 221, line 3, strike ``Limitation'' and insert
``Limitations''.
Page 221, line 3, strike ``Assistance'' and insert the
following:
``(1) Certification requirement.--Assistance''.
Page 221, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
``(2) Amount of assistance requirement.--Of the total
amount of funds that are available for assistance under this
Act or any other provision of law to the Palestinian
Authority during a period for which a certification described
in subsection (b) is in effect, not more than 25 percent of
such amount may be obligated and expended during any calendar
quarter.''.
Page 223, line 13, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
Page 223, after line 13, insert the following new
subsection:
``(e) Definition of Calendar Quarter.--In this section, the
term `calendar quarter' means any three-month period
beginning on January 1, April 1, July 1, or October 1 of a
calendar year.''.
Page 223, line 14, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want to begin by thanking the chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and my dear friend, the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for helping with this
amendment.
Since the 1993 Oslo Accord, the United States has given more than
$1.8 billion to the Palestinians. In that same time we have given over
$130 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. We have given this
assistance despite no accountability, no modern financial controls, no
transparency, and no actual knowledge of where our taxpayers' dollars
are going.
The amendment I have introduced, along with the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley), would force the Palestinian Authority to be
accountable, finally, for the money given by the United States. It
would also provide Congress with the ability to end the aid if the
certification requirements of this bill are not met.
My amendment mandates only 25 percent of direct aid to the
Palestinian Authority can be spent in any one calendar quarter, instead
of all the money being obligated at the beginning of the year. Each
quarter the Palestinian Authority can spend another 25 percent of the
total aid package as long as they meet the certification requirements.
The overall aid package remains unchanged.
The amendment contains a declaration of policy that the United States
should promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government
that denounces and combats terrorism; that works to eliminate terrorist
incitement; that has agreed to respect the boundaries and sovereignty
of all of its neighbors; and that respects the human rights of all
people.
If at some point during the year Congress is unsatisfied with how the
money is being spent or if the Palestinian Authority fails to meet
their certification requirements; if the PA has not taken concrete
steps to end terrorism; if the Palestinian Authority has not made
demonstrable progress towards democracy; if the PA has not dismantled
the terrorist infrastructure and ended incitement, Congress can stop
the flow of money.
If the Palestinian Authority lives up to its responsibility and
honors its commitment, then our aid to the Palestinians will flow
unfettered, and in the exact same amount. However, if the Palestinian
Authority fails to live up to its responsibility and violence consumes
the region, if another intifada begins, if it turns out that our aid is
used to fund Hamas, Islamic jihad, or other terrorist organizations,
[[Page H6141]]
then Congress should discontinue the aid. This amendment gives us that
option.
To be clear, the amendment would not end humanitarian aid and
assistance within the territories controlled by the Palestinian
Authority. It would not affect the overall amount of aid provided to
the Palestinian Authority. It requires the accountability that should
be a necessary component of foreign aid and that Congress should expect
from all of those entities that accept foreign aid from the United
States and our taxpayers. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a two-page amendment. If it were a one-page
amendment, I would be an enthusiastic supporter. The declaration of
policy urging our government to promote the emergence of a democratic
Palestinian government is greatly to be desired.
I must say the fifth item, insisting that it acknowledges, respects,
and upholds the human rights of all people, if they would do everything
else here, respect the right of Israel to exist, repudiate terrorism,
that would be sufficient for me. We have some people we work with who
do not uphold the human rights of all people. But in general I like the
declaration. I do not think, however, that we should impose these
restrictions on the funding.
This is an issue on which I trust President Bush and Prime Minister
Sharon. Those are not people with whom I am always allied. I believe
that Prime Minister Sharon, a political figure with whom I have not
always found myself in agreement, I have said if I lived in Israel, I
would not vote for Ariel Sharon. If he lived in Brookline, he would not
vote for me. We can get along. Although I think he probably occupies
more of my thinking than I do of his. But I admire his willingness to
go forward with a policy that I think is very much in the interest of
Israel.
I, as an American Jew, and I will be in Israel in August and I will
be there again in January, I share the goal of a secure Israel as a
Jewish democratic nation, and I admire the insight of Prime Minister
Sharon and Deputy Prime Minister Olmert, that an Israel which governs
millions of hostile Palestinians will have a hard time being Jewish and
democratic, and, therefore, I support Israel's effort to reach peace.
There is no guarantee that it is possible. It is a difficult situation.
But I do not think we in Congress should make it more difficult.
There are people within Israel who do not agree with what Prime
Minister Sharon is doing, but they have not been able to get a majority
in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. I do not want to see them win a
partial victory in the U.S. House of Representatives that they cannot
win in the Knesset.
While I agree with the declaration of policy, I believe that
restrictions on funding to the Palestinian Authority ought to be left
to the decision of the executive branch. I trust George Bush on this,
and I trust this administration. I believe they are as committed to the
declaration of policy as any of us. And I think in this case it is
important for them to have some flexibility.
I do not find the Palestinian Authority any model of democratic
governance, but it is clearly in everybody's interest, and the Israeli
government agrees to this, to have the Palestinian Authority
strengthened vis-a-vis the terrorists of Hamas. Maybe the right way to
do it will be to cut back; maybe it will not be. I do not think that is
a judgment we can make here.
Again, when we have in power an Israel and a United States with
democratically elected governments that are committed to this process,
having these congressional restrictions, I believe, is a hindrance; and
this notion no more than 25 percent can be spent in a quarter does not,
to me, have any substantive policy reason. Maybe there will be a joint
decision by Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush that the
Palestinian Authority is in fact doing what it should do and they want
to be able to give them more money in a period of time. I do not think
it is appropriate for this Congress to restrict that.
So I agree with the declaration of policy. If we were in the whole
House, I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified for
that purpose, but I cannot do it in the Committee of the Whole, and I
would vote for that. But I do not think we should impose these
restrictions on the funding for the Palestinian Authority as a sign we
do not trust President Bush and the Government of Israel jointly to
make those decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I am delighted the gentleman from Massachusetts agrees with the
declaration, but I would like to point out to those of us who are
voting here that these are American taxpayer dollars and Congress has a
responsibility to have some accountability and ensure some transparency
before we give money away.
The United States Congress has no apology to make to the Palestinian
Authority. Since 1993, we have given over $1.8 billion to the
Palestinian Authority. We have yet to get an accounting for a single
one of those dollars. And also included in this amendment is a waiver,
a Presidential waiver. If he is unsatisfied or wants to waive our
restriction, he has the ability to do so. This gives the President an
additional tool.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kolbe). The gentlewoman from Nevada has 2
minutes remaining.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my good friend and myself.
The Prime Minister of Israel and the Israeli people have taken the
first bold steps through the disengagement plan. Now it is time for the
Palestinian Authority to match its words with its actions and live up
to its commitment to be a true partner for success and stability in the
Middle East.
Our amendment will tighten up language dealing with aid to the
Palestinian Authority. Both the gentlewoman from Nevada and I believe
that we should be doing all we can to help the Palestinian Authority,
but that benchmarks need to be set in place. Over the past 10 years,
Congress has had little to no accountability over the aid we have given
to the Palestinian Authority. As aid from the United States begins to
flow into the Palestinian Authority, we must use this aid to promote a
true democratic government for the Palestinian people.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment would force accountability over this
money and provide Congress with the ability to end the flow of funding,
or quite frankly would allow the President to end the flowing and the
funding of this money if the certification requirements in the bill are
not met.
{time} 1400
This amendment will make sure our aid to the Palestinian Authority is
tied to the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government that is
working to overcome four important issues.
The first is that they denounce and combat terrorism and work to
disarm terrorists; secondly, agree to work to eliminate terrorist
incitement, including their textbooks and what the children are taught;
thirdly, agree to respect boundary and sovereignty of its neighbors;
and finally, respect human rights for all people.
I believe we must have full accountability over the aid we give to
make sure that the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government can
take place.
As was pointed out, these are U.S. Federal taxpayer dollars being
expended. We want accountability as to how those moneys are expended,
and there is a Presidential waiver. This is, quite simply, a tool that
the President can use to coax and to move the Palestinians toward a
peaceful settlement.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I am always puzzled when in defense of an amendment we are told that
it is really not going to mean anything. We are told the President can
waive it. Well, frankly, I think the purpose of an amendment is not to
waive it, W-A-I-V-E, but for some of us to wave it, W-A-V-E, as a sign
of what we think.
[[Page H6142]]
I am all in favor of this declaration, but I think the amendment's
operative part restricting funding might get in the way. The single
most important issue, it seems to me, is that the Palestinian Authority
should agree to disarm and dismantle any terrorist agency network or
facility. I agree that is essential. They have to be willing to
confront Hamas, but they cannot do it without money. What are they
going to do it with, rhetoric?
We are taking a gamble, there is no question. If the Palestinian
Authority is in the end unwilling or unable to meet these
responsibilities, then there will not be peace. That will be a tragedy
for all concerned, but mostly for the Palestinians. No one should ask
Israel to go forward if that is not the case.
That makes it all the more important to do everything we can to
enable the Palestinian Authority and pressure them to do this. The
problem is playing yo-yo with the funding does not work.
The President has the authority now to stop. We cannot force him to
spend foreign aid. The President will do this in consultation with the
Israeli government, with Vice Premier Paris, who works on this.
I believe this is an unwise intrusion of Congress. We do not have a
disagreement here. We say we agree with Sharon's government of trying
to see if peace can be made. We agree with the administration. I do not
think that this kind of intervention by Congress is going to be helpful
with a difficult and delicate peace process.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The problem the Palestinian Authority has has nothing to do with
money. They have had millions. As a matter of fact, Arafat has stolen
millions and millions of American taxpayer dollars over the last
several years.
This amendment denounces and combats terrorism, works to eliminate
terrorist incitement, and states that the Palestinians agree to respect
the boundaries and sovereignty of all of its neighbors and respect
human rights. That is not asking a lot. This Congress has a
responsibility to ensure that is something the Palestinians can do for
this money.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. I want to associate myself with the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who spoke so eloquently in opposition on the
Floor.
At this particular moment, it is clearly in our national interests to
strengthen the democratically elected Abbas government. This is
especially true in the face of the imminent Israeli withdrawal from
Gaza and because the Palestinian Authority is up against a strong
challenge from Hamas in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
The amendment states that the United States should promote the
emergence of a Palestinian government that combats terrorism. We all
agree with that. But at the same time, we must continue to urge the
Israeli government to stop settlement activity and ease the conditions
of occupation. Both sides have obligations under the Road Map.
And more than anything, the U.S. government must use this opportunity
to work with both parties to ensure that the turnover of Gaza from
Israel to the Palestinians is carefully coordinated and that the myriad
of security, economic, and infrastructure issues are dealt with fairly
and quickly.
Mr. Chairman, not only must the Berkley amendment be defeated, but I
wish the underlying bill would not have included such onerous
conditions and limitations on Palestinian aid.
I support the efforts of President Bush who has twice used his waiver
authority to grant funding directly to the Palestinian Authority and
who opposes the inflexible language in this bill.
Instead of passing one-sided and punitive amendments like this one,
it is incumbent upon the United States Congress to try to help both
Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas confront the extremists on
each side who seek to derail the peace process.
Fragile as it may be, a flicker of hope and optimism has been kindled
in the Middle East.
But it may truly be our last hope.
And what a great tragedy it would be--for Israel, for the
Palestinians, and for America--if we didn't do everything in our power
to bring an end to this terrible conflict.
Defeat the Berkley amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Berkley/Crowley
amendment to cap assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Under the new
leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, progress is being made--slowly--
on the path to democracy and peace. It is ironic that these additional
restrictions are proposed on Abbas, yet were never applied to Yasser
Arafat. In light of Israel's impending withdrawal from Gaza, I believe
that we need to maintain President Bush's flexibility to use United
States assistance to promote American interests in the region. Already,
aid to the Palestinian Authority is the most heavily restricted,
audited, and projectized assistance in the world with aid going
directly to the Palestinian Authority only when the President signs a
specific waiver. This amendment is one more unnecessary restriction
that ties the President's hands to support any movement towards peace
and security.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada
(Ms. Berkley) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 printed in part B of
House Report 109-175.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 printed in part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Eshoo
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Ms. Eshoo:
Page 246, after line 7, insert the following new section:
SEC. 956. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ASSISTANCE FOR
CHALDOASSYRIANS AND OTHER INDIGENOUS CHRISTIANS
IN IRAQ.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) ChaldoAssyrians and other indigenous Christians in Iraq
welcome the opportunity following Iraq's liberation to move
beyond the days of repression and persecution and toward
greater prosperity by cooperating in the development of a
democratic, pluralistic state.
(2) Religious and ethnic discrimination has driven half of
Iraq's indigenous Christians into diaspora since the 1960s
and now threatens to create a mass exodus, thereby depriving
Iraq of one of its oldest and most distinctive ethnic
communities.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) all relevant departments and agencies of the Government
of the United States should pay special attention to the
welfare of ChaldoAssyrians and other indigenous Christians in
Iraq in order to prevent a mass exodus that would
detrimentally affect the preservation of diversity in the
Middle East and the promotion of general tolerance for
others; and
(2) the President, acting through the Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development, should
allocate funds specifically for the promotion of the welfare,
education, and resettlement of ChaldoAssyrians and other
indigenous Christians in Iraq where they may be currently
prevented from returning to their homes.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment
expressing the sense of Congress that our government should recognize
the unique challenges facing Iraq's indigenous Christian communities,
including the Chaldeans, Jacobites, Armenians, Assyrians and Greek
Orthodox Christians.
I am a first generation American of Assyrian and Armenian descent. My
grandparents fled their ancestral homeland in the early part of the
20th century. In fact, my mother received her First Communion in
Baghdad in 1919. I am the only Assyrian American serving in Congress
today, and one other did many years ago, the distinguished Adam
Benjamin of Indiana.
There are approximately 250,000 Assyrian Americans in the United
States, representing the largest population of Chaldo-Assyrians outside
Iraq. All Chaldo-Assyrians are Christian. Because they are, they have
been subjected to persecution in their homeland.
Today, there are between 1 to 1.5 million Christians remaining in
Iraq,
[[Page H6143]]
mainly in the Nineveh plain in the north around Mosul. They live in
villages that can trace their history back over 2,000 years. And a
large number, because of their geography, have now come under the
authority of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
Among indigenous Iraqi Christians, the Chaldeans represent the oldest
rite under Rome. Along with the Assyrians who worship with the Holy
Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, they represent the
oldest surviving Christian population in the world and one, without
help during this critical transition period, that could be on the brink
of extinction.
These communities have welcomed the opportunity before them since the
fall of Saddam Hussein's regime to move toward greater prosperity and
stability by cooperating in the development of a democratic,
pluralistic state. Unfortunately, religious and ethnic tensions as well
as discrimination continue to plague these Christian communities. I
continue to receive troubling reports from religious leaders indicating
that Iraq's Christian population is not receiving their fair share of
development assistance. Because they are such a small minority, the
indigenous Iraqi Christian population has one independently elected
Chaldo-Assyrian in the entire Iraqi National Assembly, Younadam Kanna,
whom I have met with and hold in high regard. Within the Kurdistan
Regional Government in northern Iraq, representatives from Iraqi
Christian communities hold five out of 100 seats. Because the Assyrian
community is so very small, such a minority in Iraq with one
representative in national politics, funding for reconstruction,
housing and education are parceled out to those who control the
villages and the regions where they reside without sufficient
transparency to ensure the proper parity.
The visible result of these misallocations has been the emigration of
as many as 80,000 Iraqi Christians since the fall of Saddam Hussein's
regime. The majority of these individuals, approximately 50,000, have
fled to Syria, while others have spread out to Jordan, the Gulf
Emirates and Turkey, all living in desperate circumstances as refugees
from their homes.
This needs to be dealt with. If a fully functioning and sustainable
democracy is to emerge in Iraq, the basic rights and needs of all
minority groups must be safeguarded. My amendment seeks to affirm that
commitment by ensuring that all relevant U.S. Government agencies and
departments pay special attention to the needs of this minority and
ensure that they will continue to reside and thrive in their ancestral
homeland.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I want to
particularly thank Tim Carey of my staff for the very hard, diligent
and closely held sincere belief in this issue. Without him, I do not
think I would be on the floor today with this amendment.
Iraqi Christians Find Safety in Syria--Religious Violence Prompted Many
To Flee Homeland
(By Joshua E.S. Phillips)
Damascus, Syria.--Seated in his parish office, Father
Sarmad Yousef reflected on his hard choices: to disobey his
archbishop by remaining in Syria or to return to Iraq, where
his name has appeared on a death list. ``After the Americans
came, I was one of the people telling the Iraqi Christians
not to leave,'' he said. ``After the violence started, I
stopped telling them that.''
Christians all over Iraq face a similar dilemma as
relentless violence engulfs the country, some directly
targeting them. Staying in the midst of the threats is
dangerous, yet leaving means abandoning communities, church
property and a heritage with centuries-old roots.
Before the U.S.-led war, roughly 750,000 Christians lived
in Iraq, out of a population of 25 million. Most were
Chaldean and Assyrian, but there also were Armenian, Jacobite
and Greek Orthodox Christians and a small number of
Protestants. Most of them lived either in Baghdad or in
northern Iraq around Mosul.
Since then, 15,000 to 20,000 Christians have fled to Syria,
according to Christian groups, out of ``about 700,000''
Iraqis, most of them in flight from the war, according to the
U.N. high commissioner for refugees.
Yousef, a 30-year-old Chaldean Catholic who came here in
August 2004, was the parish priest of Baghdad's St. Pathion
Church, with 800 families under his stewardship. Today, he
occupies a simple office in Damascus, decorated with small
portraits of St. Therese, the patron saint of his new church,
cradling a bouquet of pink roses.
He says he actively supported the United States when
coalition troops first entered Baghdad in April 2003 and
helped organize community meetings on their behalf. Such
support came with grave risks, and he narrowly missed two
drive-by shooting attacks. But when the Abu Ghraib prison
scandal came to light, Yousef says, his view changed. Nor was
he alone. ``Before that, Iraqis loved Americans,'' said
Yousef, his eyes lowered. ``Directly after that--those
photos, that scandal directly destroyed the dignity of
Iraqis.''
Muneeb, an Iraqi Christian parishioner of St. Therese who
didn't reveal his last name because he said he did not want
to attract local attention, said general resentment toward
the Americans was transferred to Iraqi Christians.
``Americans are Christians,'' he said, ``so we're
automatically considered to be part of them.''
Christian-owned liquor stores and beauty salons were
attacked. While kidnapping has soared--both for terrorism and
financial gain--Christians felt particularly targeted since
they are often associated with successful businesses and
financial support of families living abroad.
With the rise of Islamic militancy, Muneeb said, his
sister, a doctor, was ordered to wear a veil outside her
home--a requirement that didn't exist, he said, when Saddam
Hussein was in power. ``I never thought of leaving Iraq,''
Muneeb said. ``But as a minority, we have no support.''
Emmanuale Khoshaba, a member of the Assyrian Democratic
Movement, who regularly commutes back and forth to Iraq, is
more optimistic. Through his job as the movement's Syrian
representative, he promoted Iraq's Jan. 30 elections among
absentee voters in Syria.
``Don't see the glass half-empty,'' said Khoshaba, who is
the organization's Syrian representative. ``Now, we have
rights: We have our names, we have members of the National
Assembly, and we have 35 schools that teach Syriac.'' Under
Hussein, teaching Syriac--the language used by Assyrians and
other Iraqi Christians, and one of the Middle East's oldest
languages--was strictly forbidden.
``We have coexisted for thousands of years,'' Khoshaba
said. ``The problem was the repressive regime, and today we
are in a transitionary stage. But one has to stay and
sacrifice something for it.''
There have been many examples of such sacrifice.
One Sunday last August, a spate of bombings that struck
five churches in Baghdad and one in Mosul left 11 dead and
scores wounded. Yousef's church was spared, but he said Iraqi
Christians increasingly had started to leave soon after.
When Yousef took a previously planned trip to Damascus, he
learned his was one of 18 names on a death list. Thirteen of
those people had been killed the previous month. ``I decided
not to go back--I felt that I was too young to die,'' said
Yousef. He left behind friends, family and his parish. The
archbishop of Baghdad instructed him return to his post, but
he stayed in Damascus to fill an opening at St. Therese.
Yousef's new church, wedged within Danlascus' Old City of
cobblestone streets and crumbling houses, overflows with
worshipers during Sunday Mass. Of the 2,000 families now
connected to St. Therese, 90 percent are recent Iraqi
refugees. Just outside the church doors, a group of
parishioners from Yousef's old Baghdad parish discussed how
their lives have changed.
``Life was better--we didn't have any problems,'' said
Jamila Tama, referring to the relative peace between
religious sects under Hussein. ``There's killing, bombing
and kidnapping. We have nothing now--even our house is
sold.''
Her son, Bassam Bahnam, was grateful for the haven in
Syria. ``But I have three boys who worked in Baghdad, and
they're all unemployed now,'' he said.
Bahnam and his family want to return to Iraq--when the
violence ebbs. ``Of course there's no place like home,'' said
his younger brother, Hisham Bahnam. But he criticized
Christian leaders' calls to stay in Iraq. ``They're asking us
to stay, but they're not giving us any solution,'' he said.
``Even Christian leaders need an army to protect them
whenever they go outside.''
George Abona, a former priest who attended a seminary with
Yousef, agrees. ``When my Christian leaders say, `Don't leave
your heritage,' what are they going offer me?'' he said.
``What will heritage do for me and my son?''
In Iraq, Abona worked for the United Nations for seven
years, before and during the war, and was in its Baghdad
compound when it was bombed in August 2003. He survived, but
the blast killed his brother, along with the top U.N. envoy
in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 20 other U.N staffers.
Then last October, he was kidnapped for 19 days. He was
released after another brother paid a $20,000 ransom. Despite
all that, he said, ``The security issue is not a big issue--
it's that I'm not ready to raise my son in an extremist
Islamic society.''
Syria has relaxed immigration rules for its Arab neighbors.
But aside from Palestinians, refugees are not allowed to hold
jobs in Syria, forcing most Iraqi newcomers to live off their
savings. Government assistance--especially health care--is
limited, and the refugees must return home periodically to
get their temporary visas renewed.
Yousef tries to provide his new community in Syria with
food and money for medical needs. The main reason he and
other Christians have fled Iraq, he said, is ``because we
don't feel it is our country any more.''
[[Page H6144]]
``I have bad memories now,'' he said of events since the
invasion. ``Most of my friends were killed there, and we only
saw cruelty and blood. I don't think I'll ever be able to go
back.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza), who represents a very large community of Assyrian Americans
in his congressional district.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) on the situation facing
Assyrians and other Christians in Iraq. I strongly support her
amendment which calls for the Bush administration to use its diplomatic
leverage to ensure that the new Iraqi government respects the rights of
all Iraqis, regardless of sex or religious affiliation.
Additionally, it calls on the administration to allocate USAID funds
for the welfare and resettlement of Assyrians and other Christian
groups in Iraq. The Eshoo amendment is consistent with my recent work
on this issue, including a letter I sent on July 6 to the Bush
administration asking that the rights of Assyrians and Christians in
Iraq be protected in the new Iraqi Constitution.
Like my colleague, I represent a large Assyrian community in central
California, one of the largest concentrations of Assyrian Americans
anywhere in the United States.
Since the January 2005 elections, many in the community have
expressed their deep concerns over the direction of Iraq's
constitutional process. Namely, they are concerned that the new Iraqi
Constitution will subject Iraqis of all religious and cultural
backgrounds to strict Islamic law.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) for yielding me this additional time.
As I was saying, the Iraqi Constitution, unless we intercede, will
subject Iraqis of all religious and cultural backgrounds to strict
Islamic law.
Additionally, I recently met with His Beatitude Mar Emmanuel III
Delly, the Chaldean Assyrian Catholic Patriarch, one of the most widely
respected religious and political leaders in the world, who expressed
similar concerns. He and I met for over an hour on this topic.
I believe the United States has an obligation to guarantee the rights
of all Iraqis, particularly women and Christians, so they are not
overlooked in the constitutional process. Throughout history, the
Assyrian people have suffered greatly in their attempts to obtain
greater freedom and recognition. Despite this oppression, the Assyrians
were central partners in the Iraqi opposition movement and paid dearly
with the assassination of many of their political leaders under Saddam
Hussein's regime.
We must make certain that ethnic and religious groups who suffered
and sacrificed under Saddam Hussein's regime are afforded human rights
guarantees in the permanent constitution. We must ensure that the
political and religious persecution seen under Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime are never repeated in that country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Eshoo amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the concern of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza),
and for their strong statements here. The problem of the Chaldo-
Assyrians has been brought to the attention of the committee. The
committee has brought these concerns to the attention of the
administration.
I have met with people myself who have expressed concerns about this,
and believe that they should not get short shrift when it comes to U.S.
foreign aid and efforts being made in Iraq. The administration has
prepared materials attempting to show it has been fair and inclusive in
its distribution of assistance, but this amendment puts every one of us
on guard that we need to watch this very carefully to make sure that
they are not shown the door or in any way denied the kind of assistance
that we are capable of offering and I think we are obligated to provide
to them. I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Fossella
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Fossella:
Page 12, after line 9, insert the following new
subparagraph:
(I) Dissemination of names of fugitives residing in cuba.--
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
subparagraph (A), an appropriate amount of such funds for
each of the fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are authorized to be
appropriated for the U.S. Interests Section, Havana, to
disseminate the names of fugitives, such as Joanne Chesimard
and William Morales, who are residing in Cuba, and any
rewards for their capture.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
{time} 1415
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, along with the gentleman from
New York (Mr. King) as well as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez). Very simply, it deals with disseminating the truth in
Havana, Cuba. Many have different opinions as to how this country
should deal with Cuba; and for the record this, in my opinion, has
nothing to do with travel or trade or some of the more contentious
issues that surround our relationship with Cuba. In my opinion, this is
very clear and unequivocal.
In Cuba right now, there are fugitives from justice. The reality is,
for those who do not know, Cuba is a haven or sanctuary for cold-
blooded killers like Joanne Chesimard, who murdered a police officer in
cold blood in New Jersey. She now goes by the name of Assata Shakur, so
I am told. She is living peacefully in Cuba. The FBI is offering a $1
million reward for information leading to the capture of Ms. Chesimard.
William Morales is a bomb maker who was affiliated with the FALN
terrorist organization that wreaked havoc not just in New York but
throughout the country. Victims of the FALN included three New York
City police officers, Detective Anthony Senft, Detective Richard
Pastorella, as well as Officer Rocco Pascarella. New York City is
offering $50,000 for information leading to the capture of Mr. Morales.
And those two are not alone. The fact as we know it, while so many
are oppressed under the communist regime, there are scores of people on
the FBI terrorist watch list who live peacefully in Cuba.
What this amendment does, very simply, is it empowers and encourages
the Havana section, the United States Interests Section, Havana to
announce the names of those fugitives believed to be living in Cuba and
any rewards for their capture. Plain and simple, the Cuban people
should know that these fugitives live among them and they should know
there may be rewards upwards of $1 million of a bounty for the return
of these fugitives to be tried in this country for cold-blooded
murders, for bombings, for hijacking, for air piracy, and scores of
other crimes. The people of Cuba should know that.
I would hope that everybody would support a very simple message of
dissemination of truth to the Cuban people and the swift return of
those fugitives who wreaked havoc on individuals and this Nation.
[[Page H6145]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kolbe). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for his leadership on it and the
cosponsorship of the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
I have, as the ranking Democrat on the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee, been for some time pursuing fugitives from the American
justice system back from Cuba for several years. The case of Joanne
Chesimard is, of course, of particular importance to New Jerseyans, but
I would venture to say to all Americans who believe in justice.
Thirty-two years ago, Joanne Chesimard shot New Jersey State Trooper
Werner Foerster in cold blood. Castro's subsequent refusal to return
her to the United States has left the Foerster family not only without
a husband and a father but with an open wound that can only be
completely healed when Joanne Chesimard is brought back to justice.
Castro has turned Cuba into a safe haven for American fugitives.
There are many. There is a whole list from the FBI whose crimes have
ranged from air piracy to possession of explosives to murder. These are
not benign criminals, and they should not be allowed to evade justice
any longer.
Ironically, Castro provides these criminals greater liberty than he
provides to his own people. These individuals, convicted in the United
States of horrendous crimes, are allowed to live freely in Cuba while
Castro imprisons Cuban opposition leaders for nothing more than having
a different point of view.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. These fugitives will continue
to enjoy the lives of freedom and liberty as long as Cubans are unaware
of their presence or the rewards for their capture. This amendment
simply requires the United States Interests Section in Havana to
publicize the names of these fugitives and make sure Cubans are aware
that there is a reward for helping them to bring these criminals to
justice. The FBI is currently offering $1 million for Joanne
Chesimard's capture. Mr. Chairman, $1 million is a very powerful
incentive, but the incentive only works if people know about it.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to help bring some
measure of justice to the Foerster family and the countless other
families whose quest for justice has been obstructed by Castro's
regime. I urge my colleagues to support these families in New Jersey
and around the country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and for crafting this very important amendment.
It is creative as an amendment, and it also will get the job done.
The U.S. Interests Section, if this amendment were to be enacted,
will get the information out that there is a bounty on the heads of
these people who have committed serious crimes in the U.S. According to
the FBI, 74 U.S. citizens convicted of felonious crimes in the U.S. are
currently living in Cuba under the protection of the Castro regime.
Joanne Chesimard was convicted, and one of those who is living in
Cuba. She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1977 for the
1973 execution-style slaying of New Jersey State Trooper Werner
Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike. Witnesses said she fired two
bullets into his head as he lay on the ground. This is a very
commonsense approach to try to get the message out, and hopefully it
will empower everyday, ordinary Cubans to take action to bring these
people to justice.
I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez),
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and all those who encouraged
support of this amendment. And if there is one thing this body can
agree upon, very simply, it is justice. And that is all this would
ultimately bring about, justice for those who lost loved ones and the
belief that the Cuban people should be given the truth as it relates to
those murderers and fugitives that live among them.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34
printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona:
Page 286, strike line 20 and all that follows through line
19 on page 287 (section 1019; relating to provision of
consular and visa services in Pristina, Kosova).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
In a controversial and sensitive environment, section 1019 requesting
a report on consular and visa services is not a diplomatic or prudent
congressional action at this time.
In the hour of future negotiations between Belgrade, Pristina, and
the international community on the status of Kosovo, congressional
action of this nature will be perceived as one-sided and prejudicial.
Further, moving towards giving authority to the Secretary of State to
empower the U.S. Mission in Pristina to render U.S. visas would be a
dangerous precedent to set because the United States cannot render
visas within the territory of a country without that country's consent
in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
Therefore, conducting such a ``report'' is to ignore Serbia's role
entirely and sends the wrong message. Kosovo remains within the
territory of Serbia and Montenegro, and, therefore, citizens of Kosovo
should go to the appropriate place to obtain visa and consular
services, which is not prohibitive and, since it is only a 2-hour bus
ride, is certainly in keeping with most of the applications that need
to be made by those seeking visas across the world.
The text of section 1019 is itself prejudicial, Mr. Chairman. The
name of the province, in international use and the official U.S. use,
is ``Kosovo,'' not ``Kosova.'' The term ``Kosova'' is a one-ethnicity-
based pronunciation of the name of the province. It would be highly
prejudicial for the U.S. Congress to refer to Kosovo as ``Kosova,''
which by it would recognize and imply that the province is only
Albanian and would ignore the minority populations living there.
Albanians would have the same objections to the U.S. Congress referring
to Kosovo as ``Kosovo-Metohija.''
Mr. Chairman, Congress should not send the wrong message at the wrong
time, and I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Franks amendment.
This amendment strikes an important provision of our legislation that
requires the Department of State to report to Congress on the
possibility of offering consular and visa services at the U.S.
[[Page H6146]]
office in Pristina, Kosova. Although the United States maintains a
robustly staffed mission in Pristina, those Kosovars wishing to visit
the United States must travel out of Kosova to receive consular and
visa services.
Mr. Chairman, this is both inconvenient and expensive for the average
Kosovar, who is not very wealthy, because many visa applications
require multiple visits to a consulate outside of Kosova to places as
far off as Skopje, Tirana, and Podgorica: three different countries and
three different capitals.
The State Department says the current layout of the U.S. office in
Pristina makes it difficult to provide adequate security to handle
consular and visa matters there. The authorization bill, as written and
passed by a vote of 44 to nothing by the Committee on International
Relations, demonstrates the importance Congress places on providing
consular and visa services in Pristina and having the State Department
detail its plans for the future. It mandates no changes, but merely
requires the Department of State to report to Congress on the matter as
part of our oversight responsibilities.
Nor does it threaten to change the status of Kosova, as some
proponents of this amendment may believe. In fact, the State Department
affirms that there are no political or legal obstacles to opening a
consulate in Kosova.
I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this needless amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Franks amendment. The
language that was adopted was adopted unanimously by the Committee on
International Relations in a bipartisan way; and with all due respect
to my colleague from Arizona, his amendment addresses a problem which
does not exist.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is trying to strike a
reporting requirement. This has nothing to do with the financial status
of Kosova, Serbia, Montenegro, or anywhere else. As the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) said right now, consular and visa services are
not offered at the United States office in Pristina. The section the
Committee on International Relations bipartisanly and unanimously
adopted merely asked the State Department to submit a report describing
the possibility of providing consular and visa services at the United
States offices in Pristina, Kosova to the residents of Kosova. That is
all it does. It is very hard for people who live in Pristina and in
Kosova to go to other countries, particularly old people, to get a
visa. And as far as Kosova or Kosovo, there are 12 other provisions,
and I have them here, in United States law that mention Kosova with an
``a.'' So for the gentleman from Arizona to say that this somehow
changes existing law is just not true. This body has passed 12 and has
now signed into law parts of the law where it says ``Kosova.''
So I think we should not upset the apple cart and change the
unanimous wishes of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Some things should not be so hard. This is about asking for a report
about consular services in Pristina. An example of why this is needed:
some refugees from the war in Kosovo have settled in Bismarck. They are
very close personal friends of mine. They wanted to have family come
and visit. To get those visas, they could not go to Pristina. They sure
did not want to go to Belgrade. They ended up going to Macedonia and
dealing with the embassy in Skopje, tremendously difficult, cumbersome,
and burdensome; and what is more, it took a couple, three trips. We do
not need to do this to the people in this region.
I have got an idea: let us have a report on whether we could provide
these services in Pristina.
{time} 1430
That is all that the Committee on International Relations voted on
this question. It just makes simple sense. I, for the life of me,
cannot understand the amendment that would strike this language. Let us
move this forward and look at how we can improve the services, consular
services, we are providing to the people in this region.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just add again this language was unanimously
passed by the Committee on International Relations with bipartisan
support and no dissension. It was part of an en bloc amendment, and it
is not controversial. With all due respect to the gentleman from
Arizona, this is not something that should be overturned.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kolbe). The time of the gentleman from
California has expired.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), although he is in
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I do oppose the amendment. It is merely an amendment
authorizing a study to determine whether or not the U.S. Office in
Pristina ought to provide consular services. There are about 15,000
people that make that trip to Skopje every year. It is a burdensome
situation for them.
But let me also point out there is some value to this debate in the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), because
it underscores the clear and nonambiguous intent here that we do not
want to prejudge or predetermine the final status with regard to
Kosovo. That is to be left to the negotiations.
Even if the State Department makes a recommendation that it is going
to be left to a status negotiation, I think the gentleman's amendment
and the fact we have had this debate helps to bring some light to that.
This amendment would merely facilitate and expedite those individuals
that would like to get their visas and to come here.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, I oppose the amendment, and I
respect the gentleman.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) really was
able to get to the heart of the purpose of my amendment, and that is
very simply that the Balkan region is one that is fraught with great
historical tragedies, with enough heartache and hurt to go around for
every ethnic group that is in that area. It certainly is obvious to the
world that the ethnic and cultural tensions there are responsible for
some incredible tragedies.
It is my contention that the process that takes place there now or is
in the imminent process of occurring is important to allow it to go
forward in a way that the people on the ground have the greatest
control over. My concern is that if the Congress should try to impose
from the top down prejudicial language, that it could only exacerbate
some of the problems that have caused such tensions there that have led
to such death and suffering already.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that even though it is true that Kosova
has appeared in our bills a number of times in the past, it is in
conflict with U.S. policy and with the U.S. official position on
Kosovo; and consequently, I do not think that the mistakes of the past
would be a foundation for repeating them here today.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36 printed in Part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Lantos
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from California the designee of
the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
[[Page H6147]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Lantos:
Page 241, after line 21, add the following new section:
SEC. 947. TRAINING AND ASSISTANCE TO IDENTIFY UNKNOWN VICTIMS
WHO WERE ABDUCTED AND MURDERED IN CIUDAD
JUAREZ, MEXICO.
(a) Statement of Congress.--Congress urges the President
and Secretary of State to incorporate the investigative and
preventative efforts of the Government of Mexico in the
bilateral agenda between the Government of Mexico and the
Government of the United States and to continue to express
concern to the Government of Mexico over the abductions and
murders of young women since 1993 in the Mexican city of
Ciudad Juarez.
(b) Training and Assistance.--The Secretary of State is
authorized to provide training and assistance to identify
unknown victims who were murdered in the Mexican city of
Ciudad Juarez through forensic analysis, including DNA
testing, conducted by independent, impartial experts who are
sensitive to the special needs and concerns of the victims'
families, as well as efforts to make these services available
to any families who have doubts about the results of prior
forensic testing.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of State $500,000 for
fiscal year 2006 to carry out subsection (b).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
The Rio Grande, which separates El Paso in Texas from Ciudad Juarez
in Mexico and is often dry, has been filled with the tears of countless
families who grieve for a lost daughter, sister or mother who have
fallen prey to a mastermind of murder and the reckless indifference of
local Mexican law enforcement.
Since 1993, over 400 women have been murdered in the border region
around El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. In the last year alone, over 30 women
have been killed. According to Amnesty International, Mr. Chairman, at
least 137 of the victims, more than half of whom were between the ages
of 13 and 22, were sexually assaulted prior to being murdered.
Realizing the deliberate ineptitude of local law enforcement under
whose jurisdiction these cases would normally fall, the Mexican Federal
Government has begun to implement measures to prevent these abductions
and murders in Ciudad Juarez, including by establishing a commission to
coordinate Federal and State efforts, crafting a 40-point plan of
action and appointing a special federal prosecutor.
Unfortunately, these efforts have not been enough to close the
killing fields around this border town. Our own ambassador to Mexico
has declared the area to be a public security concern and advised
United States citizens against traveling there.
The amendment of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes), the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force
on International Relations, is a constructive provision that aims to
raise the profile of these tragic cases and provide forensic assistance
to our Mexican neighbors. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the author of the amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me time,
and I want to thank both my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) for making
my amendment in order.
My amendment, as has been very aptly described by our ranking member,
seeks to provide support to the Mexican Government. This is an area
that is adjoining my district and has, unfortunately, taken way too
many lives. Women have been abducted, raped and killed; and this is an
effort to get help in several different areas.
There have been opportunities. Since being in office as a Member of
Congress, I have asked the El Paso Police Department, the Sheriff's
Department, and the FBI to provide help in forensic analysis, crime
scene search and identification, as well as training and investigative
techniques, all of which have been well received. But we need that
additional pressure from the Department of State to provide additional
help and additional focus on the issue through the Mexican Government.
This is something that is very important to my constituents as a
great concern, because it is happening right across the border from my
district. It is also of great concern to other Members of Congress. In
fact, I have hosted several congressional delegations that have gone
there and talked to the victims and talked to law enforcement officials
and those that have been right at the heart of the investigation in the
area where it has been most impacted. So I hope that my colleagues
support me on this issue.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman
Dreier) for making this in order and the chairman and ranking member
for their support.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
take the time in opposition, even though I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes) for his very compassionate and important amendment. It
should be supported, and the majority on this side of the aisle
supports it.
Since 1993, almost 400 women and girls have been murdered and more
than 70 remain missing in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. This commonsense
amendment simply seeks to provide congressional authority and funding
to the Secretary of State to make independent technical and forensic
expertise available to the families of these young women and girls.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) represents, as we know, the El
Paso area across the border from this area. His amendment extends a
helping hand to these grieving families. I want to commend the
gentleman for his compassion in offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for speaking on
behalf of the amendment.
I would just simply say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate
the opportunity to once again bring this issue to this House. I think
it is the right thing to do, to support an area that has been
beleaguered by criminals. With that, I hope that my colleagues will
support this amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37A
printed in part B of House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 37A Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 37A offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
At the end of subtitle B of title XI, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1127. CAPTURE, DETENTION, AND INTERROGATION OF
TERRORISTS AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Usama bin Laden declared war on the United States in
1996.
(2) International terrorists, including al Qaida and its
affiliated terrorists, have repeatedly attacked the United
States and its coalition partners throughout the world and
have killed and wounded thousands of innocent United States
citizens and citizens from these coalition partners.
[[Page H6148]]
(3) The United States is exercising its rights to self-
defense and to protect United States citizens both at home
and abroad by waging war alongside its coalition partners
against al Qaida and affiliated terrorists.
(4) International terrorists continue to pose an
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States and its coalition partners.
(5) International terrorists continue to commit and plan
terrorist attacks around the world against the United States
and its coalition partners;.
(6) In order to protect the United States and its citizens,
the United States must identify terrorists and those
individuals who support them, disrupt their activities, and
eliminate their ability to conduct or support attacks against
the United States, its citizens, and its coalition partners.
(7) Identifying, disrupting, and eliminating terrorist
threats against the United States requires effective
gathering, dissemination, and analysis of timely
intelligence.
(8) The collection of information from detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the United States has improved the
security of the United States and its coalition partners and
is essential in fighting the Global War on Terrorism.
(9) The loss of interrogation-derived information would
have a disastrous effect on the United States' intelligence
collection and counterterrorism efforts and would constitute
a damaging reversal in the Global War on Terrorism.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the capture, detention, and interrogation of
international terrorists are essential to the successful
prosecution of the Global War on Terrorism and to the defense
of the United States, its citizens, and its coalition
partners from future terrorist attacks;
(2) the detention and lawful, humane interrogation by the
United States of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is
essential to the defense of the United States and its
coalition partners and to the successful prosecution of the
Global War on Terrorism;
(3) the detention facilities and interrogations at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, plays an essential role in the security
of the United States and should not be closed or ended while
the United States is waging the Global War of Terrorism.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, there is hardly a topic more misunderstood,
mischaracterized, and exploited by America's enemies than the detention
facility administered by the United States military at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, we should be clear that the Guantanamo prison is
reserved for some of the world's worst terrorists. Those there pose a
great threat to our national security. Those there were primarily
captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
Here are some specifics that the Department of Defense has stated
publicly regarding Guantanamo. Since September 11, 2001, more than
70,000 detainees have been captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. The vast
majority have been released. The U.S. is working with Iraq and
Afghanistan and other governments to have them take control of
detainees from their own countries.
Some 800 suspected al Qaeda or Taliban have been sent to Guantanamo;
approximately 520 of them remain. Approximately 235 have been released,
transferred or are presently in other countries; 61 are awaiting
release or transfer.
So, who is in Guantanamo? Well, certainly no one under 18 years of
age. That is important. The people who were there are terrorists,
terrorist trainers, bomb makers, recruiters and facilitators, terrorist
financiers, Osama bin Laden's bodyguard, and would-be suicide bombers.
And what are we learning from these people that are being held in
Guantanamo? The organizational structure of al Qaeda and other
terrorist groups; the extent of terrorist presence in Europe, in the
United States and the Middle East; al Qaeda's pursuit of weapons of
mass destruction; methods of recruitment and location centers for
recruitment; terrorist skills and how they use them; both general and
specialized operative training; and how legitimate financial activities
are being used to hide terrorist operations.
Mr. Chairman, Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt recently headed a
Department of Defense investigation of Guantanamo. General Schmidt's
report described how military interrogators at Guantanamo broke down
Saudi Arabian-born Mohammed al Kahtani, who was to be, I might add, the
20th hijacker on September 11.
{time} 1445
By the fall, Mr. Kahtani had resisted all conventional interrogation
techniques, so Secretary Rumsfeld approved a more aggressive action
plan, although a plan that still did not violate the Geneva Convention.
Ultimately, this prisoner started talking, and we learned how al
Qaeda, led by bin Laden, planned September 11 and the murder and the
slaughter of almost 3,000 Americans. We learned how they recruited the
terrorists and financed their operations, and how they entered the
United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, common sense prevents a greater
discussion of the intelligence windfall that was reaped by the
questioning of this particular prisoner. This case also shows that
persistence and skill of our soldiers pays off. In short, intelligence
gained at Guantanamo has prevented terrorist attacks and saved the
lives of countless Americans and America's allies.
Mr. Chairman, no system is perfect, no group of people is perfect,
our country is certainly not perfect, our defenders are not perfect.
But of some 24,000 interrogations, of those 24,000 interrogations,
again, it is not a perfect system, but only 9 of the 24,000 have been
basically found to have any type of abuse or purported to be examples
of abuse. Most significantly, Guantanamo is not shrouded in secrecy, as
we are told over and over again. There has been enormous transparency,
especially as compared to any other country in the world which is
holding terrorist detainees.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has been there. They
have 24/7 access to the facility, and it is at their discretion. The
International Committee of the Red Cross had had a permanent presence,
recently changed at its choosing, and basically that is what the report
said.
We have also had media people go to Guantanamo, including more than
400 visits by 1,000 national and international journalists. We have had
lawyers for the detainees there, especially in connection with habeas
corpus cases. We have had congressional Members, including 17 Senators,
103 Representatives, and 129 congressional staffers. Now, if there was
ever a case of openness and transparency in a place for holding
prisoners, this is it.
Additionally, Congress has held at least a dozen hearings into this
matter.
Mr. Chairman, our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), stated after touring Gitmo last month that he noted that the
detainees have gained an average of five pounds each over the last
year. They have received first class medical services, averaging four
hospital visits per month, and that 100 percent of the detainees have
been given a written notice of their rights, a written notice of their
right to contest their detention in a U.S. court of law, as well as
instructions on how to obtain a free lawyer, and about 100 of the
detainees have lawyers at this time.
What other country in the world would be so generous at a time of
war, after seeing our people slaughtered in New York?
One military analyst, Jed Babbin, recently toured Gitmo and concluded
the following: ``The common belief among the terrorists, fed by reports
apparently conveyed to some by their lawyers, is that political
pressure will soon result in our having to close Gitmo and to let them
go. Critics are making the interrogators' job much harder than it
already is. Because they, the terrorists, are beginning to believe we
will close Gitmo, and many of the detainees resist interrogation''
because of this belief.
To the critics of Guantanamo, I would ask them, where do they suggest
that we put these people? What do they suggest we do if we end up
closing Gitmo? Where are we going to put those people we need to
interrogate? Where are we going to put, in this war on terror, where
are we going to put those we capture? At Gitmo, the people there have
done a good job, a fantastic job, not a perfect job, and we should keep
it open. It should not be closed, and we should actually congratulate
[[Page H6149]]
our people who work there for the fine job they have done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kolbe). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In any war, the belligerents have the right to detain enemy
combatants until the conflict has ended. Otherwise, there would be no
way to prevent enemies from returning to the battlefield.
There is, of course, an exactly parallel concern in the war on
terrorism. We already know, Mr. Chairman, that a number of individuals
released from detention have returned to the battlefield against us.
That is a fact.
It is also a fact, however, that the war on terrorism is unlike other
wars that this Nation has faced. It is a struggle against deadly forces
of extremism and nihilism which cannot be found in a bounded
geographical space or located at one particular base. And, as our
experiences over the last few years have demonstrated, our enemy is
resourceful, able to adapt to new conditions, and the end of the
conflict may be decades away.
In this context, the war on terrorism brings us to new ground. The
first question we have to ask as we deal with individuals who
participate in this global terrorist conspiracy is, should we treat
them with the propriety to which every human being is entitled? The
answer to that question is an unequivocal yes. There should be no
torture, no cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and no humiliation.
In this context, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the U.S. military is
dealing with a very difficult situation not of their own making and
doing a great job. I am not aware of a single detainee who has lost his
life at Guantanamo. I am not aware of a single detainee who has lost
his life at Guantanamo. Prisoners have been accorded nourishing and
adequate food, quality medical care, access to the Koran, and visits
from the International Committee of the Red Cross. And I believe that
the U.S. military has investigated abuses whenever they have come up.
We need to keep aggressive oversight, including trips by Members of
this House, to ensure that this continues.
Indeed, closing Guantanamo could well have unintended consequences.
We should recognize that Guantanamo is a safer and more humane facility
than the facilities in Afghanistan and in many places around the world
where others are being held against their will. If we closed
Guantanamo, where will the detainees go? We have already seen tragic
incidences where their home country has tortured those who have been
returned.
A second and critical question, Mr. Chairman, is what type of process
should detainees get and how long can they be held without some sort of
trial. So far, all these questions have been addressed by both the
executive and judicial branches, with very little involvement from the
Congress.
For my part, I support the amendment, but I believe we need to have
serious and thoughtful debate on how to deal with all of these
facilities.
This amendment relates to one aspect of this issue. Both here and in
the other body, we must begin to make our own judgments regarding these
issues, and consider legislation as appropriate to address these
complicated matters.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is still available?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, 12 of those detainees that were in Guantanamo who were
released ended up going back to the battlefield in an attempt to kill
Americans. Let us keep that in mind when people start complaining about
holding people in Guantanamo in the middle of this conflict.
Let us know that those people that are being held are professional
terrorists for the most part and were trained to claim that they had
been tortured, and they were trained to make outlandish charges against
the people who had captured them and against the United States of
America. That is part of their tactic. Let us not fall for that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee
(Mrs. Blackburn), who recently returned from a visit to Guantanamo.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his excellent work on this amendment
and to join him in saying to the body, yes, indeed, Guantanamo Bay
serves a very valuable purpose, a strategic purpose when we talk about
the war on terror, and the importance, the absolute necessity that we
have to win this war on terror.
This is one of those situations where losing is not an option. As the
gentleman was just saying, the detainees, all 520 individuals that are
there, all 520 detainees have been found to be a terrorist. They have
been through not zero, not one, not two, not three, but four different
hearings, and they have been found to be terrorists. These are people
that do not wish us well. They wish evil, and they carry out evil. We
need to keep them locked up.
We found that Guantanamo was a safe, secure facility. It is there for
the protection of the individuals as well as for intelligence
gathering. And our intelligence community is doing a tremendous job
gathering information that has continued to keep this Nation safe and
will continue to keep this Nation safe.
They have gathered intelligence that helped lead to the capture of
Saddam Hussein. They have gathered intelligence that has helped break
up terrorist cells all around this globe. That is important. Why have
we not seen an attack on American soil since September 11? Because of
intelligence that is being gathered.
I will tell my colleagues, for far too long we treated terrorism as a
law enforcement issue. I would recommend to the body that in my opinion
it is not just a law enforcement issue. Law enforcement is necessary,
intelligence is necessary, defense is necessary if we are going to win.
Mr. Chairman, while I am here for a moment, I would like to say thank
you to the men and women in uniform and to the families that are
deployed and serving there. We have had about 10,000 Americans serve at
Guantanamo Bay. They are doing a stellar job. We thank them for their
work under very difficult, very difficult situations, and we are
grateful for their commitment to the war on terror, and we are grateful
for their commitment to freedom, preserving freedom in this Nation and
around the globe.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is an interesting proposition that we have before us today.
Unfortunately, what is framed in the context of this amendment is more
a conclusion rather than something that is dealt with in terms of well-
reasoned fact.
Nobody disputes the fact that we need intelligence. Nobody disputes
the fact that we are struggling in a global war against terror. The
question is the way in which the facility at Guantanamo has been
managed, what it represents now, and what it represents in the future.
We have been engaged in this struggle against terrorism longer than
the United States fought World War II.
{time} 1500
And there is no end in sight. In 2003 we had 205 acts of terror, an
all-time record. In 2004 the number more than tripled to 651. I think
there is a real question whether the assumption that the facility at
Guantanamo has actually enhanced American security more than it has
harmed it needs to be examined. I intend to offer a little more
discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr.
Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his courtesy
today.
[[Page H6150]]
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for raising the important issue of
detention and interrogation of terror suspects here on the House floor.
I firmly agree that the executive must have the authority to capture,
detain, and interrogate international terrorists to prevent future
attacks and to process and punish those who have been captured.
Over a year ago, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay with the gentleman from
North Carolina (Chairman Coble) and other Judiciary Committee members.
We toured the facility and recognized the critical work that our
soldiers are performing. It was also clear that important intelligence
is being derived from detainee interviews, and our servicemembers have
done difficult and courageous work guarding some of the most dangerous
people in the world.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, there is still a significant issue arising
out of our Nation's policy of detentions at Guantanamo, namely, the
lack of any congressional authorization or imprimatur upon the policies
underlining those detentions.
Last month I introduced Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act of 2005,
legislation that would provide for the swift and deliberate processing
and prosecution of detainees in that matter that meets all the
country's national security needs and establishes due process
standards.
Over 500 detainees are currently held at Guantanamo Bay, most of them
captured in Afghanistan after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Some
detainees have been there for more than 3 years without being charged.
My legislation would do the following: first, it would affirm that
the executive has the power to detain foreign nationals as unlawful
combatants. Second, it would provide for a timely hearing before an
independent military judicial officer to review the designation of
enemy combatant. Third, it would require the government to bring formal
charges against detainees or to repatriate them to their country of
origin unless there was substantial likelihood of torture, unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that additional time is needed to
continue with the interrogation, that the person still remains a threat
to the United States, and that by the bringing of formal charges it
would curtail the intelligence gathering process.
Finally, it requires the Department of Defense to put the cases
before tribunals that operate under clear standards and procedures.
Finally, it would require annual reports to Congress on the status of
all detainees.
Recently, I have been heartened by the bipartisan calls from Members
of the Senate upon the Congress to forge legislation which specifically
addresses the standards and procedures to be followed for military
detainees. Frankly, I am surprised there are not more voices in
Congress raising this issue that are not demanding that Congress act to
set limits, not only in the detention of foreign nationals, but as in
the case with Jose Padilla and Hamdi, on Americans or those that are
lawfully residing in this country.
But I have found a new and powerful ally in the United States Supreme
Court. As many know, the district and appellate courts have reached
conflicting results about whether the executive's power to detain enemy
combatants and under what conditions those powers can be used. Justice
Scalia, in one of his dissenting opinions, commented, ``I frankly do
not know whether the tools are sufficient to meet the government's
security needs, including the need to obtain intelligence through
interrogation. It is far beyond my competence or the Court's competence
to determine that, but it is not beyond Congress's.''
We could not have, I think, a stronger admonition that we need to act
in Congress. And I would ask my colleagues to consider legislation
rather than the piecemeal decision-making by the courts. Article I,
section 8 of the Constitution provides that the Congress, and not the
President, has the power to make rules concerning captures on land and
water, to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested in the
Constitution in the Government of the United States, define and punish
offenses against the law of nations and to constitute tribunals.
Mr. Chairman, a sense of Congress is good, but not enough. I urge my
colleagues to examine my proposed legislation, a proposal that would
affirm the executive's authority to detain foreign national terror
suspects, but provide for the swift and deliberate processing and
prosecution of detainees in a manner that protects our Nation and
expresses our commitment to the rule of law. The Guantanamo Detainees
Procedures Act of 2005 will ensure that the hallmark of our democracy
is not compromised.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the American people to hold
their heads up high, not only about the goals of the war on terror but
the way we have conducted it, and especially the way we have handled
the prisoners at Guantanamo.
Let us put it this way: the prisoners in Guantanamo, our prisoners,
are better off for being our prisoners. They have gained weight. They
have medical attention. They have regular meals, none of which they
would have had if they would not have been captured. And life in their
cell is probably a lot better than the cave in which they used to live.
And perhaps as well, we need to say that the leaders, the people who
hold power over them at Guantanamo are at least directed and guided by
moral restrictions that are far different than those restrictions
placed on them by their former leaders who followed radical Islam.
The people who used to be their boss and hold authority over them,
the radical Islamist leaders, would cut people's heads off, participate
in torture, not to mention of course send them out and send their
families out on suicide missions. No, those people that we have
captured that are in Guantanamo are better off because they are under
our authority rather than those people they used to work for.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), the chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the
International Relations Committee, as well as the co-chairman of the
International Relations Committee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, the July 7 attacks in
London, I believe, served as a chilling reminder of what is at stake in
the global war against terrorism. We must fight this war, a war that we
never sought, but which has been declared against our country and
against our citizens; and we must fight in a way so as to win.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) underscores the resolve to do just that. Since the first
prisoners were brought to the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in
January of 2002, this base has provided a secure location for holding
terrorists captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and from the many
other places around the globe where we have obtained custody of
suspected terrorists. It has provided a place where these people could
be kept from returning to combat.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) a moment ago talked
about the 12 detainees who were released and then returned to combat;
two, I understand, in Afghanistan; and at least one that was killed in
a firefight. We are talking about terrorists who went right back to
attempts to kill Americans.
Mark Jacobson, a former special assistant for detainee policy at the
Department of Defense, estimated that as many as 25 of the 202 released
had taken up arms again.
For example, Mullah Shahzada, a former Taliban field commander who
apparently convinced officials at Guantanamo that he had sworn off
violence, was freed in 2003, and immediately rejoined the Taliban. He
was subsequently killed in battle in the summer of 2004 in Afghanistan.
Maulvi Ghafar, a Taliban commander captured in 2001, was released in
February 2004. He was subsequently killed in a shootout with Afghan
government forces in September 2004. Abdullah Mesud, a Pakistani who
was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, bragged
that he was able to hide his true identity for two years at Guantanamo
before being released in March 2004. He was considered a low-risk
security threat because of his artificial leg. After retuning to
Pakistan, Mesud led a group of Islamic militants--part of a campaign
against
[[Page H6151]]
the Pakistani government--that kidnapped two Chinese engineers working
on a dam. One of the engineers and several militants were subsequently
killed in a government raid. Mesud is still at large.
Mr. Chairman, Guantanamo is a place where crucial intelligence could
be gathered that could help the United States understand the operating
methods, patterns, financing, tactical skills and training of these
terrorists. This information is critical to preventing future terrorist
attacks and, in the long run, critical to developing a strategic vision
for combating this new enemy.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, those who are held in Guantanamo must
be treated, without exception, humanely. There must be zero tolerance
for torture or degrading or inhumane or cruel treatment, and Congress
does have a moral responsibility to ensure that that is the case. And
I, like many of my colleagues, have gone down to Guantanamo to see for
myself, to provide oversight, to ask the tough questions and to try to
get answers to those questions.
I would point out to my colleagues as well that in last year's
defense authorization bill, Public Law 108-375, this body unambiguously
stated that it is the sense of Congress that, and I quote it, ``no
detainee shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or
treaties of the United States.''
Moreover, that law requires the Secretary of Defense to take steps to
ensure that policies are adopted to ensure the humane treatment of
detainees and that all DOD commanders have adequate training regarding
the law of war and Geneva Convention obligations, and that standard
operating procedures regarding detainees be established.
Mr. Chairman, finally, just let me say that the U.S. must continue to
fight this war on terrorism on every front. We must not let complacency
lead us to lower our guard. We must fight this war in a way that is
consistent, however, with fundamental principles.
And I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has
offered us a resolution that tries to make that clear.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
I appreciate what was just presented by my colleague from California
(Mr. Schiff), who has offered up a legislative approach to deal with
the framework for Guantanamo, providing protections and procedures and
moving forward with dealing with the problems of enemy combatants. I
find somewhat ironic the continued portrayal on the part of some that
what we have in Guantanamo now is sort of a Motel 6 with enhanced
security and better food than our kids get when they go off to school.
I wish that the resolution that was before us today were based on
some aggressive work on our oversight committee in the Committee on
International Affairs, which my colleague, the gentleman from
California, chairs, because I think it is appropriate for us to
understand not just the treatment at Guantanamo, but what impact that
has had around the world in terms of perceptions of United States
behavior towards enemy combatants.
I mentioned that I am deeply, deeply concerned about the language
that is here that asserts that somehow we are better off and more
secure as a result of Guantanamo. There is nothing, nothing that is
unique to that location and the lawful exercise of interrogation
techniques that is unique to Guantanamo. Where do we put them? We can
put them in Leavenworth. We have lots of facilities that could be used
to secure the enemy and protect the public.
But I am deeply, deeply concerned that there is lots of evidence that
we have fallen short of the mark, and it is not just that when you
torture and abuse people you get information that is suspect. The
reason we reject that behavior as a country is twofold: besides being
morally wrong, it puts Americans at risk. If we are going to abuse
people, and recall that famous hearing in the other body when questions
were put to uniform command, ``would you like American soldiers
subjected to these techniques?'' Well, of course he would not. That is
why we set standards to protect American soldiers and Americans
overseas.
Second, when there are activities where we fail to meet our high
standards, whether at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, they have an incendiary
effect. Remember, it was not just a Newsweek story that sparked the
riots in Pakistan. We were told, in fact, by people there that the
story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet was not why the
riots occurred. But the point is that there was a perception of
American behavior that made people susceptible to thinking the worst.
That is why there are a wide number of Republicans, including Senator
Martinez, Senator Graham, Senator Hagel, that have raised questions
about whether or not Guantanamo has outlived its usefulness for us.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when the history of this period
of time is written, we are going to find out in the last 4 years that
the information that came from the press, whether it is about prison
abuses, about the basis for rushing to war in Iraq, or the consequences
of that act, that the press accounts were more accurate than what we
were given from the administration as information and justification.
And, frankly, Congress has been, in the main, missing in action when it
comes to getting on top of those stories, rooting out the truth,
holding people accountable, not low-level guards ill trained and ill
suited, and looking at patterns of abuse that started in Guantanamo,
ended up in Iraq.
{time} 1515
These are items that lend itself to the legislative process. With all
due respect to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher), it is not at all clear that what happened in Guantanamo
makes us safer given the fact that we have seen an explosion, that was
a poor choice of words, of terrorist acts around the world, including
our closest ally, Great Britain, just this last week.
This is precisely what we should be doing as a Congress rather than
rushing to approve a feel-good amendment that has not been carefully
examined by our oversight committee where there is evidence to the
contrary that we may not be safer rather than doing something that
would look to all the world as sort of a whitewash of what has happened
in Guantanamo. And, most important, where we are going from here?
I would strongly urge the rejection of the amendment by my colleague.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, as our chairman of the Committee on International
Relations just noted, it is always of benefit to get criminals off of
the street and it is always to our benefit to take people who are
involved, actively involved in terrorist organizations who have been
engaged in suicide bombings, engaged in murdering other people, it is
always good to get them off the street. And if it is in Guantanamo or
anywhere else, that makes Guantanamo a very positive factor in keeping
us safe.
Twelve of the people who we let go out of the 56 already returned to
do battle to kill Americans. So it might have been better even to keep
them in custody rather than put the Americans who they were aiming
their guns at at more risk. Guantanamo is doing a good job. Those
people down there, the Americans, are doing a good job for us. They are
not perfect but no one is perfect, but they are making us safer and
that is what this is about. I think we have no hesitancy whatsoever
than to proclaim that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his good work and
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for giving us
the opportunity to vote on this resolution.
Approximately 800 suspected members of al Qaeda or the Taliban have
been sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Approximately 520 remain and 61 are
awaiting release or transfer. Who are these people?
Well, they are terrorist trainers. They are bomb makers. They are
recruiters and facilitators. They are terrorist financiers, and they
are would-be suicide bombers.
What have we learned from the interrogations of the detainees? This
is what we have learned. We have learned
[[Page H6152]]
the organizational structure of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. We
have learned the extent of terrorist presence in Europe, the United
States, the Middle East. We have learned about al Qaeda's pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction. We have learned the methods of recruitment
and locations of recruitment centers. We have learned about their
general and their specialized operational training. And we have learned
how legitimate financial activities are used to hide terrorist
operations.
The question is, is this facility still needed? Yes, it is still
needed because we are still receiving information from the detainees at
Guantanamo, information that is shared with our coalition partners and
with countries around the world who are in this fight with us.
Make no mistake, we are saving lives because of the information we
are obtaining at Guantanamo and that is the most important thing.
If anyone doubts the importance of this, well, if anyone doubts the
war against terrorists, go to the Internet and look at the pictures of
September 11 and the bombing of Madrid and the bombing of London or
look at the faces of the families whose innocent children were blown up
just days ago as they were accepting candy from our troops in Iraq.
These are pictures coming from a deep place of hatred and loathing
and that hatred is aimed at us. The Guantanamo Bay facility has been
visited by over a thousand national and international journalists. It
has been visited by over a hundred Senators and Members of Congress and
over a hundred congressional staffers. Bipartisan congressional
delegations have been to Guantanamo and seen for themselves that the
treatment is humane and it meets acceptable standards.
I absolutely support the Rohrabacher amendment and I urge my
colleagues to do the same. The capture, the detention, and the
interrogation of international terrorists is essential to winning this
war, a war without borders and a war that has no safe haven.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just say
it is a false choice to suggest that the only alternative is to keep
Guantanamo open and operating as it is now. We could easily prosecute
detainees who are at risk or a threat or a problem under courts
martial. We could close the prison at Guantanamo and shift AT
operations someplace else like Leavenworth. We could abandon the failed
interrogation policies and conduct them according to the Army Field
Manual and get rid of the people who are not at risk. There are other
alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for offering this
amendment. I know that he is a man of great sincerity and he offers
this from his point of view in the right way.
But the interesting thing about it from my perspective is it gives us
an opportunity to talk about some of these issues and this opportunity
is a rare opportunity indeed.
It is unfortunate that it is so rare that we have an opportunity on
this floor in the context of legislation to talk about the tragedy in
Iraq and the so-called global war on terrorism. In this regard and the
context of this amendment which focuses attention on the activities in
Guantanamo Bay and pretends that all of those activities are upstanding
and lawful, and in the language of the amendment ``lawful, humane
interrogation,'' we find in experience that this interrogation that has
been carried out as a result of this so-called war on terrorism has
often not been lawful and not been humane. It has not been lawful in
the sense that it has violated the third Geneva Convention.
It has not been lawful in the sense that it has violated other
aspects of international law, including the United Nations, and it has
violated our own domestic law frequently.
In Guantanamo, and even more so in other places such as Abu Ghraib
and Camp Cropper and Bagram Air Base where the interrogation carried
out has been unlawful, has been inhumane and has brought us terrible,
deep disgrace in the face of the rest of the world and placed a
terrible burden on our country and our military people around the
world.
How did this all happen? We know that a significant number of
military personnel, both enlisted and officers, have been prosecuted
and convicted as a result of the inhumane treatment that has been
carried on in these camps.
How did it occur? We are led to believe, we are being asked to
believe that just a handful of inexperienced, rough hewn Americans
invented these activities indiscriminately in several different places
by themselves, that this was not done in any concerted way. But the
circumstantial evidence that we have is quite different. And I say
circumstantial evidence because this Congress has abandoned its
responsibility to investigate this matter.
There have been inadequate hearings by this House of Representatives
to look into this issue to see exactly what has been going on. But the
circumstantial evidence that we have indicates that these orders for
this kind of ill-treatment came out of the Secretary of Defense,
transmitted to the Under Secretary for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone.
He was then sent down to Guantanamo and gave the information to
Geoffrey Miller. And he then carried it out in Guantanamo and then in
Camp Cropper and in other places throughout the system that has been
developed as a result of this illegal, unjust and unnecessary war in
Iraq which has corrupted the focus of our legitimate attention, which
is the attack of the al Qaeda terrorists on this country on September
11, 2001.
We have abandoned all of that for the sake of this illegal, unjust,
unnecessary war in Iraq which has now placed such a terrible burden,
psychologically, emotionally and financially, on this country. So this
resolution that we have here gives us an opportunity to examine these
issues, and to examine them carefully, but to examine them in the way
that they need to be examined. We need the leadership here in the House
of Representatives, the chairmen of the appropriate committees, to
begin hearings as to what exactly happened and why it happened, who
gave the orders, under what circumstances were those orders given, to
whom were they given, why was this activity of persecution and torture
which has been criticized by the International Committee on the Red
Cross, internally by an independent Army investigation and also on
numerous occasions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
We need to get to the bottom of this. Let us begin to do it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should note that there have been at least a
dozen congressional hearings into Guantanamo itself and there has not
been a lack of attention on the possibilities that some of our people
were not meeting the high standards that we set as a Nation. That is
number one.
Number two, and I think my colleague, and he is my dear friend and
colleague, should understand that Guantanamo is not a result, as he
suggested, of an unjust and illegal war in Iraq. Almost all the
prisoners in Guantanamo, unless I am mistaken, are from the Afghan
conflict and the conflict in Afghanistan was thrust upon us. The war in
Iraq had nothing to do with Guantanamo whatsoever. The prisoners in
Guantanamo are people who have been taken prisoner after serving as
part of al Qaeda or the Taliban army in Afghanistan. We did not choose
to declare war on the Taliban and al Qaeda. They attacked us. We were
attacked on September 11.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. I appreciate the gentleman's statements and I understand
what he is saying very well. But the fact of the matter is that our
attention has been drawn away from the real circumstances here.
We were attacked, yes. The Taliban was harboring the al Qaeda network
and we went after them in Afghanistan and rightly so. And all but one
Member of this House supported that activity on both sides of the
aisle.
But then for illegitimate reasons, we were forced into this
unnecessary and illegal and unjust war in Iraq which has taken our
attention and our resources away from the terrorists who
[[Page H6153]]
conducted those attacks. We need to get back on that, and we need to
investigate why this is happening.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I think it is very clear that
what is happening in Guantanamo, which is the discussion today, has
come under attack by people who generally are opposed to a very tough
and aggressive and engaged American foreign policy overseas.
We can no longer rely on our oceans and our noninvolvement in places
like Afghanistan where we let the Taliban have their way and expect
that we are going to be safe. We are not safe. 9/11 proved that.
When we engage in a war against people like these terrorists who have
murdered our people and we capture people, we have to put them some
place. Guantanamo has served that purpose, and Americans down there
have uncovered information that have saved American lives. That is how
we have gotten to know what al Qaeda is all about.
I am sorry there are times that people feel compelled to criticize
American policy overseas and certainly that should not include
Guantanamo, and that is what this debate is about today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway).
{time} 1530
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good colleague yielding me
this time.
I have just come back from Guantanamo Bay about 3 weeks ago. In part
of my former life, I served with the 256 MP Company at Fort Hood,
Texas. That company had, in addition to traffic responsibilities at
Fort Hood, responsibility for the stockade.
We have asked our military, through the civilian leadership, to do
two things at Guantanamo Bay: one, keep those detainees in a safe and
humane manner. And we are clearly doing that. And, two, to conduct
interrogations against standards set by the civilian leadership of this
country to glean from these detainees whatever information they have
left to help us with conducting this war on terror. Both those missions
are being accomplished well.
We have great leadership there, and the men and women who are serving
there. Some 10,000 of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines who have
circulated through, have undergone extensive training, sensitivity
training, which is a phrase I hate, but training to allow them to be
more sensitive to the Arab culture. Not to the Islam religion, which we
ought to respect, have respect for the Koran and the religious
practices, but the customs of the Arabs are respected in a way that
does us honor, because we are going to such great extent to accommodate
these detainees.
We cannot out-nice the meanness and the hatred of our enemies. We
just cannot be so nice to the rest of the world that they will say, in
that case, I will not hurt you. They are going to kill us loudly or
they are going to kill us softy, but they are going to kill us.
As an example, one of the detainees that we let go presented to us
with half his leg blown off. We nursed that person back to health, as
we should. We ought to set the gold standard for prisoner treatment. We
nursed this person back to health; we fitted him with a prosthesis; and
then, after evaluations, we let him go. We put him back in the fight.
He has been implicated in the death of a Chinese engineer, kidnapping
of another. He has been indicted in the blowing up of a bus with
journalists on it, and he has also been indicted in a hotel bombing.
We cannot out-nice our enemies. We have to treat them with respect,
but we have to kill them where we have to. The mission going on at
Guantanamo Bay is done right, and it is in the right spot. We put those
prisoners anywhere else in America, and that spot then becomes a
terrorist target. I would rather have that terrorist target and those
attentions aimed at Guantanamo Bay, where our Marines man that wire,
where the Army conducts this detaining function and does it well. That
is the best spot for it.
There is absolutely no reason in my mind we should think about
closing Guantanamo Bay. The whole idea of closing it is a red herring.
It is meant to distract us from the work we should otherwise be doing.
The folks we have there are doing it well. They are well led, well
trained, and I support my good colleague's amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman very much for yielding me this time and for his leadership
and passion on this issue.
I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher),
for really giving us the opportunity to have a full flush, if you will,
a full discussion on this matter. It would be certainly somewhat
untoward to suggest that one would rise to not applaud some of the good
works that we find at Guantanamo Bay, but I think it is important that
we try to turn on the lights and get out of the dark tunnel on this
whole issue of why many of us want to bring to the attention of the
American people the element of Guantanamo Bay that needs to be reformed
and that we need to be concerned about.
Let me again add my applause to the chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher) for the delegation they led to Guantanamo Bay just a few
weeks ago, and which I was part of. I was able to see over the time the
improvements, the physical improvements, Mr. Chairman, that in fact
resources from the United States through the leadership of our then-
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), were able to provide
for those detainees and for those particular soldiers.
It does not go to the question of why we are on the floor today to
the fact that the accommodations have been rebuilt, the training of
those soldiers has been improved, the dining apparently has improved to
the extent that the detainees like American food. That is not the
issue. The accommodations, whether they are four star or five star is
not really the issue that we are debating. I also acknowledge the work
of General Hood and his commitment to the professionalizing of that
staff.
I always am reminded of a phrase my grandmother shared with me,
somewhat biblical: for those who are failing to remember the past, they
are doomed to repeat it. I stand here today to suggest we must not
close our eyes on the concerns many of us have about Guantanamo Bay,
whether or not we happen to be opponents of the Iraq war.
And for once I am going to say, for the millions of Americans who are
questioning the rightness of the Iraq war, the rightness of the premise
of the Iraq war, we are not going to allow you to demonize our
patriotism. We are not going to stand here and accept the fact that
because we raise constitutional questions there is something wrong with
our patriotism. There is something in the fifth amendment that says
that you are due liberty and due process on the right of life and
liberty. There is something to that.
My good friend stood here and said that an amputee that we nursed
back to health was sent back to do harm. None of us who understand the
law would in any way concede that we should have let him out. But the
problem is that we have no system of justice that allows us to indict,
to try and to convict and to detain. That is what the American people
need to understand. We have individuals there that have had no process,
no opportunity for the intervention of the courts, no opportunity for
appeal, and no opportunity for us to convict and try and hold. And when
I say convict, I mean indict, try, and hold.
So the report that just came out and was just issued that we need to
understand, written in the article on July 14, unfortunately, we have
not gotten to the source. We are holding young recruits or young
Reservists as, if you will, responsible for Abu Ghraib, when we know
one of the chief designers of that was Secretary Rumsfeld, who signed
the document that allowed them to do that kind of interrogating of one
of the 9/11 bombers, if you will.
It is important for the American people to know that all of these
people here are not related to 9/11 per se. They may be Taliban
members. They may have been gathered up in a big sweep in Afghanistan,
young kids who came in at 17 and now are 21. So there needs to be a
process by which we deal with this.
[[Page H6154]]
I finish on this: the Geneva Convention, which we ignore, says:
``Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment, is outlawed.'' We need to understand that we can
detain people properly, we can have due process, and we can have
indictments and we can have convictions; but we cannot have what is
going on in Guantanamo Bay that leads to an Abu Ghraib. We must
understand that we are better than that.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Middle
East and Central Asia of the Committee on International Relations.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I would like to rise in strong support of the
Rohrabacher amendment arguing that our facility in Guantanamo is
essential to the defense of the U.S. and our coalition partners.
Mr. Chairman, the Guantanamo Bay facility currently houses some of
the elite of our enemy's crop in the war against terror, including
enemy combatants ranging from terrorist trainers and recruiters to
bombmakers to would-be suicide bombers and terrorist financiers.
Guantanamo provides a strategic interrogation center where these
enemy combatants can be questioned and where the results of the
interrogations have produced information that has saved the lives of
U.S. and coalition forces in the field, as well as has thwarted threats
posed to innocent civilians in this country and indeed throughout the
world.
Through the detainees held at this facility, we have learned about
the detonation systems used in roadside bombs in Iraq, bombs that have
been used by the insurgency to kill our troops and innocent Iraqi
citizens. Detainees include some of Osama bin Laden's personal
bodyguards and one of the suspected 20 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks.
Closing Guantanamo Bay, as some of our colleagues have suggested,
will not relieve the United States of needing a facility to house and
interrogate suspected terrorists. Should Guantanamo close, the
government would have to relocate those functions. Furthermore, given
the history of al Qaeda and the jihadists, the closure of Guantanamo
would provide an enormous boost in morale to the terrorists and their
supporters.
Finally, detainees held at Guantanamo pose a significant threat to
Americans, to U.S. allies and civilians in their home countries. There
are reports of detainees released from Guantanamo, returned to their
home countries, only to resume terrorist activities and attacks against
the U.S., our allies, and innocent civilians.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues strongly to support the
Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Armed
Services, who has also returned from a visit to Guantanamo Bay.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution, having recently traveled to Guantanamo Bay with 16 of our
Republican and Democrat colleagues.
If people around the world knew how well people at Guantanamo Bay are
treating prisoners, they would not fall prey to the accusations that
some in our Chamber are making. They are all receiving judicial review.
If anyone has it rough at Guantanamo, it is the guards. They are
constantly harassed and threatened by some of these terrorists.
Prisoners tell guards, we know where your families are. We know where
your wife is, your children, and we are going to kill them.
We were shown an array of handmade weapons used to injure and to kill
the guards, if given the chance. They have tried gouging guards' eyes
out, sticking their hands in their mouths and ripping them open. One
prisoner tried to braid a rope with which he could strangle a guard.
There should be no doubt these prisoners will inflict harm or death on
Americans, given the chance.
Mr. Chairman, our best defense against terrorism is to continue
intelligence-gathering. The good news is we are treating them too well.
The better news is that because we are treating them like American men
and women in uniform, they are giving us the information we need.
Support the Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the operative elements here before us in the resolution
are twofold: one, on the second page of this amendment, there is
paragraph 8 that says that we have improved the security of the United
States and that what is going on at Guantanamo is essential to fighting
the global war on terrorism. The second operative phrase is on the very
last paragraph, it is essential to the security of the United States
that we continue operating this facility until we are through waging
the war on terrorism, which I have already pointed out we have been
fighting now longer than World War II.
It is not at all clear that the symbol that Guantanamo has become has
actually made us more secure. We have people like Republican Senator
Mel Martinez and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who recognize both in
terms of the symbol of Guantanamo that has inflamed people around the
world, and that we have a situation now where people are dealt with in
an indefinite situation, rather than moving forward, prosecuting people
under a courts-martial, if they in fact need to be prosecuted. We are
not opposed to that.
There are opportunities for providing a framework, which my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), outlined in
terms of legislation that he has developed that we could use to move
forward, deal with what needs to be dealt with, but do it in a way that
is consistent with American values and American principles. And, in
fact, if people detained thought that there was some end in sight
rather than indefinite detainment, some experts argue we may actually
get more cooperation.
There are alternatives. We can put people, for example, in
Leavenworth. We ought to make clear that we are playing by our
standards, that we are going to play fair, and we are going to move
forward.
I think it would be a very appropriate use of our Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, which the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) chairs, to try to find out what the facts of the situation
are; whether we are more or less at risk, and what lessons we learn
from this sorry chapter in the past.
Our Republican friends have devoted 140 hours to investigating
whether or not the Clintons misused their Christmas card list, and
there were inquiries from committees trying to find out how they are
dealing with letters that were sent to the Clintons' cat Socks. I would
suggest that we ought to be able to find the time and the energy to be
able to give the appropriate attention to these issues that Guantanamo
represents, but I think the resolution in question is not warranted.
{time} 1545
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the author of the amendment, what
protects American citizens in this country and around the world is this
country's adherence to the rule of law and this country's abiding by
international law.
Wherever we have seen violations of international law if they are
endorsed by the United States, it jeopardizes the security of American
citizens everywhere. I think that is the point of those who are
challenging this amendment which would unfortunately seem to gloss over
the torture that has occurred at various places of detention.
We certainly have a right to secure this country and to make sure
that American citizens are safe. But the only way we can do that
effectively is to make sure that we show respect for the law and to
make sure that we show condemnation, not just of terrorists, but
condemnation of torture.
I think this amendment, while I certainly respect the dedication of
the
[[Page H6155]]
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) to the American people, I
think that we need to challenge the underlying assumption, and that is
that torture should not be tolerated.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
There has never been any proof of torture at all at Guantanamo,
period, zippo. Also, let us not hear the complaint that we have not had
enough investigation of Guantanamo.
Mr. Chairman, 187 Members of Congress and congressional staff have
visited Guantanamo just in the last few months, 11 Senators, 77
Representatives, 99 congressional staff members, and there have been
400 media visits, including 1,000 national and international
journalists have visited there. There has been a lot of attention paid
to Guantanamo. We have been transparent. We can be proud of the job our
people are doing. That is what this is all about today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a number of Members who oppose
this amendment talk about the importance of sending the right message
to the world. We should send the right message. We should send the
truth. Here is the truth, which dozens of Members know because they
have attended the open and classified briefings we have had on
Guantanamo. We have spent as much time in the Committee on Armed
Services over the last 3 or 4 weeks working on the security of people
in Guantanamo as we have working on our own troops in the warfighting
theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Number one, there has not been a single death in Guantanamo. There is
not a Member who has argued against this amendment who can say at the
same time there has not been a single death in their own prison system
in the State they come from.
Everybody in Guantanamo is allowed five prayer calls a day. That
means we use our loudspeaker system to bring them to prayer call. We
give them 20 minutes of quiet time. We give them great meals. We give
them a medical system we have looked over very carefully, Democrats and
Republicans, which is considered to be as good as any HMO system in
this country, in which every detainee gets four checkups, on average,
per month.
We have had over 24,000 interrogations in Guantanamo, and here are
the facts: People have talked about the use of dogs, the fact that dogs
have been present at Guantanamo at various times, especially with the
20th hijacker, Mr. al Kahtani, who was subject to the most stressful
type of interrogation. There is not one recorded instance in any
investigation of a dog biting a prisoner.
There are only a couple of recorded instances of a prisoner being
struck by a guard, and the one time when a guard struck a prisoner that
happened on General Hood's watch. That guard was struck by the
prisoner, I believe he knocked a tooth out. The guard hit him with a
handheld radio. The guard, the American, was busted.
The watch word in Guantanamo is honor bound. The troops who guard
those people in Guantanamo, who are hijackers, who do include Osama bin
Laden's bodyguards, who do include the 20th hijacker, the guy who was
destined to be on that plane that went into the ground in Pennsylvania,
the guy who was forced to listen to rock music, that is the torture
that the gentleman from New York was alleging to. The people who guard
those individuals who are dangerous are outstanding American soldiers
who are in fact honor bound.
I would put Guantanamo up against the prison system of any of the
gentlemen who have spoken against this amendment from their own States.
Guantanamo has a better record with fewer injuries, better record with
no deaths, better medical treatment, and they have a better record for
methods of interrogation, which, incidentally, Republican and Democrat
Members have been allowed to watch over and over.
So the gentleman who could not understand why any hearings are being
held, I suggest you turn on C-SPAN and watch them.
I urge all Members to vote for this amendment. It makes no sense to
close down this important prison where we put terrorists.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kolbe). The Chair will remind all persons in
the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 printed in Part B of
House Report 109-175.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 38 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:
In subtitle B of title XI, redesignate sections 1111
through 1126 as sections 1121 through 1136, respectively.
In subtitle A of title XI, add at the end the following new
section:
SEC. 1111. UNITED STATES COMMITMENT TO IRAQ.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces
fighting in Iraq are serving with bravery, distinction, and
high morale.
(2) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces
fighting in Iraq need and deserve the full support of the
American people.
(3) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces
fighting in Iraq are part of a large, multinational
coalition, and are serving side-by-side with Iraqi national
forces who have been trained by that coalition.
(4) Coalition and Iraqi forces, Iraqi civilians, foreign
diplomats, and individuals from around the world who have
come to the aid of the Iraqi people are under attack from
terrorists who deliberately attack children, worshippers, and
law enforcement figures, attack civilians at random, sabotage
essential services, and otherwise attempt to terrorize the
Iraqi people, the American people, and the citizens of other
coalition countries.
(5) The terrorists will be emboldened to ``wait out'' the
United States if a target date for withdrawal is established
and announced, especially if the terrorists perceive such
withdrawal date has been established and announced as a
result of their terrorist campaign against the coalition and
the Iraqi people.
(b) Sense of Congress.-- It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) given the nature of the adversary the United States and
its coalition partners face in Iraq and the difficult
conditions under which the United States Armed Forces,
coalition forces, and Iraqi forces find themselves, calls for
an early withdrawal of United States and coalition forces are
counterproductive to security aims of the United States and
the hopes of the Iraqi people; and
(2) such calls for an early withdrawal embolden the
terrorists and undermine the morale of the United States
Armed Forces, coalition forces, and Iraqi forces, and put
their security at risk.
(c) Policy.--It shall be the policy of the United States--
(1) to pursue a transfer of responsibility for Iraqi
security to Iraqi forces; and
(2) not to withdraw prematurely the United States Armed
Forces from Iraq, but to do so only when it is clear that
United States national security and foreign policy goals
relating to a free and stable Iraq have been or are about to
be achieved.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 365, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and a Member opposed each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this
amendment lightly. I discussed it with former staffers and current
interns who have served recently in both civilian and military
capacities in Iraq. I discussed the situation with my husband, Dexter,
a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat and awarded a
Purple Heart. But it was my talks with my
[[Page H6156]]
stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps, who is
being deployed to Iraq in just 1 week, that had the most profound
effect. He helped me to fully comprehend the importance of our mission
in Iraq and the impact of what we say here and do here with the impact
it has at home and on our Armed Forces serving abroad.
Mr. Chairman, our mission is just. It has far-reaching strategic and
political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and
foreign policy goals throughout the region. For these reasons, and most
importantly for my stepson, Dougie Lehtinen, his financee, Lindsay
Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who will ship out to Iraq also in
a week, and to all of the members in our proud U.S. Armed Forces
serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my colleagues
to render their full support for it.
Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to
fight terrorism worldwide. Our ability to project major armed forces to
the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our
allies in the war against terrorism the wherewithal to directly address
the tactical and the ideological challenges of Islamic extremism.
Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current
and emerging threats and it increases the deterrent value of U.S.
power.
Finally, through the promotion of incipient Iraqi democracy, we can
continue our concerted efforts to counter root causes of Islamist
extremist and terrorism in the region. The terrorists are fighting for
their survival because freedom threatens them. Democratic governments
deny terrorists the weapons, the funds and sanctuary they need in order
to survive. Democracy denies them new recruits.
Terrorism mastermind al-Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces
were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic
governance would thwart their plans. In a February 17, 2004 letter to
an al Qaeda operative, al-Zarqawi said, ``Our enemy is growing stronger
day by day. By God, this is suffocation. We will be on the roads
again.''
One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published
in December 2003 that ``democracy is a far more dangerous threat,''
adding that it makes Muslims refuse to take part in jihad.
The continuing presence of U.S. and coalition forces must be
determined by the achievements of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary
dates on the calendar. Some may argue that my amendment sets the
threshold too high by stating that ``calls for an early withdrawal are
counterproductive to security aims of the United States and to the
hopes of the Iraqi people.''
However, as we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber, words matter.
What we say here to condemn human rights violations, incitement and
anti-semitism or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates
throughout the world has a tremendous positive impact. In stark
contrast, incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from
Iraq has a negative effect. They diminish the morale of the troops and
serve to embolden the enemy.
Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of
attrition is succeeding, that their commitment to violence, to hatred,
and to terror is greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to
spreading freedom and fighting tyranny?
The amendment before us seeks to restate our commitment to the
successful completion of our mission in Iraq. It establishes as U.S.
policy the pursuit of transfer of responsibility for security to Iraqi
forces, but cautions against withdrawing prematurely, calling for
withdrawal to take place when U.S. national security and foreign policy
goals relating to Iraq have been or are about to be achieved. Is this
asking too much?
Let us not waver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq. The Iraqi
people have not wavered. Our men and women in uniform are not wavering.
In fact, this weekend we saw newspaper stories reporting that soldiers
are reenlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets. Army officials
say this is due in part to a renewed sense of purpose in fighting
terrorism.
Let us demonstrate to our forces that just as our Nation stood behind
the greatest generation during World War II as they fought against
tyranny, so too do we stand behind our forces in Iraq, a new great
generation of heroes whose actions will not only help to make the world
safer, but will alter the political landscape towards the irreversible
path of freedom and democracy.
I ask my colleagues to support our troops. I ask my colleagues to
support the Iraqi people. I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight
for freedom and for democracy. I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this
amendment lightly.
I arrived at this decision after listening to a former staffer of
mine, who recently returned from Iraq, and one of my current interns
who served with the United States Army in Iraq.
I arrived at this decision after discussing the situation in Iraq
with my husband, Dexter, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in
combat and awarded a Purple Heart.
But it was my talks with my stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the
U.S Marine Corps, that had the most profound effect on me and helped me
fully comprehend the importance of the mission that our men and women
in the armed forces are embarked on in Iraq.
My stepson, Dougie, is on his way to perform his duty in Iraq.
To him, it is not an obligation. It is an honor and a privilege to
have the opportunity to serve his Nation, to contribute to the freedom
of the Iraqi people, to confront the terrorists, and, perhaps, most
importantly, to fight tyranny as the ``Greatest Generation'' did during
World War II.
Our mission is just. It has far-reaching, long-term, strategic and
political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and
foreign policy goals throughout the region.
For these reasons and, most importantly, for my stepson Doug
Lehtinen, his fiancee Lindsay Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who
will ship out to Iraq in a week, and all the members of the U.S. Armed
Forces serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my
colleagues to render their full support for it.
Simply stated, we cannot afford to yield a victory to the terrorists
in Iraq and throughout the region.
Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to
combat terrorism worldwide--a strategy that includes: killing and
disrupting terrorists abroad, confronting theocratic and autocratic
regimes that harbor terrorists and facilitate terrorist attacks, and
promote economic reform and democracy as a means to address the
grievances of people throughout the region that have been manipulated
and turned against us by the dictatorial regimes that permeate the
region.
Our ability to project major armed forces to the very heart of the
Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war
against terrorism, the wherewithal to directly address the tactical and
ideological challenge of Islamist extremism.
Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current
and emerging threats and increases the deterrent value of U.S. power.
Finally, through the promotion of an incipient Iraqi democracy, we
can continue our concerted effort to counter root causes of Islamist
extremism and terrorism in the region.
The objective is for the U.S. to proactively engage and support
reformers and assist in developing within the Middle East a bastion of
stable, free-market democratic societies.
We are engaged in a struggle between moderation and extremism.
The terrorists are fighting for their survival. Freedom threatens the
terrorists.
Terrorist mastermind al Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces
were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic
governance would thwart their plans.
In this February 17, 2004 letter to al-Qaeda operatives, al Zarqawi
said: ``Our enemy is growing stronger day after day . . . By God, this
is suffocation! We will be on the roads again.''
He further said: ``we are racing time . . . If the government is
successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up
and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die .
. .''
Democratic governments deny terrorists the funds, weapons, and
sanctuary that they need to survive. Democracy and freedom deny
recruits.
One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published
in September 2003 that ``a far more dangerous threat'' is ``secularist
democracy.''
He cautions against democracy's ``seduction'' as it drives Muslims to
``refuse to take part in Jihad.''
This is a clear illustration of how our efforts in Iraq are serving
our long-term goals of spreading democracy as an antidote to extremism
and terrorism.
[[Page H6157]]
Success does not come without challenges. Creating new and effective
political and security institutions in Iraq takes time.
The task before us is not insurmountable, but, if rushed, we do risk
failure for lack of persistence.
The continuing presence of U.S. and Coalition forces must be
determined by the achievement of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary
dates on the calendar.
The process of, and criteria governing, the withdrawal of U.S. and
Coalition forces from Iraq must be performance-based, not
chronologically-based.
Some may argue that my amendment sets the threshold too high by
stating that ``calls for early withdrawal of United States and
coalition forces are counterproductive to security aims of the United
States and the hopes of the Iraqi people.''
I respectfully disagree. As we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber
and in the International Relations Committee--words matter.
What we say in this Chamber through resolutions condemning human
rights violations, for example, or condemning incitement and anti-
Semitism, or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates throughout
the world, have a tremendous positive impact.
These statements and measures serve to empower those who toil for
freedom throughout the world.
In stark contrast, incessant calls for an established date for
withdrawal from Iraq have a negative effect. They serve to embolden the
enemy and the terrorists.
Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of
attrition is succeeding? That we are weakening in our resolve?
That the terrorists' commitment to violence, hatred, and terror is
greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to spreading freedom,
and to combating the forces of evil and tyranny?
Many of our coalition allies in Iraq understand the importance of
completing our mission there--allies such as Poland, the Czech
Republic, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Slovakia, and the Ukraine who understand the lessons of
history and want to take steps to prevent any people from having to
experience the suffering that they endured under German occupation and
Soviet communist rule.
My colleagues, this amendment does not question anyone's patriotism.
In fact, the amendment before you is a modified text which includes
recommendations from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
This amendment seeks to re-state our commitment to successful
completion of our mission in Iraq.
It establishes as U.S. policy the pursuit of a transfer of
responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqi forces, and cautions against
withdrawing prematurely, calling for withdrawal to take place when U.S.
national security and foreign policy goals relating to Iraq have been
or are about to be achieved.
Is this asking too much--considering our goals are to combat those
seeking to export their extremist, terrorist ideologies; those who seek
to deny the Iraqi people their freedom; those who threaten global peace
and security?
Let us not waiver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq.
The Iraqi people have not wavered.
Our men and women in uniform are not wavering.
In fact, this weekend saw newspaper stories reporting that ``soldiers
are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets.''
Army officials say that this is due, in part, to a ``renewed sense of
purpose in fighting terrorism.''
Let us demonstrate to our forces that, just as our nation stood
behind the ``Greatest Generation'' during World War II as they fought
the evil pursuits of a tyrannical ruler, so too do we stand behind our
forces in Iraq--a new great generation of heroes--whose actions in Iraq
will not only help make the world safer in the long-term, but will
alter the political landscape toward the irreversible path of freedom
and democracy.
I ask my colleagues to support our troops.
I ask my colleagues to support the Iraqi people.
I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight for freedom and
democracy.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the basic thrust of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as we engage in debate over this amendment, let us be
clear about the terms. We in this Congress are all motivated by sincere
convictions about what best serves the interest of our great nation,
whether we oppose or advocate setting a date for early withdrawal from
Iraq.
Regardless of where we stand on that issue, there is no justification
for impugning the patriotism of any Member of this body.
Mr. Chairman, let me raise one additional preliminary matter which is
a source of profound disappointment to me. There is no issue more
important for this body to debate than Iraq. Nevertheless, the majority
has ruled out of order several appropriate Democratic amendments that
are germane to this debate.
{time} 1600
In fact, the measure we are about to consider is the only one the
majority has ruled in order regarding Iraq.
Let me say this to all of my colleagues across the political
spectrum, and I say it as a strong supporter of freedom for the Iraqi
people: by muzzling the minority, this body is setting an abysmal
example of democratic procedure, and I deeply regret it.
Mr. Chairman, I am among those who oppose setting an arbitrary
timetable for leaving Iraq. Announcing an early date of withdrawal
before Iraqi forces are prepared to assume full responsibility for
their country's security would allow the enemies of democracy and
stability in Iraq simply to wait us out and to reverse all that our
troops have struggled and sacrificed for in Iraq.
We have committed ourselves to Iraq's freedom from the type of
barbarity that was inflicted upon it by Saddam Hussein and that would
surely be inflicted upon it again were the terrorists to win this war.
Our mission in Iraq will be complete when Iraq is moderately stable and
when its troops are capable of securing their own country. Our word and
our credibility as a leader in this world are on the line. Success in
securing stability should determine the course of our future actions in
Iraq. That is why I support this measure, and I call on all of my
colleagues to join me in that support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time to give my two cents' worth in this debate.
First, let me just say that I understand and I think we should all
appreciate that everyone, folks on both sides of this argument, come at
it from the perspective of what they think is good for the country. But
I think it is absolutely wrong for the country to set a timetable for
an exit from Iraq. The timetable and our exit strategy should be the
standing up of the Iraqi forces so that they can protect this
government that they are putting in place through a representative
system in which people are allowed to go to the polls, vote for their
elected leaders, and have those leaders represent them until they
decide to vote again.
This idea of freedom, of democracy, which was embraced, I think, with
unexpected exuberance by the Iraqi people, is something that we should
be very respectful of, and we should also be respectful of our great
men and women who right now have turned a major portion of their
purpose, our uniformed personnel in Iraq, to the training up of the
Iraqi forces. There is purpose, and the gentlewoman said it well, there
is purpose in our forces, whether one is talking to general officers or
talking to the troops on the line who are working those difficult areas
of operation like Fallujah and Mosul and Tikrit and other places.
We have David Petraeus, one of the finest officers who ever served
this country, former head of the 101st Airborne, who is in charge of
training up the Iraqi forces. He is doing a good job. But this
timetable is not something we can predict because there are lots of
variables. The variables include the threat. They include the time that
it takes to bring the various pieces of this Iraqi defense apparatus
into place, to put those leaders who have to answer to this civil
government in place. All these things mean that we must proceed at
pace, but we must proceed
[[Page H6158]]
at our own pace and the pace of the Iraqi people. Not an arbitrary
timetable.
Please support this amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Committee on
International Relations.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership.
Let me just say I rise today of course in opposition to this
amendment. This amendment, quite frankly, would have Congress stick its
head in the sand and deny the reality that things need to change in
Iraq.
First, Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership is continuing to
stifle debate on the war in Iraq. Even worse, it is an effort to
marginalize and silence any critics of this administration's policies
in Iraq. This is unacceptable and undemocratic. It is outrageous that
the Republican leadership has made in order only one amendment on Iraq.
Two of the four amendments dealt with Iraq, which I submitted to the
Committee on Rules. One amendment asked for the administration to
present just basically a plan for withdrawal and the other making it a
policy that the United States should not have permanent military bases
in Iraq. Not surprisingly, the Republican leadership chose not to allow
debate on either of them. What in the world are they afraid of?
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, many of the fundamental assumptions in this
amendment are just plain wrong. This amendment would have us stay the
course by ignoring the realities about the war in Iraq: realities like
the fact that we were misled into this war; realities like the fact
that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; realities like
the fact that the administration has no plans on how to end the war;
realities like the fact that our brave troops have become the rallying
point for the insurgency; realities like the fact that our occupation
has become a recruiting tool for foreign terrorists; and realities like
the fact that our Nation, our Nation, is less safe as a result of this
war.
An article in Sunday's Boston Globe reported on two studies of
foreign fighters streaming into Iraq. The studies separately concluded
that a majority of the foreign fighters are not foreign terrorists, but
have become radicalized by the war itself.
And if this is not disturbing enough, yesterday's L.A. Times featured
a column that outlined potentially new partnerships starting up between
the leaders of Iraq and Iran. This emerging relationship has the
potential to destabilize the Middle East and even to have our worst
fears realized.
Mr. Chairman, reports like these are critical as to why this Congress
should have a free, fair, and honest debate on Iraq and we should have
it now.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time, and I thank her for this important amendment.
Today, one way or another, we will be sending a very important
message with this amendment. There are some here who will demand that
the U.S. set a deadline for withdrawal. In my view, that would be a
dangerously bad idea.
For one thing, it would send a terrible message to our enemy. It
would tell our enemy that if they simply wait so long to a certain
date, the troops will wind down and they can take over once again. For
another, it sets an embittering message to our families who have lost
loved ones. I am guessing that almost every Member here has attended
the funeral of a soldier lost in Iraq. I have. And I will never forget
the one that I went to when I met with the family before the service
and I said, Is there anything I can do? and they said, Yes, do not back
down and tell the President not to back down because if you back down,
our son will have died in vain.
But perhaps most importantly, forcing a withdrawal deadline sends a
dangerous message to the Iraqi people. The enemy tells them day after
day after day that Americans are going to cut and run. At the same time
we are telling them to come forward, to join us, to become trained, to
become better educated, to get ready to help democracy stand up. But
when we set a deadline for withdrawal, we play right into the hands of
the message of our enemy: Why should Iraqis come forward if they think
that we are going to pull out once again and pull out early? Those who
support setting a deadline are pulling the rug out from democracy and
pulling a rug out from the Iraqis who might come forward.
Please, for the sake of our soldiers, their families, and the Iraqis
who are courageously battling bombs and bullets to rebuild their land,
do not set a deadline.
A previous speaker has said that this administration and this country
has no plan for getting out of Iraq. We do. It is called victory. And
this is the victory-in-Iraq amendment. It is important.
I thank the gentlewoman for it and urge support.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, my
good friend and colleague, for his leadership and wisdom on these
subjects.
The circumstances surrounding the invasion and occupation of Iraq are
deeply tragic, and that begins with the very first instance, the
corruption and falsification of intelligence by this administration to
attempt to justify that attack and now occupation. The results of that
are seen clearly in the fact that we have now lost more than 1,760
American servicemen and -women killed, more than 35,000 seriously
wounded. Recent estimates indicate 25,000 Iraqi civilians killed in
Iraq. And the circumstances there become more deeply dangerous and
tragic with the passing of every minute.
After the attack on the British transportation system just a short
while ago, the British Royal Institute of International Affairs
published this report on Security, Terrorism and the United Kingdom,
and I want the Members to hear what it says in part:
``There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed
particular difficulties for the United Kingdom and for the wider
coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the al Qaeda network's
propaganda, recruitment, and fundraising; caused a major split in the
coalition; provided an ideal targeting and training area for al Qaeda-
linked terrorists; and deflected resources and assistance that could
have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring bin
Laden to justice. Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly
in terms of British and United States military lives, Iraqi lives,
military expenditure, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism
campaign.''
That outlines the situation that we confront in Iraq. This Congress
has a responsibility to carry out its obligations to see this matter
and understand what is going on. It has not been done.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, at a time when we should have an exit
strategy for our troops, this amendment provides Members of Congress
with an exit strategy for themselves, from responsibility for Iraq.
This amendment states that we should withdraw our troops from Iraq
only when the Iraqi forces are able to combat the insurgency and only
when the government of Iraq is stable, at peace, and is not a threat to
its neighbors.
We all know that we are light years away from both of these
requirements. This amendment will keep us in Iraq forever.
Furthermore, this amendment is essentially flawed because it fails to
address the correlation between the U.S. presence in Iraq and utter
chaos and civil war-like state that country is in. The U.S. presence in
Iraq is fueling the insurgency and has turned Iraq into a training
ground for the insurgents. The insurgency is growing stronger by the
day, and attack tactics are becoming more advanced. An article
published in New York Times on June 22 described how Iraqi rebels are
refining bomb skills and pushing the GI toll even higher. Improvised
explosive devices are now sufficiently sophisticated enough to destroy
armored Humvees.
[[Page H6159]]
This means our soldiers are more vulnerable and casualty rates will go
higher than ever.
In May there were 700 attacks against American forces using
improvised explosive devices, the highest number since the invasion in
2003. Furthermore, not only is the insurgency in Iraq becoming
stronger, but according to a CIA assessment, the insurgency will also
spread to other countries in the region.
{time} 1615
Another article in the New York Times has described a new classified
CIA assessment that the Iraqi war is likely to produce a dangerous
legacy by dispersing to other countries this conflict. According to the
assessment, Iraq may even prove to be an even more effective training
ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in al Qaeda's early
days.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to face the facts about Iraq. It has
been a disaster. We are there for all the wrong reasons. We are there
based on lies. It is time for us to get out. This legislation will keep
us there. Vote against it.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen),
and I would like to thank her for having the courage under fire to
bring forth what should be a noncontroversial amendment.
In recent months, certain Members of Congress have called upon the
President to discuss his exit strategy, to give the date when the last
American soldier will leave Iraq. There will come a day when we will
leave Iraq, but, as the President stated, ``Our strategy can be summed
up this way. As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.''
Demanding that we simply put a date on the calendar is not only
naive, but it poses a danger to our troops, a grave threat to our
interests in the Middle East and a victory for the terrorists. By
signaling to them when we intend to leave, the terrorists can simply
wait it out and then strike the Iraqi people.
We have had great progress in the training of Iraqi forces. With the
passing of every day, Iraq is becoming a more secure and free nation.
We must remain steadfast in our determination to defeat the terrorists
and only leave Iraq when we have accomplished the job we promised to
do. To demand otherwise is a desecration to the memory of those who
have died for the cause of freedom.
Tomorrow I will be participating in a signing ceremony at the White
House with Bill and Janet Norwood, who were recognized by the President
of the United States at the State of the Union. They lost their son,
Byron, in Fallujah as he saved seven Marines' lives. Like all the Bill
and Janet Norwoods I meet out there, they all say the same thing to me,
``finish the job.''
Mr. Speaker, we will finish the job. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment is a
Republican PR stunt that if approved will make Iraq more dangerous for
U.S. soldiers than it already is, and that is very, very dangerous. The
President's credibility is a well that is fast running dry.
We have the best soldiers and the best military commanders in the
world. They do not need an inflammatory amendment by a Republican Party
behaving like armchair generals while the fighting and dying and chaos
goes on in Iraq.
What we need to today is total commitment to our soldiers, not empty
promises, underfunded programs and outright deception by the Republican
Party. The best way to support U.S. soldiers in Iraq is to fully fund
and provide health care for veterans when they come home. The best way
to support them is to stop pretending that everything is going fine.
Hundreds have died since the Vice President categorically denied
reality by claiming we were witnessing the ``last throes of the
insurgency.'' Reality, like body armor, is in short supply in this
administration.
As of today, 126 Members of the democratically elected Iraqi
parliament, that is nearly half of 275, have signed a statement calling
on the U.S. to leave now. Now. That is what the reality is. That is the
environment faced by our brave soldiers.
Our soldiers know that this country believes in them and supports
them. Our soldiers do not need the tin sound of another hollow
amendment. They need the sound of silence to mark the day when the
bombs stop exploding and the guns stop firing.
The best way to support U.S. soldiers in Iraq is to get the United
Nations or NATO in, so that we can begin getting our soldiers out now.
Vote no on this amendment that does nothing to save or bring them home.
They are counting on us to correct the mistake we made by supporting
the President in starting this war in the first place.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight of the Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment.
We take so many things for granted in this country, and people, when
you look at the life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and
some of the people who have gone through so much hardship and turmoil
in their life, they cherish America because they understand things and
they see things that we do not see.
Sometimes we do not see the freedom around us because it is
invisible. It is the lack of a guy with his boot in your face. It is
the absence of that that is freedom. It is the absence of the censor or
the bully or the gangster that runs your local community. That is what
freedom is, and it takes people some time who have gone through that
turmoil to understand that, and I appreciate the support of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) since we have had that tragedy
on 9/11 and been forced into this war on radical Islam.
But we have to remember this: Whatever freedom we have, whatever we
cherish here in the United States of America, we have because people
sacrifice for it; we have because there were people who shed blood, who
had courage and made right decisions years ago, whether it was during
the Cold War, whether it was during World War II when we fought the
Nazis and the Japanese militarists, or the Cold War when we fought the
Communists. The fact is the people had courage and saw the fight
through till the end. Had we backed off in those battles, this world
would have been a different place. This would have been a far different
place to raise our children.
Now is not the time for us to back down. Now is the time for us to
reaffirm to our friend and our foe alike that we have the courage to
stick it out, we have the courage to build a better world for tomorrow
with our courage and sacrifice today. We are going to raise our
children in a better world because we are not going to live in a world
where radical Islam blows up buildings anymore or beheads people.
America, hold firm. Be courageous. Let us build a better world
together for these things that we cherish.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, because
voting for the amendment means that you favor the indefinite presence
of U.S. troops in Iraq. It is that simple.
The goals outlined in this amendment are so vague that they endorse
the permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq, which is something the American
people do not support. This amendment says that U.S. troops can only
withdraw ``when it is clear that the United States national security
and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable Iraq have been
achieved.''
What is ``security at risk?'' Endlessly sending U.S. troops out on
patrols where they become a mobile shooting gallery for terrorists
mocks the word ``security.''
[[Page H6160]]
Because the administration's goals for Iraq include creation of an
idyllic Western style democracy that is stable, saying U.S. troops are
stuck there until that happens is the same as saying U.S. troops will
have to stay for 50 years or more.
Once the Iraqis have their constitution and an election, it will mean
our troops have done everything that they can do and that it will be
time to bring them home. U.S. troops cannot impose a democracy in Iraq.
That is not their mission, it is not their job. Only the Iraqis can
develop a democracy.
Finally, this amendment is pointless because it does not address the
real questions facing the United States in Iraq. When can the United
States begin to reduce the size of our forces in Iraq? We have already
said we are leaving, so our departure is going to have to begin at some
point.
We have 140,000 troops in Iraq today. Do we need to keep that many
there until Iraq has been magically transformed into the peaceful,
idyllic Western democracy that the authors of the resolution envision?
I think not.
This amendment speaks of commitment to Iraq. I would humbly suggest
that 1,768 dead U.S. troops, 12,700 wounded U.S. troops, and $250
billion represents plenty of commitment. How much more commitment is
this war worth?
As our military leaders in Iraq and senior administration officials
have said, the ultimate defeat of the insurgents in Iraq will not come
about through U.S. military action.
Instead, the mission we have given those commanders is to train the
Iraqis so they can assume the lead in the fight to defeat the
insurgents.
Why bring out American troops? Because by keeping our troops in Iraq
indefinitely, we're asking them to resolve political and social issues
that need to be resolved by the Iraqis themselves. That's unfair to our
troops, their families, and the country. It is also unfair to the Iraqi
people who will never be able to assume control of their destiny while
U.S. Armed Forces occupy Iraq.
If you are going to join me in voting against this resolution, I urge
you to become a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 55, which calls for
bringing an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq in a responsible
manner.
H.J. Res. 55
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Withdrawal of
United States Armed Forces From Iraq Resolution of 2005--
Homeward Bound''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note) was passed by Congress on October 11, 2002.
(2) Public Law 107-243 cited Iraq's possession of weapons
of mass destruction as a primary reason for the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.
(3) On January 12, 2005, the President officially declared
an end to the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
(4) The United States initiated combat operations in Iraq
on March 19, 2003.
(5) Hundreds of thousands of members of the United States
Armed Forces have served with honor and distinction in Iraq.
(6) More than $200 billion has been appropriated by
Congress to fund military operations and reconstruction in
Iraq.
(7) More than 1,700 members of the United States Armed
Forces have been killed and more than 12,000 members of the
Armed Forces have been wounded in substantially accomplishing
the stated purpose of the United States of giving the people
of Iraq a reasonable opportunity to decide their own future.
(8) The United States military occupation of Iraq has
placed significant strains on the capacity of the United
States Armed Forces, both active duty and reserve.
(9) The armed forces of Iraq number more than 76,000 troops
as of June 8, 2005, and are growing in number and capability
daily.
(10) The forces of the Iraqi Interior Ministry number more
than 92,000 personnel as of June 8, 2005, and are growing in
number and capability daily.
(11) The United States has in place a timetable for
training, equipping, and employing Iraqi security forces to
take over the counterinsurgency mission from coalition forces
(12) The joint explanatory statement accompanying the
conference report for the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13) requires the
Secretary of Defense to report not later than July 10, 2005,
and every 90 days thereafter, on measures of security,
political, and economic progress in Iraq.
(13) Congress, under article I, section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States, must accept its full share
of responsibility in matters involving the deployment of
United States Armed Forces in foreign wars.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
Congress declares that it is the policy of the United
States--
(1) to announce, not later than December 31, 2005, a plan
for the withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from
Iraq;
(2) at the earliest possible date, to turn over all
military operations in Iraq to the elected Government of Iraq
and provide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all
United States Armed Forces from Iraq; and
(3) to initiate such a withdrawal as soon as possible but
not later than October 1, 2006.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT POLICY.
The President shall implement the policy expressed in
section 3 by--
(1) taking all necessary steps to ensure the completion of
Iraq's political transition to a constitutionally elected
government by December 31, 2005, as called for in United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004), which was
supported by the United States;
(2) establishing a plan for the withdrawal of all United
States Armed Forces from Iraq limited only by steps to ensure
the safety of such Armed Forces;
(3) establishing a plan for a transition of responsibility
for internal security activities to the military forces of
the Iraqi Government and a transition of United States
military personnel to an advisory and support role;
(4) accelerating the training and equipping of the military
and security forces of the Iraqi Government; and
(5) taking all appropriate measures to account for any
missing members of the United States Armed Forces or United
States citizens in Iraq prior to completion of the withdrawal
of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am 12 days back from a trip to Baghdad. Twelve days
ago I sat during a briefing with the State Department to assess what
was going on in that country. We were assured by the State Department
representatives that the drafting of the constitution, an integral part
of setting up an Iraqi style government, an Iraqi style democracy, was
ongoing. At that time they had 15 Sunnis who had joined the
negotiations. Two of those Sunnis had since stepped down because of
threats to themselves and their families, but the Sunnis were having
input, which is important that they be in the deal.
The State Department folks are relatively confident, as confident as
they can be in this arena, that the August 15 date will be met, or
shortly thereafter; that 60 days later a referendum vote will be held
on that constitution, and that the Iraqis for themselves will go to the
polls one more time, as they did so courageously in January, to vote,
something we take very much for granted many times.
Sixty days after that, in December, national elections will be held,
and then the Iraqis will have a chance once again to exercise the
freedoms that we in America enjoy.
The violence between now and then will increase. In all expectations,
the insurgents see this as a last-gasp opportunity to derail the
democratization of Iraq. It is unfortunate that that is going to
happen, but it is going to. The high profile, the high publicity
events, the murder of the Egyptian ambassador which occurred while we
were there, the callous, heartless murder of 24 young Iraqi children in
an attempt to kill one American soldier, as regrettable as that
soldier's death was, those 24 lives were just as precious.
This violence will continue. We have to stand strong. We have to
understand what their end game is. I support the amendment. It sets out
a good plan for how we are going to get out of this.
All of this criticism that we do not have a plan to get out, here is
a plan. It is one that makes sense. To set a fixed date obviously flies
in the face of common sense. I stand in support of this amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and rise today in
opposition to the Ros-Lehtinen amendment because it essentially
supports prolonging the deployment of the United States military
personnel in Iraq.
Our troops deserve clear, concrete measures and milestones for
defeating the insurgency, for building up Iraqi
[[Page H6161]]
security forces. General Petraeus is doing a great job. Why can we not
have a timetable for how long it is going to take to get the 130,000
Iraqi security forces trained and hand it over to the Iraqi people? I
have called repeatedly for the Department of Defense to do just that.
As a matter of fact, this Congress passed a supplemental
appropriations bill that required the Department of Defense to report
by July 11 the status of training the Iraqi forces. The Pentagon has
refused, or has not yet provided that information.
When is this Congress going to exercise its responsibility? Our
troops have done everything that we have asked of them in Iraq. They
have acted heroically. They have done their job. Now is the time for
Washington to do its job and develop a strategy for successful
completion of this mission.
I do not know where it came, that coming up with an exit strategy
somehow is something that is not in the United States' interest. I know
when George Bush was Governor and we were in Kosovo, George Bush said,
``Victory means exit strategy, and it is important for the President to
explain to us what that exit strategy is.''
Having an exit strategy and a strategy for success is just as
important if not more important today in Iraq than it was in Kosovo. We
have made mistakes in Iraq. The Pentagon did not listen to General
Shinseki. We know that in Iraq the occupation is fueling the
insurgency.
We have a timetable in effect that was just articulated from the
gentleman from Texas. We are going to have elections, and in January we
are going to have a new government.
How long should the United States stay? This Congress ought to
exercise its responsibility, its constitutional responsibility of
oversight, and demand the administration present their strategy.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
I have made eight trips to Iraq since April 2003, and will be going
again this weekend. I have traveled with the military and I have also
traveled with nongovernment organizations outside the umbrella of the
military. I have literally talked with hundreds of Iraqi citizens, and
I know their greatest fear.
{time} 1630
Their greatest fear is, that we will leave. That is what they have
told me. They think we will leave them.
It is vitally important to the future of peace and prosperity in the
Middle East and, in fact, to the entire world that the United States
maintain its commitment, meet history's challenge, and assist that
nation to stay on the course towards stability, democracy and economic
vitality.
The United States has set many important benchmarks. We sought to
transfer power to an Iraqi government on June 28, 2004, and we did. We
wanted to support the Iraqis in organizing a free and fair election
and, on January 31, along with U.S. and international assistance, the
Iraqis held their landmark election, their first in 50 years. It was
thrilling to witness. Women forced the men to come out and vote.
As we speak, all elements of Iraqi society, Shiites, Sunnis, and
Kurds are, working to draft a constitution and will hold a national
referendum on the document on October 15. And, in spite of the threats
against them, they are persevering.
During our visits to Iraq, we observed our troops training the Iraqi
security forces, their police, their border patrol, their army. And as
President Bush has said, as the Iraqis step up, Americans can step
down. That is the plan. Like the other goals we have committed to in
Iraq, we will stay our course.
Our withdrawal from Iraq will be made consistent with, as the
amendment states, our foreign policy and national security goals
relating to a free and stable Iraq and, thus, a free and stable world.
Mr. Chairman, Iraqis are making significant progress. I would like to
read a short passage from an e-mail my niece just received from a
soldier who just returned after 15 months risking his life for Iraqis
and for the national security of the United States. This is what he
said: ``Despite what you might hear elsewhere,'' like in this chamber I
might add, ``the tide has turned in the Middle East and democracy is
taking hold. There is much work yet to be done,'' he continues, ``but
we should all be excited by the progress made so far. Just think about
it! Government `of the people, by the people, for the people' has found
a foothold in, of all places, the Middle East!'' And, he continues,
``Words are hard to come by to express my exuberant hope for the future
of the Iraqi people and the rest of the Middle East.''
Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with this soldier's sentiments.
As I witnessed Iraq's election, it is clear the only real losers are
the terrorists and insurgents trying to stop the march of democracy.
In defiance of the terrorists and insurgents, Iraqi men, women and
children came out in droves.
There was a tangible sense of pride when the Iraqis dipped their
index finger in a well of ink and cast their vote.
One voter expressed gratitude to me when he said, ``Like you in the
United States, I'm getting to choose my own leaders.''
We need to continue the process of supporting this nascent democracy
and providing the new Iraqi government and its people with the
physical, financial and moral support to secure their nation and ensure
liberty thrives.
I support the hard work of the International Relations Committee on
the underlying legislation and the gentlelady's amendment and urge my
colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ros-
Lehtinen amendment. This amendment declares that Congress must not
``withdraw prematurely the U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq.''
Prematurely? How many more Americans have to die or be wounded before
we recognize that bringing home our troops is not premature, but is
actually long overdue?
Although I opposed this war from the very beginning, I also thought
that because of the chaos that we had caused that once we were there,
we needed to stay until Iraq was secure and the Iraqis' lives were back
together. But I have come to realize that there can be no stability in
Iraq while our troops are still there. It is our very presence
appearing as occupiers and the resentment it is breeding that is
responsible for the chaos and emboldened insurgency.
The Ros-Lehtinen amendment only serves to advance the Bush
administration's current failed policies by keeping the United States
military in Iraq indefinitely. This amendment would continue the
unsuccessful military occupation. It would lay the groundwork for a
constant and unending war.
Only by ending the occupation can we hope to quell the violence and
give Iraq back to the Iraqis. We can secure Iraq by helping the Iraqi
people, not through our military, but through international
humanitarian efforts to rebuild their war torn economic and physical
infrastructure.
It is time for a new direction and fresh thinking on this subject,
not a continuation of the failed policies of the past 2 years. Instead
of the same stagnant ideas repackaged, we need to end the military
occupation of Iraq. We need to support our troops by bringing them
home.
I will oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, in recent days and weeks, some have suggested we need a
specific timeline or a date that indicates when our troops will begin
to withdraw from Iraq.
I would like to read an e-mail that one of my staffers received a few
weeks ago from a friend currently serving in Iraq. The major says, ``I
know there are growing doubts, questions, and concerns by many
regarding our presence here and how long we are going to stay. For what
it is worth, the attachment hopefully tells you why we are trying to
make a positive difference for the future of this country.''
This is the attachment right here. Mr. Chairman, a picture truly does
speak a thousand words.
He went on to end his e-mail by saying, ``I hope to head home in 80
days
[[Page H6162]]
with the feeling that I contributed something and made this world'' not
Iraq, but ``made this world a better place for these guys.''
Look at this. This is what it is all about. To quote Prime Minister
Singh who was on this very floor yesterday, he said, ``We must fight
terrorism wherever it exists because terrorism anywhere threatens
democracy everywhere.''
Mr. Chairman, any date for withdrawal would be arbitrary. We must
allow our plan to go forward and not abandon it halfway through. It is
not about their future; it is about our future.
Let us not talk about an exit strategy, let us talk about winning,
let us talk about freedom, let us talk about victory. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Ros-Lehtinen amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), my good friend and
distinguished colleague.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Americans are getting tired of this war. Mr. Chairman, we have been
misled and we have been lied to. We trusted the President, and when the
President came to us after 9/11 and asked for the authority to find
those who had committed the attack on our country, we all voted for
him.
But since that time, the President did not go after the perpetrators;
the President did not go after Osama bin Laden. Instead, he went to
Iraq. They went to Iraq because they told us there were weapons of mass
destruction, and now we have discovered there were no weapons of mass
destruction. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda is still out there operating,
and we are still in Iraq.
Why are we there? The President came and told us, ``mission
accomplished.'' And then we find that our soldiers are being attacked
every day. They are dying, over 1,760; over 15,000 maimed. They have
lost their arms and legs and eyes.
Another lie. We were told that the soldiers had everything that they
needed, and then we find just yesterday in talking with one of the
soldiers returned from Iraq, he has been drinking filthy, dirty water;
did not even have clean water, did not even have bulletproof vests, and
we found that the Humvees did not have the armor.
They also told us they were going to get the proceeds from the oil
that they were going to pump and they were going to pay for rebuilding
of the infrastructure. No, that is not happening. We are spending over
$1 billion per week, and it goes on and on and on.
But, better yet, in this amendment they talk about not getting out
until we train the Iraqi soldiers. How long and when? We were told they
had trained over 40,000. Guess what? I say to my colleagues, only 5,000
have been trained and they do not have a plan for how to get it done.
We do not even have enough people that speak the language to be able to
train the Iraqi soldiers. How long is this going to go on?
When people get up here and say they know that there is going to be
more violence, more people are going to be killed, whose children are
we talking about? Whose father are we talking about? Whose mother,
whose daughter are we talking about? It is all right for us to say,
there will be more deaths, there will be more violence, but I say to my
colleagues, Americans are getting tired of it. It is their children,
and we should not take that lightly.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of our subcommittee
chairmen of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, every American wants our
soldiers, especially those who have loved ones deployed in Iraq, home
as quickly as humanly possible. But I would submit to my colleagues
that that must be at a time that ensures that the baton of security is
passed to a militarily capable, free, and democratic Iraq.
Let me point out to my colleagues that progress is being made in that
regard. There are currently more than 171,000 trained and equipped
Iraqi security forces, including 76,000 soldiers, 63,400 police and
highway patrolmen, and 33,787 Ministry of Interior forces. So the
previous speaker, I do not know where she is getting her numbers, but
they certainly are not correct.
Iraqi security forces are now capable of planning and executing
operations at the battalion level and higher, and there are a number of
instances where they have performed superbly.
One of the previous speakers, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey), mentioned that we need to be providing money for rehab. We
have provided $19.1 billion to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
That is a significant commitment. You cannot do reconstruction without
security.
Finally, I respectfully submit that any public announcement
concerning specific timetables or a date certain for withdrawal of our
Armed Forces is likely to result in significantly advantaging the
terrorists in a way that will put more lives, more American lives, more
Iraqi lives, at risk, and the mission itself will be put at risk.
I would also point out to my colleagues that the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) did offer an amendment on the withdrawal issue; it
failed 33 to 12 in the committee. So we did have some consideration of
that during markup.
The Iraqi Prime Minister, when he met with us just a few weeks ago,
was passionate: no timetables; it will lead to the loss of life.
Mr. Chairman, let me finish today's debate on H.R. 2601 with a
boatload of thank yous to our staff who have worked long and hard to
produce this piece of legislation.
And let me particularly thank Eleanor Nagy, director of policy for my
committee for the Africa, Global Human Rights and International
Operations, for her extraordinary skill, wisdom, insight and
professionalism in crafting this comprehensive bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my
good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the gentlewoman's amendment
before us. In doing so, I would like to speak some common sense about
where we are. Oh, I will vote for it, but if I were drafting it, I
would draft what I think is the correct issue before our country and
before our military forces. I have a difficult time in understanding
some phraseology in the amendment that is before us which calls for an
``early withdrawal,'' whatever that may be.
The issue is, when will we have the Iraqi security forces fully
trained to take over the important mission of security for their own
Nation? That is the issue before us.
On June 13, I sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary
Rumsfeld, setting forward the fact that we need to speed up this
process. We need to make sure that we do all we can and to get our
allies, whether they be in the Arab nations adjoining Iraq, or whether
they be NATO nations, involved more and more in helping to train the
Iraqi security forces. General David Petraeus, one of America's
outstanding military leaders of our day, has the mission of training
those Iraqi security forces and he is working very, very hard with the
training forces that he has. He is a fine officer. He is a great
leader. It is a mammoth task. But only this year, he has produced
slightly over 5,000 fully trained Iraqi soldiers who can handle
missions on their own. This is totally inadequate.
We must do a better job speeding up this process, because one of two
things is going to happen if we do not speed it up. This is the issue
before us. Number one, we are going to lose the American people. That,
of course, would be disastrous for our effort in Iraq. Number two, we
are going to put such a strain on the United States Army that some will
term it as broken.
Mr. Chairman, we are in a race against time. We are either going to
lose the American people's support, or we are going to break the Army.
This month, the Army's recruiting numbers are far below its goal. It is
an unmistakable trend. Although retention is holding, it is shaking the
very foundation of the American social structure. Army marriages have
broken up under the strain of unsustainable operations tempo, and the
divorce rate is increasing, signs of sure trouble ahead.
So we ought to be discussing how we speed up the process, how we urge
our
[[Page H6163]]
NATO partners to get involved in training. We understand that some 300
of those NATO partners will be coming in to help train, but we need
more than that.
That is the issue we should be debating at this moment, not using the
phrase ``withdrawal,'' though I will support this amendment.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
{time} 1645
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say that my colleagues should
never lose sight of the fact that we are in a world war against
terrorism. It is not unlike the world war that we faced when my good
friend was involved in World War II. It is a different kind of war from
the standpoint that it is a hidden, insidious war; but, nevertheless,
it is a world war and we have to defeat the terrorists.
Right now the center of the battle is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, the Taliban,
all of their fellow travelers are trying to destroy our will in Iraq.
And if we back down, you may rest assured that we will rue that day
because there will be more attacks and more concentrated effort on the
United States of America.
George M. Cohan wrote the song ``Over There.'' Over there, over
there, tell them that the Yanks are coming over there. And that was
because we were going over there to defeat the enemy in World War I.
In World War II, we took the battle to the enemy, Hitler, in Europe.
We did not fight them here at home. And I want to tell my colleague, if
we do not defeat the enemy over there, we are going to have more
attacks and more concentrated effort by the al Qaeda operatives and
other terrorist organizations here in the United States of America.
We backed down in Somalia. We left in Somalia, and it was a green
light to al Qaeda, because they said the United States is a paper
tiger; we do not have the will to win a fight against the terrorist
organizations and against the people who want to destroy our way of
life.
This is a life and death struggle. It is a world war. We must not
back down. We must take the battle to the enemy, and we must have the
resolve that is necessary to win at all costs.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman from Florida's
amendment. This war in Iraq was based on false or falsified
information. This war was a mistake. It has been mismanaged with
incredible incompetence by the Bush administration. Everything we have
been told about this war has been wrong. It has created even more
terrorists in the region. It has not made us more secure. It has made
us less secure. It has diminished our standing in the world. It has
even compromised our credibility as a defender of human rights.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we must begin an orderly withdrawal of our
troops now. It takes no particular amount of patriotism or courage for
anyone in this Congress to stand up and wrap themselves in the American
flag and say, stay the course; nor is it patriotic or courageous to be
silent or indifferent when we believe and when we know what is
happening is wrong.
It is not our lives on the line. We owe our troops who are serving
with great courage much better than we are giving them. And to suggest,
as this resolution does, that those of us who oppose this war are
somehow ``emboldening terrorists,'' is, to say the least, grotesque.
Let me state clearly, Mr. Chairman, and for the record, I believe it
is time for George Bush to end this war. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this amendment
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks), distinguished member of the International Relations
Committee.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me state outright that I am
opposed to this amendment simply because we cannot allow our soldiers
to remain under siege for an indefinite period of time while Congress
has no serious answers from the administration about the core
challenges we face in Iraq, the progress we have made and/or a strategy
for success.
When we invaded Iraq, the administration claimed that we would be
received as great liberators and that we would start withdrawing troops
in just a few short months. But instead we face a strong insurgency,
rising death toll with over 1,700 soldiers dead and at least 13,400
wounded in action. The disastrous miscalculations and misleading
estimates that surround this war have exacted a very high toll on the
American purse and our families. I cannot agree to any legislation that
calls for us to continue this course while Congress is denied critical
information needed to evaluate our progress in Iraq.
The amendment before us calls for the transfer of responsibility to
Iraqi forces only when they are ready to assume such responsibility.
However, it fails to address a plan for improving the training of Iraqi
soldiers that will enable them to take on that responsibility.
How will Iraqi forces ever assume responsibility if we fail to
adequately train them?
Sadly, we have no real answers and no real strategy for shifting
responsibility and reducing U.S. involvement financially and
militarily.
Congress has in good faith provided this administration with billions
of dollars for military efforts in Iraq. This body has lived up to its
end of the bargain and provided funding for our troops. But our
questions and concerns about our progress go unanswered. Our
Constitution was carefully crafted to allow a balance of power in our
government. I oppose this amendment because I refuse to abandon that
balance and surrender the responsibility of this body to hold the
administration accountable for its actions.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my real pleasure to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished
chairman of the House International Relations Committee.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, you know, in all contentious discussions,
there are a set of imaginary barricades, and people get on one side or
on the other. On one side of the barricades, the hypothetical
barricades, are people's main concern of prison welfare. They introduce
amendments, they focus their time and attention on the welfare of the
prisoners.
On the other side of the barricade are people who focus on winning
the war, who focus on the beheadings that have happened to decent and
good people from the enemy. They focus on the assassinations, on the
car bombings, that indiscriminately kill elderly people and children.
And so you have to decide what side of the barricade you are on.
Now, you can say that is a criticism of your patriotism. Not at all.
Not at all. But you just have to listen to this debate to know the
overriding concern of some is the welfare of the prisoners. Other
people want to win the war. Count me among the latter.
Another issue that I think is worthy of comment, we have heard a
couple of speakers from the other side, more than a couple, say this
information is corrupt, falsification of intelligence, outright
deception by the administration.
I have, in my hand, ``Famous Last Words,'' a compendium of quotations
from famous Democrats and famous people about the war that I think
would be worth recalling. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman),
my good friend, said on October 10, 2002, ``Saddam, with a nuclear
weapon, is too horrifying to contemplate, too terrifying to tolerate.''
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) of the Intelligence
Committee said this, October 9, 2002: ``The threat from Iraq is very
real, increasingly dangerous. Saddam's belligerent intentions and his
possession and ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction to
fulfill those intentions make him a clear present danger to the United
States and the world.''
Oh, you should read some of these.
Here is one from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey): ``The
threat that we confront is Saddam Hussein. Saddam is in a category of
his own. No other head of state has been
[[Page H6164]]
the subject of an 11-year campaign to disarm and sanction him. He has
invaded two of his neighbors, assassinated 16 of his own family, tried
to assassinate former President Bush, lied about his weapons buildup,
fired missiles at Israel, and gassed his own people. The prospect that
such a despot has biological and chemical weapons, anthrax, sarin gas,
smallpox and is nearing nuclear capability is a looming threat to
millions. We, as a Nation, have the responsibility to stop him.''
October 10, 2002 Congressional Record.
I have got quotes here from Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger,
President Clinton, all warning of nuclear weaponry, weapons of mass
destruction. Were they corrupt? Were they misleading? No, they were
basing their judgment on the best intelligence available, and they
relied on it and it turned out to be flawed. But do not accuse people
of deception and corruption when it was widespread and well before the
World Trade Center.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos) that I am very grateful that we have been
able to resurrect this debate and utilize it in the tone that I think
is appropriate for the American people and as well the people in Iraq
who are simply seeking peace and opportunity.
As I stand here today, I mourn the loss of almost 2,000 of our loved
ones who bravely took the oath and the willingness to sacrifice their
life for this country. To the veterans who have come home from world
wars and other wars and conflicts, we thank you. But it is appropriate
today that we debate this question; and my good friend, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), I know has a good intention of
establishing a policy dealing with Iraq. I wish we had done that as the
time came for that war to be launched.
I believe it is appropriate to reinforce the fact that we are
standing here all as patriots who love this Nation and would defend
her. But the Iraqi people deserve our debate today, and they deserve it
because we need to know we can do better.
A limitation on transferring power, in fact, is something that we
should be concerned about. If we have a goal, a time certain, which
many of us believe is the appropriate way to go, you then can move the
Iraqi nationals and the Iraqi Armed Forces toward a goal. We will not
have the consternation of wondering whether the presence of the United
States military, even though we know terrorists exist, continue to
agitate because of their presence, even though they are there to help.
It is important to realize that Members who want a time certain are
no less patriotic, but they want to guide this process of a policy that
seems to have gone awry. We want to save lives. We want to train Iraqi
forces, but the tragedy of the explosion of a gas tank that killed
almost a hundred is something that is continuing that we want to see
stopped.
And the American people want answers from the United States Congress.
And so I think this debate is too short. I wish other amendments could
have been made in order so we can find an orderly manner to handle
this.
I offered a suggestion to put our troops on the border back in 2002,
50,000 of them. Saddam was so weak that I know he could have toppled.
But we did not go that route.
{time} 1700
So we have to find an exit strategy now for success and to be able
to, if you will, provide an opportunity for our troops to come home as
heroes and for the Iraqi people to live in freedom.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). The gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the outstanding Republican and
Democratic staffs that have done such an incredibly good job on a very
difficult and complicated piece of legislation.
I want to commend all of my colleagues who have spoken. This debate
has been civilized, passionate, articulate and enlightening. And I
particularly want to thank my dear friend, the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on International Relations, for guiding the work of
the committee and for guiding this debate with his statesmanship and
wisdom.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiments of my good friend from California
(Mr. Lantos) in praising the strong bipartisan show of support for our
Armed Forces in this debate, and I thank the chairman for his great
leadership and guidance throughout the years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader and a staunch
defender of human rights and a supporter of our fighting men and women
who wear the proud uniform of the United States and our coalition
partners.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time. I really appreciate her bringing this very, very important
amendment to the floor.
As has been said earlier, this is a very important debate that we are
having in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, the
establishment of a firm deadline for withdrawal of American troops from
Iraq simply will put them in greater danger. It will embolden our
terrorist enemies and all but assure the failure of that nation's
fledgling democracy.
Under such a deadline, the best we could hope for is that our enemies
would simply go into hiding, wait for us to leave, then unleash bloody
terror on their countrymen until Iraq's government fell, Iraq's people
were subdued, and Iraq's hope was destroyed.
In short, such a deadline would do nothing less than help our enemies
win the war. After so many have fought, and fought and sacrificed and
died, ending decades of Saddam Hussein's murderous tyranny, now with
freedom secured and stability in sight, with hope abounding in Iraq and
across the Middle East, to establish such a deadline, all but ensuring
disaster, would be morally and strategically indefensible. It would be
an insult, an insult to every soldier who wears on their uniform the
flag of the United States, a body blow to the cause of freedom and
justice around the world, and a signal to evil men everywhere in the
world that America's spine had gone brittle.
A deadline for withdrawal would not amount to mere appeasement, but
it would amount to surrender, betrayal, and it would amount to an
invitation for more bloodshed on our own soil. It cannot, cannot,
cannot be done.
Failure in Iraq, which a premature withdrawal date would assure,
would be a crucial and possibly a decisive defeat in the global war on
terror.
Rhetorical attempts to divorce Operation Iraqi Freedom from the
broader war on terror have failed in no small part because our enemies
make no small distinction.
Bin Laden, al-Sadr, Zarqawi, Fedayeen foot-soldiers, Hamas,
Hezbollah, Syrian imports, al Qaeda exports, Taliban holdovers,
Ba'athist henchmen, shoe bombers, dirty bombers, hijackers in Boston,
roadside bombers in Baghdad, homicide bombers in Madrid, suicide
bombers in London, and, yes, inmates in Guantanamo.
They are all the same. They are all the same, Mr. Chairman. They are
one enemy, terrorism, serving one cause, tyranny, against one target,
freedom.
Mr. Chairman, our soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world
are not fighting for a grotesque mistake. They are fighting for a noble
cause. They are not Nazis or Soviets. They are heroes. The war in Iraq
is not over. It is just not being fought on television. And our
decision to join the war on terror, which waged for years before 9/11,
has not made the war more dangerous but more hopeful for future peace.
Our enemies brook no confusion about their goal, it is to kill every
last one of us. The only thing standing between us and that fate is the
courage and determination and commitment of
[[Page H6165]]
our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
Members and political leaders from both parties would do well to
remember that in times like these words have consequences. Consider the
soldiers now under enemy threat in Iraq. Consider the victims of 9/11
and their families. Consider the Iraqi people on January 30 raising
their ink-dyed fingers, voting after holding their polling lines
against the threat of terrorist attack. Consider the Iraqi women who no
longer fear the rape rooms, the Afghan men who can speak their minds
freely, and the children who can learn math and literature and history
outside the control of their Orwellian regimes.
We are at war whether we like it or not, whether we fight it or not.
Our enemies will keep coming. We cannot defeat them solely with our
weapons, Mr. Chairman. We must defeat them with our will. Words and
deeds here at home and in particular here in Washington that embolden
any of our enemies embolden all of them, and by doing so undermine our
cause, weaken our resolve and threaten our troops.
Iraq is the war on terror. Victory in Iraq is a victory for hope.
Defeat in Iraq is a victory for chaos and violence and evil. The
terrorists know it, the Iraqis know it, and deep down even the most
partisan critics of our Commander in Chief know it, too.
That is why we must stand and we must fight as we have for almost 4
years here at home, in Afghanistan, Iraq and everywhere terrorism
threatens the survival and success of liberty until the fight is won.
We know not the day nor the hour, Mr. Chairman, when the scourge of
terrorism will be repelled once and for all from Iraq, from the Middle
East, from our world, when citizens of all nations will breathe air
cleared of the cries of wounded heroes and the report of hostile
gunfire, when men will be free, when women will be honored, and when
children will be safe.
As long as war is our policy and victory is our aim, Mr. Chairman,
neither can our enemies.
I urge all of our colleagues to bring that day a bit closer by truly
supporting our troops in word as well as in deed by supporting the Ros-
Lehtinen amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 30 offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley); amendment No. 37A offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher); amendment No. 38 offered
by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Berkley
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada
(Ms. Berkley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 330,
noes 100, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 395]
AYES--330
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--100
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Capps
Capuano
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hayes
Hobson
Honda
Hyde
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lee
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherwood
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Wexler
Wicker
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--3
Brown (SC)
Cummings
Hinojosa
[[Page H6166]]
{time} 1737
Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms.
SOLIS, Messrs. RUSH, ROHRABACHER, DOGGETT, SERRANO, Ms. DELAURO, Ms.
WOOLSEY, Messrs. BAIRD, HYDE, HAYES, SMITH of Washington, Ms. LORETTA
SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Ms.
SLAUGHTER, Messrs. SNYDER, HOBSON, KING of Iowa, and TURNER changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, SALAZAR, WAXMAN, BOUSTANY, MEEHAN, and
MACK, and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 37A Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 304,
noes 124, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 396]
AYES--304
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--124
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Bartlett (MD)
Ehlers
NOT VOTING--3
Brown (SC)
Cummings
Hinojosa
{time} 1747
Mr. WEXLER and Mr. RAHALL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gingrey). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 291,
noes 137, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 397]
AYES--291
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
[[Page H6167]]
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOES--137
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Bartlett (MD)
Jones (NC)
NOT VOTING--3
Brown (SC)
Cummings
Hinojosa
{time} 1756
Mr. MEEK of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the House Committee on International Relations for
their work in drafting the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY
06 and 07. Though I was supportive of the underlying bill that was
passed out of Committee, I regret that I will not be able to vote in
favor of final passage due to the inclusion of a variety of amendments
that were added to the bill during floor consideration.
Additionally, I would have liked H.R. 2601 to address and correct the
failed U.S. policy towards Colombia. Current U.S. assistance to
Colombia is heavily weighted towards military and drug interdiction
assistance, with only 20 percent of U.S. aid going to social and
economic programs like alternative development programs. I strongly
believe that only through addressing the root causes of conflict in
Colombia, that of poverty and despair, will we be able to have lasting
peace in Colombia.
I am very thankful though that the Chairman and Ranking Member for
the inclusion of a Sense of Congress that states that the U.S. foreign
assistance should be used to support local capacity-building in
developing countries. I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Colombia
during the 1960s, and the goal of our service was to ``work ourselves
out of a job.'' By the end of our two year service as Peace Corps
volunteers, our goals were to have educated host country nationals in
different skills who could then take ownership of development projects
and finish the job of developing their own country, in a culturally
appropriate way.
As Peace Corps volunteers, I worked on micro development issues, and
U.S. foreign policy, if it is to succeed in creating long-term
development and foster stability in developing countries, should take
this mantra to heart, and focus on building local capacity. I am
therefore very thankful for the Chairman and Ranking Members
recognition of the importance of local capacity building by including
this important Sense of Congress in H.R. 2601.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of
this bill.
It is an important bill. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act
authorizes funding for 2 fiscal years for State Department programs,
international broadcasting activities, international assistance
programs, and related agencies. The bill authorizes a 12 percent
increase in funding over fiscal year 2005, including funding increases
for peacekeeping missions, embassy security and relief for Africa.
H.R. 2601 also includes a number of amendments that were passed
during the bill's consideration on the floor. I voted against an
amendment offered by Representative Hyde regarding reform of the United
Nations. The amendment was based on the U.N. Reform Act, which I
opposed--along with many of my colleagues--when it was considered as a
stand-alone bill a month ago.
The U.N. is a critically important body that has taken on many of the
world's problems and solved them--problems such as poverty, disease,
and international disputes. And the U.S. has benefited from U.N.
actions. Just recently, the U.N. helped with elections in Afghanistan
and Iraq and helped negotiate the withdrawal of Syrian forces from
Lebanon.
But I share the view that the United Nations needs to be improved so
it can better carry out its indispensable role. It has serious
problems, as exemplified by the oil-for-food scandal and offenses
committed by U.N. peacekeeping forces.
So, I support U.N. reform--but I could not support the approach the
amendment takes toward achieving that objective. It would require the
Secretary of State to push for reforms at the U.N. in the areas of
budgeting, oversight and accountability, peacekeeping, and human
rights. That is something that needs to be done. But if the Secretary
of State cannot certify that the reforms have been achieved, starting
in 2007, the Secretary would be required to withhold 50 percent of the
U.S. assessed contributions to the U.N.'s regular budget. The assessed
U.S. contributions are estimated at $362 million for 2005, and $439
million for 2006.
I think such a punitive and unilateral approach to reform will not
work. I think its primary result would be to further isolate the United
States while at the same time actually undermining ongoing efforts at
reform and potentially jeopardizing the U.N.'s ability to focus on
global threats and work toward greater global stability.
I also voted in reluctant support of an amendment offered by
Representative Rohrabacher regarding detainees at Guantanamo.
I supported it because I believe it is important to support an
amendment that highlights the continuing threat of terrorism and the
continuing necessity of disrupting terrorist activities and protecting
the security of the United States. But my support was reluctant because
the amendment inaccurately and incompletely characterizes the debate on
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and what goes on there.
It calls the capture, detention, and interrogation of international
terrorists essential to the successful prosecution of the war on
terrorism and the defense of the United States. Certainly no one can
disagree with this.
The amendment also states that the detention and lawful, humane
interrogation by the U.S. of detainees at Guantanamo is essential to
the defense of the United States and to the prosecution of the war on
terrorism. It is similarly hard to disagree with this statement. But
the point is that detentions at Guantanamo haven't been consistently
lawful or humane.
The amendment finally states that Guantanamo is so essential to the
defense of the United States that it should not be closed while the
U.S. is waging the war on terrorism. That is an overstatement, in my
opinion.
[[Page H6168]]
``Gitmo'' is now infamous around the world as a place where detainees
have been mistreated and the Koran mishandled. There are over 500
detainees remaining at Guantanamo--some who have been there for 3 years
without being charged with a crime. We still don't know the extent of
the abuses since there hasn't been any independent commission appointed
to look into all the allegations. But whether prisoner abuse is limited
or widespread, there is a perception that bad things have happened at
Guantanamo, and this perception only makes it easier for terrorists to
find willing recruits.
An independent commission could offer recommendations about what to
do with the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo as well as about the
situation at detention facilities all over the world. Closing
Guantanamo may well be the best option, but it is an option we cannot
consider without also considering accompanying changes to the whole
detention system.
The Rohrabacher amendment didn't allow consideration of these finer
points, and my support for it should not be seen as endorsement of its
language.
I also reluctantly voted for an amendment offered by Representative
Ros-Lehtinen regarding our military activities in Iraq. The amendment
states that U.S. policy is to transfer responsibility for Iraqi
security to Iraqi forces and that the U.S. should only withdraw ``when
it is clear that United States national security and foreign policy
goals relating to a free and stable Iraq have been or are about to be
achieved.'' I agree.
In fact, most people agree on a policy of transferring responsibility
for security to Iraqi forces. But saying we will only withdraw when our
goals are met is problematic. That's because the administration's goals
in Iraq are far from clear--the Defense Department shifts its focus on
a daily basis, and it has resisted requests to establish metrics or
measurements to help us determine when these goals have been or ``are
about to be achieved.'' So given that we aren't sure of our goals, this
part of the amendment is largely without meaning. It would have been
better to include the language proposed in the motion to recommit,
which I supported.
Recent calls for withdrawal have come about because there is rising
opposition in this country to the administration's policy in Iraq. But
I believe that just as rushing into Iraq was a mistake, rushing to get
out would also be a mistake. We do need to send a signal to the Muslim
world that America has no desire to stay in Iraq, but we must also make
clear the importance we place on transferring responsibility for
security to the Iraqis and on supporting efforts to assist the new
Iraqi Government draft a constitution.
This must not be our last word on Iraq. Though not unexpected, it is
disappointing that the Republicans continue to politicize our policy in
Iraq through cleverly drafted amendments and resolutions intended
solely to pigeonhole Members into black and white positions.
In conclusion, except for the parts related to the United Nations,
the bill is basically sound and deserves approval so that the
legislative process can go forward.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2601, the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This bill endorses more of the
same disastrous foreign policy that the Bush Administration has
recklessly carried out since entering office.
Due to the addition of a misguided amendment on the floor today, this
bill endorses the United States' continued involvement in the Iraq War.
This war has caused the death of almost 1,800 Americans and wounded or
killed more than 60,000 Iraqis, wasted billions of dollars, and created
a fertile breeding ground for anti-American terror. Instead of
endorsing our prolonged involvement in a misguided war, this bill
misses a significant opportunity to focus on a plan to leave Iraq.
Further, it is disappointing that this Congress--for the second time
this year--has endorsed provisions that threaten punitive actions
against the United Nations if they fail to implement the Republican
Congress' idea of reform. It is this type of unilateral bullying that
has diminished the reputation and standing of the United States around
the world. Such uncompromising actions guarantee that the United States
government will alienate its friends and encourage its enemies. We
belong to a community of nations. We must begin to act like a good
neighbor, or risk being further internationally isolated.
I also oppose this bill's claim that the Bush Administration policies
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are humane and legal. After the revelation of
insurmountable evidence and court decisions, it is clear that the Bush
Administration fully supported the U.S. military's policy of torturing
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and has illegally held prisoners
indefinitely without proper due process. To support any legislation
that contradicts these facts would simply be lying. I will not join the
Majority in an attempt to blatantly deceive the American people and the
world.
This bill also continues to endorse providing military aid to Egypt
and Israel. Only a fool would be surprised that lighting dynamite would
cause it to explode. The same is true for providing more weapons to a
volatile and dangerous situation that exists in the Middle East. Our
military assistance has been employed to carry out violence against the
Palestinian people and, in the case of Egypt, against their own
citizens. It is time that the Bush Administration got America out of
the arms dealing business and into the peace business. Only when the
United States stops supplying the area with weapons will parties on
both sides view us as an honest broker. Only then will peace be
possible.
Today, Congress had a real chance to advance an agenda that would
support American international interests and provide humanitarian help
to many countries in need. This bill fails to grasp that chance. A
Foreign Relations Act from the so-called greatest country on earth
should do more than promote an illegitimate war, supply arms to
embattled nations and lie bold-faced to the world about activities so
many have witnessed. This bill is an embarrassment to this Nation and I
call on my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2601, the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. I
want to thank Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Member Tom Lantos of the
International Relations Committee for their leadership in crafting this
legislation and moving it to the House floor for consideration and
vote.
I also want to thank them for supporting my efforts to include a
number of provisions in the base text of H.R. 2601 including the
authorization of funding for South Pacific scholarships, a review of
the marginalization of Pacific Island students in the awarding of
Fulbright Scholarships, a requirement for the State Department to
report on developments in West Papua--including a review of human
rights violations committed by Indonesia's brutal military, Indonesia's
Special Autonomy Law for West Papua and the 1969 Act of No Choice in
which 1,025 Papuans were selected to vote on behalf of 800,000 West
Papuans to join Indonesia in circumstances that were subject to both
overt and covert forms of manipulation.
I also thank Congressman Donald Payne for working with me to make
sure authorization to fund the Charles B. Rangel International Affairs
Program at Howard University was included in the base text of H.R. 2601
and, again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for being fully
supportive of our efforts.
I am also appreciative that Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos agreed to
include my request for authorization to fund an HIV/AIDS program at $1
million per year for fiscal year 2006 and $1 million for fiscal year
2007 which is intended to be directed toward India. As we agreed,
language was included in the Committee report which states, ``The
Committee understands that India reports as many as 1,000 new AIDS
cases per month, with some estimating that almost two-thirds of all
HIV-positive Asians live in India. Many experts are particularly
concerned that infections are moving from high-risk groups to the
general population. The Committee believes that a significant program
using these funds should be directed toward India and strongly
encourages the establishment of a summer exchange program for
postgraduate students from India to attend conferences and engage in
research activities at leading universities in the United States.''
I especially commend Mr. Sanjay Puri, who is a leading voice on India
and India Americans, for his efforts and diligent work on this issue. I
also thank him for the work he has done to promote peace in the Asia
Pacific region. Included in the base text is language which requires
the State Department to report to Congress on the extent to which the
Government of Pakistan has restored a fully functional democracy in
which free, fair, and transparent elections are held. The Committee
remains concerned that Pakistan's democratization process is moving too
slowly and needs to accelerate considerably. Restoring democracy in
Pakistan is key to stabilizing the region and I thank the Committee for
supporting this important initiative.
At this time, I also wish to more extensively highlight the plight of
the West Papuans. First, I extend a warm welcome to the new Indonesian
leader, President Yudhoyono, and I look forward to his fostering of
democratic principles. I commend Australia for supporting the spread of
democracy to Iraq and call upon the Australian Prime Minister, Mr.
Howard, to seriously rethink the gravity of the situation and the
immediate and continuing threats to the people of West Papua. I urge
the Prime Minister to take the lead on engaging with the Indonesian
government on this issue. I also appeal to all countries which have
thrown off the yoke of colonization and all Pacific nations to rise in
support of the West Papuan cause.
[[Page H6169]]
There are three areas of serious deficiencies in Indonesia's
treatment of indigenous West Papuans which make an investigation
absolutely crucial. One is the Indonesian government's series of
hostile actions in taking over West Papua. The Indonesian government
enacted a takeover of West Papua by military force of arms in 1963
clearly violating the terms of an agreement mediated by the United
States and the Dutch in 1962 which gave sovereignty over West Papua to
a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority. In 1969 the Indonesian
government then orchestrated an election that many regarded as a brutal
military operation. Known as the ``Act of Free Choice,'' 1,022 Papuan
elders were ``selected'' under heavy military surveillance and to no
one's surprise, every elder voted in favor of Indonesian rule.
Two, the Special Autonomy Law passed by the Indonesian Parliament in
2001 supposedly enabled the people of West Papua to govern their own
affairs. However, today key measures under the Law remain unimplemented
or actively violated. West Papuans have not received their promised
representative body, funds vital for meeting their basic human needs
are either unallocated, or are allocated late, transmigration of
Indonesian migrants continues to overwhelm culturally distinct
indigenous. West Papuans, and the division of West Papua into two
provinces violates key governance provisions.
Finally, human rights abuses committed by the military over decades,
including those related to environment degradation, continue. Under the
repressive regimes of Presidents Sukrano and Schuarto, military
brutality resulted in the merciless killing or disappearance of an
estimated 100,000 West Papuans while unofficial counts are set at the
extraordinary level of 300,000 to 400,000. The Indonesian military and
Special Forces have, in the past three years alone, murdered 81
indigenous civilians; tortured, beaten and jailed 34 West Papuans;
displaced 6393 from their homes; and brunt down 23 churches and 370
traditional houses. This violence threatens to escalate. The Indonesian
central government is responding swiftly to a West Papuan announcement
that decisively rejects the Special Autonomy arrangements. It is
currently transferring over 15,000 troops to West Papua, a region which
is already occupied by six Army Battalions, one Air Force Battalion and
one Battalion of Mobile Brigade of Police, by far the heaviest military
presence in all Indonesia.
These are human issues that transcend national borders. The
investigation called for under this Bill will send a strong message
that Congress will no longer ignore the human rights abuses, the
increasing threat of military violence and the denial of a voice under
which the people of West Papua have suffered for so many years. I thank
the Committee for including this historic initiative in the Foreign
Relations Act. For too long, the cries of West Papuans have fallen on
deaf ears and I pray that with the concerted attention of the U.S.
Congress, Australia, and the international community, justice and
freedom will finally come to the people of West Papua.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2601,
legislation to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for
fiscal years 2006 and 2007. This bill appropriately recognizes the need
for the U.S. investment in international democracy and rule of law
programs, and it devotes needed resources to raising the standard of
living in the developing world.
As chair of the Congressional Ethiopia Caucus, I recently traveled to
Ethiopia to learn first-hand the economic, social and political
challenges that this developing nation faces. My visit to Ethiopia and
my analysis of the country's recent democratic elections reinforce my
belief that the State Department has an important and powerful role to
play in fostering democratic reforms and respect for human rights. I,
therefore, am pleased that H.R. 2601 increases funding for the State
Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund and the National Endowment
for Democracy. These two proven programs deserve our support, and if
funded at authorized levels, they will contribute to world peace. This
foreign relations bill also authorizes funds for U.S. dues to
international organizations and UN peacekeeping, including $1.3 billion
to bolster peacekeeping over the next two fiscal years.
While I support H.R. 2601, I want to make clear my belief that it
does not go as far as it should. H. Con. Res. 172, a resolution
authored by my colleague Congresswoman McCollum, provides a blueprint
for U.S. foreign assistance to developing nations. This resolution
calls on the President, the Secretary of State, and other executive
branch officials to provide the necessary resources to reduce poverty
by advancing the promotion of democracy. As the world's remaining super
power, we can afford to allocate 1 percent of the Federal budget to
developing nations, and we must do so. More funding must be
appropriated to help alleviate the suffering of 1.3 billion people
mired in extreme poverty and disease.
I am also disappointed by passage of the Hyde amendment, which will
withhold U.S. dues unless the international body adopts a specified
list of reforms. Based on the United Nations Reform Act, the Hyde
Amendment also requires the U.S. to veto new or expanded peacekeeping
missions if the reforms are not implemented. I do believe reforms are
necessary, and base text of H.R. 2601 provides for the necessary
reforms. The Hyde Amendment, however, requires unreasonable reforms and
sets punitive action that is counterproductive. I join the Ranking
Member Lantos in opposing this amendment, and I will work in conference
to eliminate its provisions from the conference report.
Mr. Chairman, the funding authorized under this bill is only one,
small step in the global effort to end the hunger and malnutrition
faced by over 800 million children around the world on a daily basis.
As the world's wealthiest nation, we have a moral obligation to be the
leading advocate for and contributor to developing nations. I urge my
colleagues to pass this bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this foreign
relations authorization bill. Something has gone terribly wrong with
our foreign policy when we feel we must take almost 21 billion dollars
out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and ship it overseas.
Imagine what the Founders of this country would say if they were among
us to see this blatant disregard for the Constitution and for the
founding principles of this country. This bill proceeds from the view
that with enough money we can buy friends and influence foreign
governments. But as history shows us we cannot. The trillions of
dollars we have shipped over seas as aid, and to influence and
manipulate political affairs in sovereign countries, has not made life
better for American citizens. It has made them much poorer without much
to show for it, however.
Now we have a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, and
foreign spending soars. It was not that long ago when conservatives
looked at such cavalier handling of U.S. tax dollars with
consternation. Now it seems that they are in a race with the Left to
see who can spend more.
What is wrong with this bill? Let me just mention a few of the most
egregious items. In the name of promoting ``religious liberty'' and
``fighting anti-Semitism'' this bill will funnel millions of dollars to
the corrupt Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
and its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
This unaccountable international organization is at the forefront of
the manipulation and meddling in the internal affairs of other
sovereign states, and has repeatedly dishonored itself through
politically-biased monitoring of foreign elections. The OSCE does not
deserve a penny from the American taxpayer, but this bill will make
sure that the lavishly paid bureaucrats that staff the organization
will be able to maintain their standard of living--at our expense. With
regard to religious liberty, privately funded voluntary organizations
have been shown to be much more effective in promoting tolerance. This
is mainly true because these are true grassroots organizations with a
stake in their countries and communities, rather than unelectd
international bureaucrats imposing politically-correct edicts from
above.
This bill spends a total of four and a half billion dollars on
various United Nations activities, UN peacekeeping, and U.S. ``dues''
to various international organizations. Forcing the taxpayer to
continue to underwrite these organizations, which do not operate in our
best interests, is unconscionable.
This bill continues to fund organizations such as the National
Endowment for Democracy, which as I have written before has very little
to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses U.S. tax money to
actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political
parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded ``people's
revolutions'' overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin's
writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic
movements. The NED used American taxpayer dollars to attempt to
guarantee that certain candidates overseas are winners and others are
losers in the electoral processes overseas. What kind of message do we
think this sends to foreign states? The National Endowment or Democracy
should receive no funding at all, but this bill continues to funnel
tens of millions of dollars to that unaccountable organization.
I am also very concerned about several of the amendments to this
legislation. First, the extremely misleading UN ``reform'' act was
slipped into this bill even though it was already passed on the Floor
as a separate bill. As I have written about this terrible legislation,
``it will give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to
intervene in sovereign states.''
Another amendment will create a chilling ``Active Response Corps,''
to be made up of U.S. government bureaucrats and members of
[[Page H6170]]
``non-governmental organizations.'' Its purpose will be to
``stabilize'' countries undergoing ``democratic transition.'' This
means that as soon as the NED-funded ``people's revolutionaries'' are
able to seize power in the streets, U.S. funded teams will be deployed
to make sure they retain power. All in the name of democracy, of
course.
Mr. Chairman, this is a shameful day for the U.S. Congress. We are
taking billions out of the pockets of Americans and sending the money
overseas in violation of the Constitution. These are billions that will
not be available for investment inside the United States: investment in
infrastructure, roads, new businesses, education. These are billions
that will not be available to American families, to take care of their
children or senior relatives, or to give to their churches or favorite
charities. We must not continue to spend money like there is no
tomorrow. We are going broke, and bills like this are like a lead foot
on the accelerator toward bankruptcy.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2601. The
chairman, Ranking Member, and Committee members have worked well to
give our State Department the tools necessary to carry out our Nations'
foreign policy in a very challenging world.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and
Nonproliferation, I'd like to bring attention to two important
provisions in this bill.
Importantly, this bill offers support to the Trans-Sahara Counter
Terrorism Initiative, a comprehensive counter-terrorism program in
north Africa. Its predecessor, the Pan-Sahel Initiative, has worked to
boost the anti-terrorist capabilities of Mauritania, Mali, Niger and
Chad--producing promising results with modest resources. The effort to
expand the PSI into the TSCTI, so that countries across the Sahara are
able to bolster their ability to deny terrorist sanctuaries, is a much-
needed development. Transnational terrorists, linked to al-Qaeda, have
been found operating in this vast, and largely ungoverned portion of
the world. The United States must respond to Africa's growing strategic
importance. This program, when fully implemented, will be an important
step in that direction.
Additionally, the bill updates the existing legislation requiring
that the State Department annually report to Congress on Patterns of
Global Terrorism. For the past 2 years, this key report has been mired
in controversy. The 2003 edition errored in underreporting attacks. The
2004 report was issued minus its traditional annex statistically
reporting on the number of terrorist attacks worldwide.
This legislation, which builds upon a hearing held by the
Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, seeks to
address those controversies and improve Patterns by requiring a single
authoritative report and updating the criteria to be used in cataloging
terrorist attacks. For instance, in 2004--under the old criteria--a
Russian airliner downed by Chechen terrorists was not recorded, as it
was deemed to not involve citizens of more than one country. Yet, a
second Russian airliner, which was taken out of the sky simultaneously
by Chechen terrorists, was counted--as one passenger was a foreign
national. With this legislation, such parsing should be eliminated--and
terrorism will be counted as terrorism--so that we can get full grasp
of the challenges facing us. The legislation also requires the
Secretary of State to appear before Congress to present the annual
Patterns of Global Terrorism report. The threat to the United States,
our allies and interests from transnational terrorism will require
every element of national power to combat it. Congress has a key role
to play in this regard.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
as amended, was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gingrey, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2601) to
authorize appropriations for the Department of State for the fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 365, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion To Recommit Offered By Mr. Menendez
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MENENDEZ. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Menendez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2601 to the
Committee on International Relations with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Page 312, after line 8, insert the following new section:
SEC. 1110A. UNITED STATES COMMITMENT TO IRAQ.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces
fighting in Iraq are serving with bravery, distinction, and
high morale.
(2) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces
fighting in Iraq need and deserve the full support of the
American people.
(3) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces
fighting in Iraq are part of a multinational coalition, and
are serving side-by-side with Iraqi national forces who have
been trained in part by coalition members.
(4) Coalition and Iraqi forces, Iraqi civilians, foreign
diplomats, and individuals from around the world who have
come to the aid of the Iraqi people are under attack from
terrorists who deliberately attack children, worshippers, and
law enforcement figures, attack civilians at random, sabotage
essential services, and otherwise attempt to terrorize the
Iraqi people.
(b) Sense of Congress.-- It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) given the nature of the adversary that the United
States and its coalition partners face in Iraq and the
difficult conditions under which the United States Armed
Forces, coalition forces, and Iraqi forces find themselves,
President George W. Bush should advise Congress immediately
of the benchmarks for success, to include adopting a
constitution, holding free and fair elections, and
establishing a plan for economic development, that the United
States will employ in determining when Iraqi forces may
assume responsibility for the security of Iraq so that United
States Armed Forces may return home; and
(2) lack of a clearly articulated strategy for success in
Iraq may cause miscalculations by factions in Iraq and
undermine the morale of the United States Armed Forces,
coalition forces, and Iraqi forces, and put their security at
risk.
(c) Policy.--It shall be the policy of the United States--
(1) to devise and implement an effective plan to bring
stability to Iraq so that the responsibility for Iraq's
security may be transferred to the Iraqi people as soon as
possible;
(2) to provide United States Armed Forces in Iraq, in a
timely manner, with the equipment and other resources needed
to do their jobs effectively and safely; and
(3) to assist members of the United States Armed Forces
when they return home from Iraq to meet their health care and
other needs in a manner that reflects the extraordinary
sacrifices they have made for the Nation.
{time} 1800
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New Jersey
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear from the very beginning.
Democrats are strong supporters of our Nation's Armed Forces, of the
men and women, the sons and daughters, who defend our freedom and
protect our interests while in harm's way. Therefore, as Members of
Congress, it is our duty, our moral obligation and our responsibility
to the American people and to those very troops to ensure that our
country has a success strategy for Iraq so that we can eventually bring
our troops home. However, I am not referring to a hard and fast
timetable or date certain that our troops have to be withdrawn by.
But, unfortunately, the bill we have before us today, as amended,
fails the American people because it does not clearly define the
benchmarks for that success strategy. Unless we adopt this motion to
recommit, we have no defined goals, no defined measurable standards,
and no strategy for success in Iraq.
[[Page H6171]]
Without a clearly defined strategy for success in Iraq, this
administration has no accountability to the Congress, our troops in
Iraq, their families here at home, or the American people. Right now,
this bill does not define what the American and Iraqi people should
expect from our engagement in Iraq. If you do not know where you are
going, how can you possibly know when you will get there?
This administration possesses the information, the means and the
wherewithal to produce a defined plan for success in Iraq, and has
failed to do so. They should come not only to Congress, but also to the
American people and lay out their benchmarks so we know exactly what we
need to do to achieve success in Iraq.
Up to this point, Congress has abdicated its responsibility on Iraq.
The Republican leadership has provided the administration with a blank
check when it comes to Iraq. And with over 1,760 American soldiers
dead, more than 13,500 others wounded, many of them severely, and over
$200 billion appropriated, that simply cannot continue.
It is also important that the Iraqis understand our goals and what
benchmarks we will use to determine the fulfillment of those goals. By
establishing easily understandable benchmarks, which include creating a
functioning Iraqi security force, the writing of a constitution,
holding free and fair elections, we let the Iraqi people know that we
are not occupiers. By establishing such standards, we show the Iraqi
people that we have no plans to permanently remain in Iraq and, in
doing so, possibly diminish support for the insurgency. Without these
benchmarks, many will question what our purpose is in Iraq and how long
we will be there.
Clearly, our current policy could hardly be called a success. Iraq
has become not only ground zero for terrorism, but also the breeding
and training ground for those that can and very well may seek to carry
out future terrorist attacks throughout the world.
That is why we must have clearly defined benchmarks that are detailed
and specific. These benchmarks must be in distinct areas such as
security and troop levels and Iraqi governance and democracy, because
right now we are unsure of how this administration would define
success.
Republicans advocate for established standards and tests to measure
success in education. They expect this of our children. Well, why
should we not expect the same type of measurable standards from the
administration when it comes to Iraq?
The administration refuses to define success. Tell us what it looks
like, because there is no way in that form in which we will know when
we have achieved it.
Are we talking about the quantity of Iraqi troops? Do we know the
true number of Iraqi troops and security forces that will be needed to
provide security for the entire nation of Iraq? Is it 160,000? Is it
300,000? Are we talking about the quality of Iraqi troops? Do we know
how many battalions of Iraqi troops are currently able to fight without
the direct support of American forces? It has been reported that only
three Iraqi battalions are fully operational, meaning that over 100
battalions cannot handle the job of providing security for Iraq.
Does democracy simply mean holding elections, or does democracy mean
holding free and fair elections based on a fully functioning
constitution? We are not quibbling over details here. These critical
questions go to the core issues that will determine success in Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can
have a clear and well-defined strategy for success in Iraq. Without a
plan for success, we are doomed to failure. The administration is
keeping us in an open-ended engagement with no clear end in sight.
As we ask the sons and daughters of America to stand in harm's way,
we must ensure that they are doing so no longer than it is necessary to
ensure success. Vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I might note parenthetically that in the
motion to recommit, it says ``to provide U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq in a
timely manner with the equipment and other resources needed to do their
job.''
I also take note that the supplemental 2 months ago had 54 Democrats
voting ``no.'' That is what you use to pay for the war. So to demand
resources and to refuse to pay for them is curious.
The motion to recommit proceeds from mistaken premises. The erroneous
premise is the administration has not presented a strategy for victory
and has not provided the military with the tools to do the job.
The fact is the administration has been crystal clear in presenting
its plan for victory, and to those who keep saying there is not such a
plan, I ask you to take pen and pencil out and write this down: one,
defeat the enemy, working with the coalition and Iraqi forces; two,
train the Iraqi security forces so they can take on the burden of
protecting themselves; and, three, set the conditions for political and
economic growth in Iraq.
If the other side has not heard of this plan, which has been
articulated again and again, it is because they were not listening, or
maybe they prefer having an issue to hearing what is being said.
Now, a date certain. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez)
said he was not looking for a precise date. But many on his side are.
I ask you to use your imagination and imagine it is June 4, 1940, and
you are in the House of Commons rather than Congress. Winston Churchill
is talking, and he says this:
``Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States
have fallen into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus
of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we
shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall
fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall
defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the
beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the
fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never
surrender,'' until July 22, which is the cut-off date in the
resolution.
Vote for this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on passage, if ordered, and on the motion to suspend the rules
and agree to H. Res. 326, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 227, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 398]
AYES--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
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
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
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.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
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
[[Page H6172]]
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
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
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
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
NOES--227
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)
Frelinghuysen
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
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
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
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
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
Sweeney
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)
NOT VOTING--3
Brown (SC)
Cummings
Hinojosa
announcement by the speaker pro temore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1830
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. LEACH. 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 351,
noes 78, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 399]
AYES--351
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--78
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Berry
Capuano
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Doggett
Duncan
Farr
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Goode
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hinchey
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Rahall
Sabo
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Velazquez
Visclosky
[[Page H6173]]
Waters
Watson
Watt
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--4
Brown (SC)
Cummings
Dicks
Hinojosa
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1837
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________