[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.

                          ____________________