[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 101 (Thursday, June 21, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6889-H6954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H6889]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

   THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued
                              {time}  1645

  And so I say very respectfully, the American people don't want to see 
their tax dollars used to fund abortion overseas, and the American 
people don't want to see their taxpayer dollars used to make in-kind 
contributions to organizations that fund abortion and promote abortion 
as well.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Chairwoman Lowey has made it perfectly clear her intent 
to allow only for the provision of donated contraceptives. Some of our 
colleagues have expressed concerns that the language, as currently 
written, could be interpreted more broadly than intended. Therefore, 
Chairwoman Lowey is offering this amendment to clarify this provision.
  This amendment is crystal clear, my friends. It would only allow 
nongovernmental organizations to receive U.S. donated contraceptives, 
not funds, for distribution to millions of men and women in desperate 
need of these products.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot reduce abortions without contraception. That 
is a fact. Contraception is about prevention. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want to talk about prevention, that is the 
focus of this amendment.
  And let me just say this to all of my colleagues; for those in this 
body who proclaim to want to protect lives and to save lives and that 
is your mission, you have but one choice in this debate, and that is to 
support the Lowey amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker in this round.
  The gentlelady has the right to close, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia who is in opposition to the 
amendment has the right to close.
  Mr. WOLF. Would the gentlewoman like to proceed, then?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point. We heard the word 
``fungible'' and ``fungibility'' more than once today. I just want to 
apply that logic to China because we've heard about China today.
  According to the logic of money being fungible, all of the money that 
our friends on the other side over the past 6 years who have borrowed 
from China, allowed China to make money on the interest, and therefore 
use that money to have forced abortions in China, that's fungible.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish the other side was as concerned about forced 
abortions in China when they were busting the budget over the last 6 
years.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is reminded that she is not allowed to 
yield blocks of time. She is allowed to yield time, but not in set 
amounts.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to have this opportunity to rise in 
support of the Lowey amendment.
  I share Chairwoman Lowey's concerns about the lack of access to 
contraceptives, the lifesaving tool for disease prevention in the 
developing word.
  The World Health Organization estimates that 80 million women face 
unwanted pregnancies each year. More than 150 million couples have no 
access to family planning, and more than 75,000 women die each year due 
to complications related to unsafe abortion. These staggering 
statistics reflect the dire situation in countries such as Ghana, 
Ethiopia, Romania and many others as nations struggle to provide health 
care and basic services to their citizens.
  It is a tragedy that 24.5 million people are living with HIV in sub-
Saharan Africa, where more than 12 million children have been orphaned 
by AIDS. I know that I speak for the vast majority of Americans when I 
say that we have a responsibility to respond to this crisis.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I am opposed to abortion. And this 
position compels me to work to promote access to contraception and 
other methods of pregnancy prevention. I also feel that being pro-life 
means working to protect life at all stages, and to alleviate suffering 
wherever I am able to do so is an important priority. Rarely has the 
world known such intense suffering as that faced by sub-Saharan Africa 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, we must do everything in our power to ensure that the 
money we spend on international family planning, $441 million in this 
bill, will be used in the most effective way. The Lowey amendment makes 
sure that we do that.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been crystal clear. You 
know,

[[Page H6890]]

at times we've kind of passed over each other, but it isn't about 
abortion. I also want to thank the gentlelady for putting clauses on 
abortion in the bill. And it's not about family planning, because this 
doesn't change the family planning fund.
  There is only one debate here, and that is, should family planning 
money go to organizations that advocate or perform abortion? And that 
is really what this is about. Those organizations are restricted under 
the Mexico City Policy. And that is in fact, in the view of people who 
are against abortion, providing public funds if you provide the condoms 
or whatever you're giving in in-kind aid.
  Now, for example, as a Republican candidate, I'm not likely to get 
cash funding from anybody on your side of the aisle. But I have a 
feeling that if somebody donated stamps to me or donated a mailing to 
me or donated things in my office, your side would view that the same 
as a cash contribution. And people back home can understand that money 
this direct is, in fact, fungible. We have had this debate since I've 
been in Congress on faith-based. Every time the faith-based argument 
comes up, your side of the aisle argues that giving money to pay for 
preachers' expenses, for electricity at a Christian organization, is in 
fact the same as a direct contribution to those faith-based 
organizations. You can't have it both ways.
  In fact, this is fungible money. The debate if you're against 
abortion is, you do not believe that money should go to organizations, 
taxpayer money, taken and collected from people who have a passionate 
opposition to abortion as well as those who favor abortion, should go 
to organizations that advocate that. If you're for abortion, you 
believe that should be allowed. And that's clearly what we've 
established in this debate. It's crystal clear.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is the article that I referred to, 
Public Radio, I'll put it in the Record. It says, Morning Edition, 
April 23. ``During the past week, dozens of women in southwest China 
have been forced to have abortions even as late as 9 months into the 
pregnancy, according to evidence uncovered by NPR.'' It goes on, 
mentions a family which Liang describes how they told her that she 
would have to have an abortion. ``You don't have any more room for 
maneuver,'' he says they told her. ``If you don't go to the hospital, 
we'll carry you.'' The couple was then driven to Youjiang district 
maternity ward in Baise City. ``I was scared,'' Wei told NPR. ``The 
hospital was full of women who had been brought in forcibly. There 
wasn't a single spare bed. The family planning people said forced 
abortions or forced sterilization were both being carried out. We saw 
women being pulled in one by one.''
  Now, in answer to Mr. Ryan's comment, Mr. Ryan, I led the opposition 
over here in opposition to PNTR. President Clinton was one of the 
biggest supporters. He accused President Bush, criticized him, and then 
switched and strongly supported it.
  I have sent your office, with due respect, probably 25 letters asking 
you as a Blue Dog member to cosponsor a bill that I have, and I'll do 
it again, on the SAFE Commission. On my SAFE Commission I have eight 
Members from the Democratic Party, eight Members from the Republican 
Party, and I put everything on the table, tax policy. Someone on your 
side said there is no Republican over there that would do it. I put tax 
policy on it. Some of my people don't like it, but we do. We also put 
all the entitlements to save the country.
  I agree with you. God bless you. I agree that the debt that the 
Saudis hold is terrible. The debt that the Chinese hold. And I would 
beg you, because I know you're a good person, I watch you in committee, 
I followed your campaigns, join me in the SAFE Commission. We can get a 
handle on this deficit that we have in the country. This places a 
partisan political pit, and both sides are at each other.
  So what I want to do is what we did on the Iraq Study Group, get 
eight Republicans and eight Democrats, give 1 year, this is modeled 
after David Walker, the GAO, to go around the country and educate and 
talk to the American people and listen. And then we use the Base 
Closing Commission concept whereby this Congress has to vote.
  You're right. The amount of debt that the Chinese hold is horrible 
and that the Saudis hold. And I have written you over and over. The 
fact is, I will say it right now, I've been surprised that I haven't 
had anybody from your side cosponsor, because I will stipulate you care 
about the deficit as much as I do, maybe as a newer Member you may 
actually care about it more. But I agree with you, and the SAFE 
Commission is the opportunity to deal with this.
  If you look at the language in the package I'll send to your office, 
I put every single thing on the table. And if you would join me, I 
don't know if we could pass it in this Congress or not, but I think 
you're exactly right, we could help save this country because we are 
living off of Chinese money and Saudi money. And keep in mind, the 
Saudis funded all the madrasses up at the border. There were 15 Saudis 
funding the Wahhabis. The Saudis are funding radical, anti-Christian, 
anti-Semitic. So if we could come together and do that.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I think that clearly the ranking member is one of the extraordinary 
Members of this Congress, who has enormous credibility across a wide 
range of issues. But I think, given that the ranking member's arguments 
in committee are so substantive and so sound, I want to make it clear, 
at least for Members, about the context of the debate. And if the 
chairman would correct me if I'm wrong.
  Many of the NGOs that we are talking about are also the same NGOs 
that provide primary care in many of these villages for which the 
language is directed. If we provide them with Child Survival funds, are 
these medicines fungible for the same NGOs? In many of these villages 
in the Third World, it's not that there are three or four doctors in 
the village, it's the same doctor. There is a shortage of doctors and 
nurses. It's the same doctors being sponsored by the same NGOs on the 
ground in these villages. They're either providing primary care, 
preventive care, making recommendations to people within the village on 
how they should behave and/or what are necessary to address their 
primary care issues.
  If we provide them with AIDS treatments, are those same AIDS 
treatments fungible? And how is it that we can sit here and argue, at 
least from Washington, a different reality that is taking place on the 
ground where these issues are taking place? If the chairman would 
respond. I ask for the committee's indulgence.
  Mr. WOLF. The gentleman's concern, and the gentleman is a very good 
Member, and I appreciate when he speaks a lot of times in committee. I 
agree with him, and not only do I agree in my conscience, I vote with 
him, and sometimes I even speak for him. But it is an issue here of 
going to the groups that are involved, and I will put a copy of the 
article in the Record, but the two that I mention, and to give them the 
support whereby they would do these things. I can't speak for other 
people, but I think it would be wrong.

                             June 21, 2007

               Cases of Forced Abortions Surface in China

                            (By Louisa Lim)

       MORNING EDITION, APRIL 23, 2007.--During the past week, 
     dozens of women in southwest China have been forced to have 
     abortions even as late as nine months into the pregnancy, 
     according to evidence uncovered by NPR.
       China's strict family planning laws permit urban married 
     couples to have only one child each, but in some of the 
     recent cases--in Guangxi Province--women say they were forced 
     to abort what would have been their first child because they 
     were unmarried. The forced abortions are all the more 
     shocking because family planning laws have generally been 
     relaxed in China, with many families having two children.
       Liang Yage and his wife Wei Linrong had one child and 
     believed that--like many other couples--they could pay a fine 
     and keep their second baby. Wei was 7 months pregnant when 10 
     family planning officials visited her at home on April 16.
       Liang describes how they told her that she would have to 
     have an abortion: ``You don't have any more room for 
     maneuver,'' he says

[[Page H6891]]

     they told her. ``If you don't go [to the hospital], we'll 
     carry you.'' The couple was then driven to Youjiang district 
     maternity hospital in Baise city.
       ``I was scared,'' Wei told NPR. ``The hospital was full of 
     women who'd been brought in forcibly. There wasn't a single 
     spare bed. The family planning people said forced abortions 
     and forced sterilizations were both being carried out. We saw 
     women being pulled in one by one.''
       The couple was given a consent agreement to sign. When 
     Liang refused, family planning officials signed it for him. 
     He and his wife are devout Christians--he is a pastor--and 
     they don't agree with abortion.
       The officials gave Wei three injections in the lower 
     abdomen. Contractions started the next afternoon, and 
     continued for almost 16 hours. Her child was stillborn.
       ``I asked the doctor if it was a boy or girl,'' Wei said. 
     ``The doctor said it was a boy. My friends who were beside me 
     said the baby's body was completely black. I felt desolate, 
     so I didn't look up to see the baby.''
       Medical sources say fetuses aborted in this manner would 
     have been dead for some time, so the tissue is necrotic and 
     thus dark in color.
       ``The nurses dealt with the body like it was rubbish,'' Wei 
     said. ``They wrapped it up in a black plastic bag and threw 
     it in the trash.''
       This was also the treatment given to the stillborn baby of 
     He Caigan. Family planning officials turned up at her house, 
     in the countryside several hours outside Baise, before dawn 
     on April 17 to force her to go to the hospital. This would 
     have been her first baby--but she hadn't married the father, 
     in contravention of family planning laws. She was already 9 
     months pregnant, just days away from delivery.
       ``They told me I'm too young, I couldn't keep the child and 
     I should have an abortion,'' she said. ``I'm too young to get 
     a marriage certificate--I'm only 19 and my boyfriend's only 
     21.''
       After the forced abortion, her boyfriend left her. She said 
     that she's still in great physical pain and that her life had 
     been ruined.
       An eyewitness, who requested anonymity for fear of the 
     consequences, said that he counted 41 occupied beds on just 
     one floor of the maternity hospital in Baise and that he 
     believed none of the women he saw had come to the hospital of 
     their own free will.
       Coerced abortions such as these were not unusual after 
     China's one-child policy was first introduced in 1980. But a 
     law passed five years ago guarantees China's citizens a 
     degree of choice in family matters. When contacted for 
     comment, an official at China's State Commission for 
     Population and Family Planning said she'd heard nothing about 
     forced abortions in Guangxi and asked for more details. But 
     in Baise, a family planning official surnamed Nong 
     acknowledged that such behavior would violate regulations. 
     Despite the fact that these allegations refer to events that 
     happened just within the last week, he said an investigation 
     had already been held.
       ``We were very surprised to hear of these accusations,'' 
     Nong said, ``but our investigation concluded some individuals 
     who were dissatisfied with our family planning policies were 
     fabricating stories. These facts simply don't exist. We 
     really love and care for women here.''
       Official figures published by the Xinhua news agency shed 
     some light on why a forced abortion campaign might be judged 
     necessary. They show that the Baise government missed its 
     family planning targets last year. The recorded birth rate 
     was 13.61 percent, slightly higher than the goal of 13.5 
     percent. This is significant because the career prospects of 
     local officials depend upon meeting these goals.
       Wei Linrong and her husband Liang Yage, were incensed by 
     their treatment, seeing it as little short of murder.
       ``I think their methods are too cruel,'' said Wei, ``my 
     heart really hurts. Such a tiny baby, it was innocent. And 
     they killed it.''
       ``Every time we talk about this child, we both cry,'' Liang 
     added. ``We can't bear talking about this child.''
       Liang and his wife risked further official disapproval by 
     contacting a Christian group overseas to publicize their 
     plight. China may once have depended on its state apparatus 
     of control and fear to silence those who suffer human rights 
     abuses at the hands of its officials. But China's victims are 
     angry, and they want their voices to be heard.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Lowey 
Amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations 
bill. This amendment is a poison pill that will result in a veto by the 
President.
  The original Mexico City policy, which was emasculated in the 
Appropriations Committee, prevents U.S. population assistance funds 
from going to foreign organizations which ``perform or actively promote 
abortion as a method of family planning.'' This was done to ensure 
compliance with the long-standing law that taxpayer dollars cannot be 
used to finance abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or danger 
to the life of the mother. The Stupak-Smith amendment restores the 
Mexico City policy to its original intent.
  On the other hand Mr. Chairman, the Lowey amendment, masks the effort 
to fund pro-abortion organizations with U.S. tax dollars. This 
amendment would provide economic support in the form of valuable 
commodities and other items to organizations that promote and provide 
abortion as a method of family planning. Additionally, this amendment 
does not increase USAID funding for contraceptives, as the amendment's 
supporters have claimed.
  In fact, it does nothing to increase contraception and simply diverts 
contraceptive commodities from organizations that DO NOT promote or 
provide abortion to organizations that DO promote or provide abortion 
as a method of family planning.
  This ``stealth amendment'' further undermines the Mexico City policy 
that President Reagan established in 1984. Prior to the implementation 
of the Mexico City policy by President Reagan in 1984, organizations 
which support abortion such as Planned Parenthood kept two sets of 
books in order to qualify for U.S. funds: one tracking the use of 
taxpayer dollars for services such as family planning counseling and 
contraception distribution, and another chronicling the use of private 
organization funds for abortion-related expenses. Mr. Chairman, we all 
know that money is fungible. Such double bookkeeping ensured that 
taxpayer dollars for family planning inevitably subsidized abortion by 
freeing up more private funds for this purpose. The Mexico City policy 
was adopted to stop this practice.
  Mr. Chairman, while President Clinton revoked this policy, it was 
reinstated by President Bush to ensure American citizens are not forced 
to pay for a procedure many find morally abhorrent.
  Additionally Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues 
that the President has threatened to veto any legislation that weakens 
existing pro-life protections. Opposing the Lowey amendment and 
supporting the Stupak-Smith amendment will ensure that the hard work 
our colleagues have put into this appropriations bill is not for 
nothing.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment and support the 
Stupak-Smith Amendment to restore the Mexico City Policy to its 
original intent.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment and of the underlying bill, which provides overseas family 
planning providers with a targeted exemption from the restrictions of 
the Global Gag Rule.
  As this amendment makes crystal clear, the contraceptive exemption in 
this bill allows for only the provision of donated contraceptives--not 
funding--to NGOs that would otherwise be barred from receiving U.S. 
assistance. In so doing, this bill will provide millions of men and 
women with contraceptive products.
  Since President Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule in 2001, U.S. 
government shipments of contraceptives and condoms have ceased to 
twenty developing countries, including Cote d'lvoire and Vietnam--two 
focus countries of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
  Restricting access to U.S.-donated contraceptives and condoms is 
counterproductive to our country's unprecedented commitment to the 
fight against HIV/AIDS.
  Furthermore, providing modern contraceptives to the 200 million women 
in the developing world who desire this health care would avert 52 
million unwanted pregnancies, prevent 22 million abortions, and would 
keep 505,000 children from losing their mothers each year.
  Put simply, contraceptives prevent unintended pregnancies which often 
end in abortion, and condoms prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS. 
These facts are undisputable.
  I commend Chairwoman Lowey for her willingness to offer this 
amendment to clarify the legislative intent of this important 
provision, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order 
to protect access to common-sense prevention measures that will improve 
the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities 
worldwide.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be 
postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Strike the last proviso of section 622 of the bill.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman

[[Page H6892]]

from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 22\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, someday future generations of 
Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and 
seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity 
to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead so 
aggressively promoted death to children by abortion.
  They will note that we prided ourselves on our human rights rhetoric 
and record, while precluding unusually all protection to the most 
persecuted minority in the world today, unborn children. They will 
indeed wonder why it took so long to stop just one hideous method of 
death, partial-birth abortion--and why dismembering a child with sharp 
knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices or chemically 
poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals, failed to elicit 
so much as a scintilla of empathy, mercy or compassion for the victims.

                              {time}  1700

  Abortion is violence against children, Mr. Chairman. It is extreme 
child abuse. It is cruelty to children. It exploits women. In America, 
it has destroyed 49 million unborn babies and wounded countless numbers 
of women.
  Now, as in previous years, some Members of Congress want to export 
the violence of abortion to Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia and 
Europe by reversing the prolife Mexico City policy and by providing in-
kind assistance to some of the most vociferous pro-abortion 
organizations on the Earth. To counter that, Mr. Stupak and I are 
offering an amendment, to strike the pro-abortion enabling language 
contained in this bill.
  First announced by the Reagan administration at a 1984 U.N. 
Population Conference held in Mexico City, hence its name, the current 
policy simply requires that foreign nongovernmental organizations 
agree, as a condition of their receipt of Federal assistance for 
family-planning activities, to neither perform nor actively promote 
abortion as a method of family planning.
  The three exceptions in the Mexico City policy are rape, incest and 
life of the mother.
  Mr. Chairman, today, scores of countries throughout the world are 
literally under siege in a well-coordinated, exceedingly well-funded 
campaign to legalize abortion on demand, putting women and children at 
risk. Most of the pressure is coming directly from foreign 
nongovernmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation based in London. IPPF and its country affiliates perform 
abortions and lobby aggressively for abortion on demand.
  IPPF, you will recall, in 1992 adopted an abortion manifesto called 
Vision 2000, a sweeping ``action plan.'' Vision 2000 says that IPPF and 
its affiliates, and I quote this, ``Will bring pressure on governments 
and campaign for policy and legislative changes to remove restrictions 
against abortions.'' The Mexico City policy puts a stop to enabling 
IPPF and likeminded groups from doing just that.
  So it couldn't be more clear, Mr. Chairman, that if we provide either 
cash or in-kind contributions to abortion organizations, we empower 
them and we enable them to campaign to expand abortion. Instead, we 
should direct our funds and in-kind assistance, including commodities 
and contraceptives, to organizations committed only to family planning.
  IPPF's vision, Mr. Chairman, is what I call a nightmare. Earlier my 
friend, Mr. Jackson, was talking about the least of our brethren in 
found Matthew is Gospel, Chapter 25. Who in this world fits the 
definition of the least of our brethren more than a helpless unborn 
child who is being killed by dismemberment or chemical poison? I don't 
know who. Unborn babies are the most vulnerable people on Earth, I say 
to my good friend.
  IPPF's vision is a world of free abortion and unfettered access to 
subsidized abortion rights right up until birth. It is all in their 
documents. They're for abortions for minors even without any parental 
notification or consent, and they don't like conscience clauses for 
doctors and health care practitioners, either.
  One only has to look at Planned Parenthood here in the United States 
to understand where their affiliates would take the rest of the world. 
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has, for example, 
colocated family planning clinics with abortion mills. They annually 
perform 265,000 abortions every year in America, a quarter of all the 
abortions in our country a staggering loss of children's lives. One 
organization. They lobby and litigate to stop women's right-to-know 
laws and parental consent laws. They lobby in favor of partial birth 
abortion. If that is not child abuse, I don't know what is. Make no 
mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, that is what they want to do 
everywhere. We kid ourselves if we don't realize that and appreciate 
that.
  The Mexico City policy, on the other hand, separates abortion from 
family planning in certain foreign aid programs. It ensures that family 
planning is the exclusive activity of the organization and not 
abortion. If we provide other cash or in-kind contributions or anything 
of value, we again empower, we enrich and we enable these 
organizations. It is all about whom we give to.
  Finally, I would like to say with deep respect to my prolife 
colleagues, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, some of 
whom are under intense pressure to support the other side and to oppose 
Mr. Stupak and me, if protecting babies and women from abortion matters 
to you, and I mean really, really matters to you, there is no way that 
any of us could work to overturn the Mexico City policy. This is the 
time to stand for the innocent and the inconvenient ones who can't 
speak for themselves.
  I would remind my colleagues again that nothing in our language today 
cuts by a penny the money that is allocated in this appropriations bill 
for family planning. If you look, and we will do this again later, at 
one country after another, we have seen doubling and tripling, 
quadrupling even, of money going to countries, especially in Africa, 
for family planning under the Mexico City policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us keeps the global gag rule intact, 
with one important exception. It would allow for the provision of 
contraceptives, not direct funding, to foreign NGOs to help reduce 
abortion, unintended pregnancy, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The 
amendment I offer today makes absolutely clear that no funding would be 
provided to international organizations that do not comply with the 
Mexico City policy. In addition, the provision provides absolutely no 
assistance for abortion.
  This is strictly prohibited in 10 other sections of the bill. Every 
provision in this bill has been kept there that forbids U.S. dollars 
going to abortion.
  There are tremendous unmet needs for contraception in developing 
countries that most need this assistance to address population and 
health crises, including the spread of HIV/AIDS and unintended and 
high-risk pregnancies.
  The global gag rule has only made matters worse for decreasing access 
in many countries. U.S. shipments of contraceptives have ceased to 20 
developing nations, including in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. In 
some areas, the largest distribution centers for contraceptives have 
experienced decreased access for over 50 percent of the women they 
serve. This decline in access to contraceptives has led to increases in 
unintended pregnancy and in the number of women seeking postabortion 
care.
  It is clear that withholding contraceptives, my friends, does not 
reduce abortion. Providing contraceptives is the way to reduce 
unintended pregnancies and abortions. The numbers speak for themselves. 
Increased use of contraceptives in the last two decades has been 
accompanied by significant declines in abortion rates in a number of 
countries. For example, in Russia, the abortion rate declined by 61 
percent, as has been mentioned, between 1988 and 2001, as modern 
contraceptive use increased by 74 percent.
  Proponents of the Smith amendment will make several false claims. 
They

[[Page H6893]]

may say that this provision would provide funding or assistance for 
services and products other than contraceptives directly to 
international NGOs who are not compliant with Mexico City. It 
absolutely will not.

                              {time}  1715

  They will argue that the Smith amendment will not cut family planning 
funds in this bill. However, it will dramatically decrease the 
effectiveness of our international family planning aid by withholding 
contraceptives to the areas of the world that need them most to prevent 
unintended pregnancies, abortions and the spread of HIV-AIDS.
  The other side will also say that my provision encourages abortion as 
a means of family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Abortion is already illegal in many of the areas that would receive 
contraceptives under my provision, particularly in African countries. 
Furthermore, these organizations do not promote abortion as a means of 
family planning. They provide family planning to prevent unintended 
pregnancies, thereby reducing abortion.
  You may also hear that by providing contraceptives, these 
organizations will be able to use their own funds for other purposes 
prohibited by Mexico City. I have already made clear the incredible 
unmet need for contraceptives. In Uganda alone, the average number of 
births per woman is 7.1, while the unmet need for family planning is 
reported by married women at 35 percent. The bill will provide donated 
contraceptives, not funding, to groups that are unable to provide 
enough contraceptives in areas with severe shortages.
  Furthermore, contraceptives are not fungible. They are used for 
contraception. Period. By filling the unmet need for contraceptives, 
each year we can prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies, an estimated 
29 million abortions, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 505,000 
children from losing their mothers.
  It is clear that voting for the Smith amendment and against 
contraceptives is an extreme position that will in fact hurt our 
efforts to decrease abortion. So if you really want to decrease 
abortion, if you really say you are for family planning, if you really 
want to save lives, if you really want to decrease HIV/AIDS, which is 
spreading throughout the world, vote no on the Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the coauthor of 
this amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment, which is the only amendment before the House that would 
restore the Mexico City Policy. This policy is a vital, pro-life 
provision intended to protect the integrity of U.S. family planning 
programs around the world by establishing a clear wall of separation 
between abortion and family planning. By directing support to 
organizations that agree not to promote or perform abortion as a method 
of family planning, we ensure that U.S.-supported programs are not in 
the abortion business.
  Let me be clear: Our amendment does not, does not, reduce 
international family planning funding for services or contraceptives by 
a single penny. Instead, the policy that we are promoting improves the 
credibility of international family planning programs by ensuring that 
they are entirely separated from abortion activities.
  Despite misleading statements to the contrary, the previous Lowey 
amendment is not about contraceptives or HIV. We have provisions in the 
legislation where that language can be put, and it would be perfectly 
acceptable to all of us. Instead, the Lowey amendments are a direct 
assault on the Mexico City Policy.
  The Smith-Stupak amendment restores the Mexico City Policy and in no 
way reduces funding for contraceptives. U.S. family planning funded in 
this bill at $441 million should be directed to organizations that do 
not promote or perform abortions.
  The effort to prevent unplanned pregnancy by providing contraceptives 
continues robustly under the Mexico City Policy. As you can see from 
the chart here before me, U.S.-funded family planning increased 
dramatically in countries where USAID has found the need to be the 
greatest.
  Mrs. Lowey claims Ethiopia and some of these others have actually 
decreased money. It is simply not true. If you look, in Ethiopia 
funding has nearly quadrupled, increasing from $4.9 million to $19.5 
million under the Mexico City Policy. In Uganda, funding has almost 
doubled, from $5.2 million to $9.8 million.
  International family planning is funded at $441 million in this bill, 
and it will still be funded at $441 million in this bill under the 
Smith-Stupak amendment.
  I would give the previous speaker, Mrs. Lowey, credit for being 
ingenious. It is an ingenious amendment which really undermines the 
Mexico City language.
  I urge all Members to support our pro-life and pro-family amendment. 
Support the Smith-Stupak amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a distinguished member of 
the committee.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment does 
nothing to reinstate the Mexico City executive order. It is an 
executive order. What is in statute and what continues to be in 
statute, on page 93 of H.R. 2764, section 618, ``None of the funds may 
be made available to be paid for the performance of abortion as a 
method of family planning.''
  On line 13, ``None of the funds,'' and then it goes on to say, ``may 
be used for the performance of involuntary sterilization as a method of 
family planning or to coerce or provide financial incentive to any 
person undergoing sterilization. None of the funds may be made 
available to carry out part of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
amended, that may be used to pay for biomedical research for the 
performance of abortions or involuntary sterilization.'' None of the 
funds. None of the funds. That is all protected in here. The Smith 
language doesn't change anything.
  President George Bush in fact himself has said that one of the best 
ways to prevent an abortion is to provide quality family planning 
programs. And here are the facts, folks.
  In developing countries, 120 million married couples would like to 
postpone their next pregnancy or have no more children, but they don't 
have access to modern contraceptives. In sub-Sahara Africa, 26 percent 
of the women who desire to delay or end their child bearing remain 
without access to volunteer family planning and then they risk an 
unintended pregnancy. Every year more than 525,000 women die from 
causes related to pregnancy in childbirth, with 99 percent of these 
deaths occurring in developing countries. An additional 8 million women 
each year suffer needless complications from pregnancy and birth. And 
lack of spacing birth, this is really key, because I have spoken to 
women in Africa and in Latin America, lack of spacing birth results in 
intervals of 9 to 14 months, which raises the increased maternal death 
rate by 250 percent.
  Vote for voluntary family planning. Vote for 22 more additional 
countries receiving voluntary planning. Vote against Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment 
that guards against policies that would lead to taxpayer funding of 
abortions abroad. This amendment would ensure that the Mexico City 
Policy is included in this spending bill.
  The Mexico City Policy, first enacted by President Reagan in 1984 and 
reinstated in 2001, ensures that organizations that do international 
population assistance work and that promote abortion as a method of 
family planning do not receive United States funding.
  This is a critical policy that underscores the sanctity of human life 
by telling groups that if they want to promote abortion, they better 
find a source of funding other than the U.S. taxpayer. It is quite 
simple: If a group demonstrates a disregard for human life, they don't 
get funding.
  Let me be clear, the Mexico City policy and this funding do not 
reduce

[[Page H6894]]

funding for family planning programs. The focus instead is on 
channeling funds to organizations that agree not to promote abortion. 
There is, therefore, no overall reduction of family planning funds. 
Again, the guidelines are simple. If you promote abortion, the U.S. 
Government will not be giving you money.
  Under the current language in the State-Foreign Operations 
appropriation bill, funding would once again flow to groups that 
promote abortion. The Smith-Stupak amendment would eliminate language 
that allows funding to go to even the most aggressively pro-abortion 
groups.
  This amendment is about our Nation's abortion policy. As such, it is 
entirely focused on ensuring our government does not fund groups that 
promote abortion. I support this amendment because it wisely guards 
against any erosion of our protection of the sanctity of human life.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), an outstanding member of the 
committee.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
and once again for her very valiant efforts to save lives of women and 
children throughout the world.
  Let me first say I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment. 
This bill includes a very narrow provision to allow foreign NGOs to 
receive only U.S.-provided contraceptives. Chairwoman Lowey has 
additionally offered the amendment that clarifies the existing language 
in the bill to make it absolutely clear that this provision only allows 
for the donation of the contraceptives.
  This provision has absolutely nothing to do with funding. The bill 
does not provide financial assistance to clinics or to NGOs. It simply 
allows those family planning organizations that have been denied USAID 
family planning funding under the global gag rule to receive 
contraceptives from USAID and domestic NGOs.
  Again, it has nothing to do with providing assistance for abortions, 
which are already strictly and clearly prohibited in 10 other 
provisions in this bill, which, I must say, I am very disappointed 
with. But the fact is that those provisions are there.
  By providing contraceptives, we will actually help to reduce 
abortions, reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS and save the lives of 
mothers and infants by reducing the number of high-risk and unintended 
pregnancies.
  The negative impact of the gag rule, which, of course, as I said 
earlier, and you all know this, this bill leaves the gag rule in place, 
but the negative impact is well documented. Since it was reinstated in 
2001, shipments of United States-donated contraceptives have ceased in 
20 developing countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
  The NGOs most affected are often the ones with the most extensive 
distribution networks and the largest outreach to young women in rural 
areas. They often provide the only family planning program in a region 
and they have suffered severely from the cutoff of contraceptive 
shipments. The Smith amendment would continue to punish these NGOs for 
running successful family planning programs and would effectively 
undermine the goal we all share to reduce abortions and HIV and AIDS 
around the world.
  For the life of me, I don't understand why we are doing this, Mr. 
Smith. You know and I know that this does not tamper with, 
unfortunately, the global gag rule or Mexico City language.
  So let's be straightforward. Let's be honest. What we are trying to 
do today is just save the lives of women and children.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, what this is about is a philosophical difference of how 
we approach things. This is about respect for life, our's and those in 
other countries. I commend the gentleman on the amendment, and I do 
rise in support of this amendment and of the Mexico City Policy and 
making certain that we pass the Smith-Stupak amendment. It will strike 
the language that would undermine that policy.
  It is not going to take away the $441 million for family planning. It 
is going to put a bright line of separation between abortion and family 
planning. The U.S. should not be in the business of exporting abortion 
overseas. It has been a tragedy for women here in the U.S., and it will 
carry the same hurt, it will carry the same trauma if it is used 
abroad.
  So I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I rise in support.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, it bears repeating, the statistics we 
have heard so many times about the language that is in this bill and 
what is not in this bill. There are at least 10 provisions in the bill 
that prohibit U.S. foreign assistance from being used to promote or 
perform abortions. In many of these countries, abortion is illegal. 
That could not be more clear.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership on this bill and 
for including this commonsense, common ground, family planning 
provision to include contraceptives only, and not funding.
  I rise today in strong support of both the Lowey amendment and of the 
contraceptives-only provision in the bill, and in opposition to the 
Smith amendment.
  Under current U.S. policy, too many people in the developing world, 
especially Africa, contraceptives are in short supply, placing the 
health and well-being of millions of people at risk. President Bush has 
recognized the crisis and proposed a major Africa initiative.
  The very specific and narrowly tailored language of Chairwoman 
Lowey's language allows the U.S. to provide contraceptives only so NGOs 
can provide contraceptives in developing countries. This provision is, 
as I say, a commonsense, common ground solution to a very real problem. 
This provision will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, help 
prevent abortions and help stem the spread of disease, including HIV-
AIDS.
  The far-reaching impacts of this provision are immeasurable. This 
will make a substantive difference in the lives of women and families 
around the world by allowing them to protect themselves and plan and 
space their births. It will help slow rapid population growth, which 
results in poverty and instability. It will help stop the spread of 
HIV-AIDS.
  I urge all my colleagues who are committed to family planning to 
oppose the Smith amendment, vote to support the Lowey amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the ranking member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend Congressman Smith of New Jersey and Mr. 
Stupak, which seeks to restore the Mexico City Policy. It is a 
longstanding guideline for receiving U.S. family planning assistance.
  This policy, as we know, prevents U.S. funding for foreign 
nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, that perform or promote abortion 
as a method of family planning. This standard is consistent with our 
domestic policy, as regulations prohibit taxpayer dollars from programs 
that support abortion as a method of family planning.
  The Mexico City Policy applies the same standard of domestic funding 
to global family planning, and therefore reinforces the belief that the 
fundamental goal of family planning programs should be to reduce 
abortions. By eliminating the Mexico City Policy, we are devaluing the 
importance of other preventative methods of family planning.
  As the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I am 
seriously concerned about the effect that such a policy change would 
have on our ability to protect the respect for innocent human life and 
human rights worldwide.

                              {time}  1730

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Smith amendment.

[[Page H6895]]

  We have heard it so many times before, but the global gag rule is not 
about abortion. It is about women dying to the tune of 600,000 a year. 
That is equal to one or two jumbo jets crashing each day. The fact 
remains that, since 1973, no U.S. Federal funds have been or are being 
used around the world for abortions.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they respect 
life, but during the time that we have been debating this bill, 65 
women around the world will die from pregnancy because of many related 
complications; and they are dying because they do not have access to 
the most basic health care such as contraceptives.
  I commend my colleague, Mrs. Lowey, for her commonsense approach to 
refining the global gag rule. Although I support a full repeal of the 
global gag rule, it would be unconstitutional in our country, and it is 
unconscionable that we are exporting it to the world's poorest women.
  But the Lowey amendment merely allows NGOs and organizations to 
receive contraceptives, which are proven to prevent unintended 
pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases. That is what 
it does. It is family planning.
  So I ask my colleagues, what do we tell a Somalian mother whose 
teenage daughter has just died in childbirth? Do we explain there are 
some politicians in Washington who do not think that she deserves the 
same information and health care services that their own daughters 
have?
  These programs are about saving women and girls' lives and helping 
both men and women get access to reproductive health services. So if 
you oppose abortion and oppose the spread of HIV/AIDS, it makes common 
sense, good sense to support access to contraceptives and oppose the 
Smith amendment. Support the Lowey provision.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment.
  I believe women in developing nations, these poor women are not 
asking help to abort their children. They are asking for help with 
food, housing and medical care for them and their families. It costs 
roughly $5 to spray a house with the cheapest insecticide to protect 
entire families from being infected with malaria.
  The drug Nevirapine reduces the risk of prenatal HIV infection by 50 
percent. One dose is given to the mother and one to the baby, and these 
two doses only cost $5.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is how our foreign aid dollars should be 
spent, saving lives, not destroying them. Most preventable child deaths 
are from malnutrition, diarrhea, pneumonia, infections of newborns and 
malaria.
  The United States has contributed more than $1.5 billion in the last 
5 years to treat almost 5 billion episodes of child diarrhea with 
lifesaving oral rehydration therapy, and we have reduced deaths from 
diarrheal disease by more than half since 1990.
  These are the success stories of how U.S. tax dollars are saving 
lives, and we need to continue to preserve lives. The money in this 
bill should be spent on newborn care programs and not on destructive 
abortion procedures destroying the life of the child and harming women.
  I believe we need to export lifesaving policy that provides poor 
women with the food, with the housing and the medicine that they need 
so desperately.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let 
me say at the outset, I have the deepest respect for the opinions 
expressed in this Chamber. I may not agree with them, but I respect 
them.
  We are all try to reduce unintended pregnancies. We are all trying to 
reduce abortion. In contrast to what a prior speaker said, there is 
nobody here in this Congress, right or left, who doesn't have respect 
for human life; and that kind of verbiage really ought not to be 
expressed in this Chamber.
  I will say, however, that while I respect my opponents' arguments, 
the arguments do lose some credibility on the issue of fungibility. The 
fact of the matter is, as has been stated before, not one penny in Mrs. 
Lowey's bill is spent promoting or providing abortion. It is on in-kind 
contraceptives.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have said, whoa, whoa, but 
that is promoting the funding of abortion, because every single in-kind 
contraceptive that is donated means that there is more money by that 
country to fund an abortion.
  Well, if you are going to apply that argument, my friends, then you 
better just admit defeat on the global war on terror right now. Because 
the fact of the matter is that many of the same countries that we are 
providing in-kind military assistance to to help us in the global war 
on terror allow for legal abortion. Some even provide abortion 
services.
  Here is a map. If you are going to argue the fungibility issue, then 
in fact every time that we provide funding to Pakistan, we are 
promoting abortions, because in some cases abortion is legal in 
Pakistan.
  Every time we are providing military funding and assistance to India, 
we are promoting abortions. Australia, Japan, South Korea. When we are 
providing funding for the Colombian antidrug initiative, we are 
promoting abortions in Colombia under that argument. Canada. Russia. 
When we provide military assistance to secure loose nukes in Russia, 
under your argument that money is fungible. They can take our 
assistance, secure the loose nukes and then use that money in order to 
provide and promote abortions.
  If you use that argument, my friends, you need to go back to your 
districts today and admit to your constituents that every time you have 
supported that military aid you have supported abortion, because the 
money is fungible.
  The Czech Republic. Many of you support providing military assistance 
and in-kind assistance to the Czech Republic for the national missile 
defense system. They permit abortions. Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, NATO 
countries, South Africa, the Ukraine.
  The fact of the matter is that the fungibility argument has no 
credibility. You can only have fungibility if you have money. There is 
no money in this bill for abortion services.
  If we are going to have an honest debate on this issue, let's be 
honest and let's be consistent. What this language does is say we want 
to reduce unintended pregnancies. We want to reduce abortions. The way 
to do it is to allow for in-kind contributions of contraceptives. This 
is important language.
  I oppose the amendment, and I urge Members to be consistent.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just 
to say that the previous speaker's comments missed by a mile what this 
is all about.
  The Mexico City policy does not apply to a single country. It applies 
to organizations. Countries are expressly excluded from Mexico City 
policy. It is all about pro-abortion organizations, and whether or not 
we want to enrich and enable them to expand abortion. We want to put 
our money and in-kind contributions to those that have divested 
themselves from the killing of unborn children.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment and encourage my colleagues to support this measure to 
prevent the U.S.-taxpayer-funded export of abortion.
  The purpose of U.S. foreign assistance is to strengthen the 
foundation for international stability by fostering civil society, 
supporting institutions that foster self-determination, and helping the 
vulnerable by bringing healing and hope and basic sustenance.
  As a leading provider of foreign assistance worldwide, the United 
States has made extraordinary strides towards alleviating suffering 
throughout the world. Unfortunately, an element of the Foreign 
Operations bill before us today risks undermining this noble legacy.
  The Mexico City policy, first announced by President Reagan in 1984, 
requires that as a condition for receiving Federal funds for family 
planning, foreign nongovernmental organizations

[[Page H6896]]

agree that they will neither perform abortions nor lobby to change 
abortion laws or otherwise actively promote abortion as a method of 
family planning.
  The Foreign Operations bill, as it currently stands, would undo this 
policy and subsidize abortion providers overseas. U.S. taxpayers should 
not be forced to do this, nor should other countries be forced to 
accept it. Abortion is so often the result of abandonment, Mr. 
Chairman; and I believe women deserve better.
  Mr. Chairman, many Americans aren't comfortable about the rightness 
or wrongness of it. Many Americans are unsure in their heart of hearts 
about the ethics of abortion. Americans agonize about this difficult 
issue, and our collective experience as a society demonstrates the 
grave consequences.
  Given these considerations, is abortion really the best we can offer 
to some of the most vulnerable populations in the world? Is this really 
how we wish to be identified as a Nation?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to retain the long-standing Mexico 
City policy and not to compromise the reputation and legitimacy of our 
foreign assistance programs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Before I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California, I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds for 
clarification to my good friend from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I do seek a clarification. The distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey attempted to clarify, but I am now a little more confused. As I 
understood his argument, he said that when an organization promotes 
abortion, we are looking to punish it. But when a country that we 
happen to like promotes abortion, then we can provide them with $300 
million or $400 million in budget support.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. First of all, we are not punishing. We are 
saying that, as a matter of human rights principle, that the killing of 
an unborn child rises to a sufficient level that we will pick other 
NGOs to whom we will give our dollars.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, maybe, just maybe, if a woman has access 
to contraceptives, abortion will be prevented.
  What is wrong with you people? Where do you come from?
  Oh, that's right, you come from the United States of America, where 
all women are allowed, rich or poor, to have access to and choices over 
family planning. Lucky us.
  There are many choices for preventing unwanted pregnancies, and let 
us not forget prevention of HIV/AIDS. If you are against abortion, at 
least support prevention. If you are concerned about HIV/AIDS, support 
contraception.
  Our Nation has a long history of generosity and caring. That should 
not end today. What are we doing? We are up here with the Lowey 
amendment ensuring that women in the poorest villages in the poorest 
countries have access to contraceptives. We are doing that by providing 
medically approved and necessary contraceptives to women who would 
otherwise have no other means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and/or to 
prevent HIV/AIDS.
  Unintended pregnancies and illegal abortions have been on the rise in 
areas where access to family planning has been denied. Chairwoman 
Lowey's provision is just plain common sense. Let's put women's health 
above politics and vote ``no'' on the Smith-Stupak amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-
Stupak amendment. The Mexico City policy does not reduce family 
planning funding at all. It only requires that funds, support and 
supplies are directed to NGOs that do not promote abortion as part of 
family planning.
  U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to hand their hard-earned tax 
money over to organizations that practice policies that these taxpayers 
morally oppose. The Mexico City policy has established that clear 
bright line that allows us to provide assistance in a morally 
acceptable manner.
  President Bush has clearly indicated his intent to veto this bill if 
it weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion or that 
encourages the destruction of human life at any stage. Enough of us, 
myself included, have pledged to sustain this veto that it will, 
indeed, be sustained.
  We must ensure that taxpayer funds do not underwrite organizations 
that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Smith-Stupak amendment today.

                              {time}  1745

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately must rise in opposition 
to the Smith-Stupak amendment. I have great respect for the passion 
displayed by Mr. Smith and Mr. Stupak and I share their opposition to 
abortion. However, in this instance I must strongly disagree with their 
decision to prevent the distribution of contraception to some of the 
most poor and needy people and nations in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, we are asked to make an important decision in this 
year's debate on the Foreign Operations bill. Our commitment to 
providing international family planning speaks volumes about who we are 
as a nation. These funds reach some of the most vulnerable populations 
in the world and can literally mean the difference between life and 
death.
  I know that Americans regardless of their position on abortion are 
horrified by the statistics on HIV/AIDS in Africa and the number of 
unwanted pregnancies and abortions throughout the developing world. I 
believe that it is our responsibility, as people committed to the 
sanctity of life and the basic human dignity of all people, to respond 
to this crisis. I believe that it is also our responsibility to do so 
in the most effective manner possible while staying true to our core 
values. The language that Chairwoman Lowey proposes makes it possible 
for the United States to provide developing nations access to 
contraceptive products, products that save lives. The Lowey language 
ensures that the organizations best equipped to distribute these 
products to the neediest, poorest parts of the world are able to do so. 
Finally, it respects the law of the land that prohibits Federal 
financial assistance to organizations that provide abortions or 
abortion counseling.
  I know that crafting this language was no easy feat and I commend 
Mrs. Lowey for her dedication to moving forward with a bill that 
reflects the values of our Nation and respects the strong feelings that 
Members have on both sides of the abortion debate. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the Smith-Stupak amendment and allow this critical, 
lifesaving assistance to reach those who so desperately need it.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Dave Weldon.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I just want to clarify a point just made by 
the gentleman from Rhode Island. Under the Smith language, 
contraceptive devices will be distributed. This whole debate is about 
whether we're going to give contraceptives to Planned Parenthood, 
Parenthood International, aggressively trying to overturn the pro-life 
laws in countries all over the world.
  We have dramatically increased distribution under Mexico City of 
contraceptive devices. Ethiopia, from 4.9 million to 19.5 million. A 
big, long list here. This is about Planned Parenthood and their effort 
to overturn pro-life laws all over the world and we don't want to give 
money to them. That's what this debate is about.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

[[Page H6897]]

  Mr. ADERHOLT. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Smith and Mr. 
Stupak for their leadership on this amendment. What we are doing here 
on this amendment is no small thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it should be noted for the record that most 
Americans do not believe that abortion is an appropriate form of family 
planning. To suggest it is simply wrong. It would never be considered 
proper within the United States and it isn't proper that taxpayers' 
money be spent for this purpose overseas.
  The amendment that we are debating today in question is not anti-
family planning. There are a number of alternatives to abortion which 
do not rise to the level of concern that this proposal engenders. This 
is only anti-family planning if one considers abortion to be a method 
of family planning. I reject this way of thinking and urge the adoption 
of this amendment.
  When President Bush adopted our Nation's current policy, he was 
right. Prohibiting the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to fund 
abortions outside the United States is a policy that has been in place 
for many years. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues who care about 
the sanctity of human life to vote in favor of the Smith-Stupak 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. May I ask how much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the 
Congressman from Michigan for their work on this amendment and their 
longstanding commitment to protecting human life.
  This is about two fundamental issues that have been talked about here 
on the floor. First, taxpayer dollars shouldn't go to organizations, 
whether those dollars are cash or in-kind, shouldn't go to 
organizations that perform or promote the taking of innocent human 
life. Second, it recognizes the more fundamental principle, life is 
precious, life is sacred, and government's fundamental responsibility 
is to protect the weak from the strong, to protect those innocent 
individuals whose lives are being taken.
  This is good public policy. We should keep it in place. It's 
consistent, frankly, with our heritage and with our history. I always 
like to remind folks of what the founders said when they talked about 
that fundamental document that started this great experience we call 
America: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  It's interesting to note the order the founders placed the rights 
they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness, your goals and dreams, 
if you first don't have liberty? And do you ever have true liberty, 
true freedom, if government does not protect your most fundamental 
right, your right to live?
  This amendment is consistent with the founders' vision, it's good 
policy, and we should adopt it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, Mr. 
Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just would like to end this debate to say that we 
all have the same goals here. We all want to reduce the number of 
abortions. Nobody wants to celebrate it. I'm a pro-life Democrat. I 
voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion and I'm proud of my vote. 
But we do have an honest disagreement on how we reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies. And to me it is clear that if we do not provide 
contraception to these poor women in these poor countries, then we will 
have more abortions. The statistics bear this out, the facts bear this 
out, and that's why this amendment needs to go down and we need to pass 
the chairwoman's language here, because I believe that if this 
amendment passes, there will be more abortions, not less.
  And one final comment to the gentleman from New Jersey, we were not 
pressured to support this position. We came to this position by 
honestly looking at the facts. No leadership pressured us, me and Mr. 
Langevin and those of us who have a different voting record than some 
people over here. So this is our choice. Please vote down this 
amendment and let's reduce the number of abortions.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) control the remainder of the 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment to strike the 
language eliminating the vitally important protections of the Mexico 
City Policy. I just believe it's wrong to force American taxpayers to 
subsidize organizations who actively promote abortion in foreign 
nations.
  In response to some of the arguments on the other side that this is 
not about promoting abortion or not, I disagree. It's really not about 
providing contraceptives. This is about promoting abortion. Because as 
the gentleman from New Jersey was trying to say before he was cut off, 
there are NGOs that are in compliance with the Mexico City Policy which 
means that they neither perform nor actively promote abortions as a 
method of family planning in other nations. It is they who are eligible 
for assistance under the Mexico City Policy. It is they who should be 
getting the benefit, not those organizations that are promoting 
abortions around the world that can substitute the provision of these 
contraceptives to then use that money available to go and pursue their 
other agenda.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment 
to restore the pro-life Mexico City Policy protections that were 
effectively stripped from this bill.
  Human life is a precious commodity and around the globe it is still 
too often taken for granted. Like millions, in my heart and in my mind, 
I believe that life begins at conception. And as a Member of this body, 
I feel I have an obligation to protect the right to life wherever I 
can. The most effective way to do that now, today, is to support the 
Mexico City Policy which would prevent our international aid from going 
to foreign organizations that support or promote abortions.
  This policy is based on the simple idea that American taxpayers 
should not be forced to export abortions with their money. Again, we're 
talking about taking money away from the American taxpayer and using it 
to subsidize foreign abortions. For most, this defies common sense. It 
defies fiscal sense. And it is reprehensible to the millions who 
believe in the fundamental right to life.
  I urge all Members to support the Smith-Stupak amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Stupak-Smith 
amendment. This amendment very simply ensures that our taxpayer Foreign 
Operation funds will not be used to support abortion overseas. The 
Mexico City Policy, which was first instituted in 1984 by President 
Ronald Reagan, simply states that any U.S. funding for family planning 
cannot be used to promote abortions as a suitable option in family 
planning.
  As divisive as this issue is among many Americans, this issue is a 
consensus issue. The American people know whatever your view of 
abortion, whether it is morally right or morally acceptable, most 
Americans agree that it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars 
of millions of Americans who cherish the sanctity of human life and use 
it to fund and to underwrite organizations that promote abortion 
overseas.

[[Page H6898]]

  It is precisely for that reason that I rise today in strong support 
of this thoughtful amendment and urge my colleagues to preserve the 
Mexico City Policy and vote ``aye'' on the Stupak-Smith amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, recently a new organization 
formed in the United States called the Silent No More Awareness 
Campaign. It is made up entirely of women who have had abortions. One 
of the women, Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther 
King, has had two abortions. She is now one of the most passionate 
spokeswomen on earth in favor of the unborn child and in favor of 
protecting women from abortion and assisting women harmed and wounded 
by abortion. She has pointed out that women in America, and 
increasingly in the world in countries where it has been legalized, 
become the walking wounded and carry with them the deep emotional and 
physical scars of having had an abortion under the cheap sophistry 
choice. Dr. King used to be on the other side of the issue and she, 
like the other women in Silent No More, are now adamantly pro-life. Dr. 
King and so many others call on us today to defend life and not export 
abortion.
  The Appropritions bill on the floor today provides $441 million for 
overseas family planning. That is in the bill. It's untouched by the 
Smith-Stupak amendment. But who we give grant money or inkind donations 
to matters. When you pour in-kind contributions into pro-abortion 
organizations whose raison d'etre, and just read their literature and 
Web sites and look at what they're doing in those countries, is to 
legalize abortion on demand and to promote abortion by way of clinics, 
you realize that a vote against the Smith-Stupak amendment is a vote to 
enable abortion on demand.
  Abortion is child abuse. That may not be something nice to say on 
this floor, some of you may cringe over it because you think it's all 
about choice. Choice to do what? Dismember, chemically poison a child. 
These are children. Welcome to 2007. Ultrasound technology has 
shattered the myth that an unborn child is not human or not alive. 
Birth is an event that happens to each and every one of us. It's not 
the beginning of life.

                              {time}  1800

  Prenatal surgery has shattered myths concerning the unborn as well. 
Unborn children are patients. So let's give the money to the family 
planners overseas that are all about family planning, not abortion 
promotion.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I cannot let that go unanswered. We 
are not promoting abortion. We are trying to reduce the number of 
abortions by providing contraception.
  The fact of the matter is the Republican party has no plan on 
reducing the number of abortions, none. There is only one way to do it, 
and you provide contraception to poor people. That's what we are trying 
to do.
  You're right. It's not about who's getting; it's about who's not 
getting. There are poor women who are not getting contraception and 
contraceptives. We are trying to provide it.
  I commend what you are trying to do. We are trying to reduce number 
of abortions, and all the explicit details of an abortion procedure are 
exactly why we are trying to do this.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear in closing, we all may 
have different views about abortion. I respect your views. I may 
differ. Each person is entitled to their own conscience and their own 
views on abortion.
  But this is not about abortion. Every provision forbidding U.S. 
dollars going to abortion is in this bill, and it remains in this bill. 
The choice is clear, my friend.
  My amendment will provide donated contraceptives, reduce unintended 
pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, prevent HIV/AIDS, save 
lives, save the lives of millions of poor people around the world. This 
amendment will save lives. Mr. Smith's amendment will lead to more 
abortions, put more lives at risk.
  My friend, the choice is very clear. If you want to reduce the number 
of unintended pregnancies, if you want to save lives, if you want to 
prevent abortion, you vote for the Lowey amendment and against the 
Smith amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by both the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak and the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
  This amendment would simply reaffirm our country's long standing 
commitment to not using federal taxpayer money to fund or support 
abortions. More specifically, this amendment would preserve the 
decades-old, internationally agreed upon Mexico City Policy that 
defends the sanctity of life by preventing taxpayer dollars from 
funding overseas family planning organizations that promote or perform 
abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, while many Americans may disagree on the issue of 
abortion, a vast majority of them do not believe that abortions should 
be publicly funded. This Mexico City Policy significantly prevents the 
exploitation of developing nations where some non-governmental 
organizations aggressively advocate the use of abortion as birth 
control--birth control, Mr. Chairman. The tactics of these NGOs are 
simply and utterly unconscionable, and I know Americans don't want 
their tax dollars funding these activities.
  Now, opponents of the amendment have tried to assert that it would 
take away funding from international family planning. Quite to the 
contrary, this Amendment does not take one single cent from these 
activities, but rather maintains the current policy preventing Federal 
funding of foreign abortions. We must remain resolute in the 
preservation of this policy.
  Having practiced as a pro-life OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I firmly 
believe that we have an obligation to protect life at each and every 
stage--and this obligation does not just apply to unborn Americans.
  Any human life--regardless of geography, regardless of circumstance--
has the right to exist. Foreign abortions are just as tragic as 
abortions here at home.
  We should not and we cannot allow the Mexico City Policy to be 
abandoned. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Stupak/Smith.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the amendment 
to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. This policy ensures that U.S. 
bilateral family planning programs are not conduits for exporting 
abortions internationally.
  Let me be clear from the beginning: the Mexico City Policy is NOT 
anti-family planning. In no way does this policy reduce the $425 
million that the United States provides in family planning assistance. 
What this amendment does do is to put a wall between contraception and 
abortion, thereby preventing this Congress from making the American 
taxpayers an implicit partner in the aborting of unborn children. It 
sends the message that as Americans, we stand for the life and liberty 
of all individuals--those whose voices can be heard, and those whose 
voices cry from the womb.
  This Democrat-led Congress has voted to protect roosters from 
cockfighting and horses from slaughter. Doesn't it would seem logical 
that this Congress would stand up and protect the fragile lives of the 
unborn?
  But this Congress has shown that it is only selectively sympathetic 
to the furtherance of life. As when horses are killed, or roosters are 
hurt. But not when a tiny, human life is stamped out with the approval 
of our government.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this amendment before us.
  The Foreign Operations Appropriations measure in its current form 
will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies globally, curb the 
deadly spread of HIV/AIDS, and improve infant and maternal survival 
rates throughout the developing world.
  I want to commend my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lowey, for 
including a provision in this measure which provides a targeted 
exemption from the Global Gag Rule.
  This will allow NGOs to receive U.S.-donated contraception and 
condoms.
  For the past 6 years, the global gag rule has jeopardized access to 
comprehensive health care for women in developing countries. It has 
denied NGOs the resources they need to provide necessary medical advice 
and treatments.
  The intent of the Global Gag Rule was to restrict abortion. However, 
by denying access to contraception and condoms, the Gag Rule denies 
women the opportunity to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first 
place.
  With population levels rising and efforts to prevent the spread of 
HIV increasing, the demand for contraception is higher then ever.

[[Page H6899]]

  More than 200 million women around the world want to control when 
they have children and protect themselves from HIV, but they can't do 
so because they lack access to condoms and contraception.
  Since the Global Gag Rule was reinstated, shipments of contraceptives 
from the U.S. government have been denied to 20 developing countries 
throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Its effect on healthcare 
in these nations has been devastating.
  In the face of this, the Smith amendment would deny access to 
contraception and condoms to some of our most valuable NGOs reaching 
at-risk people of all ages.
  What would the impact of this cutoff be?
  Consider that access to contraceptives would prevent an estimated 52 
million unintended pregnancies each year.
  That, in turn, would prevent 22 million abortions. It would also 
prevent 23 million unplanned births; 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, 
and 1.4 million infant deaths.
  Family planning helps women to have their children during the 
healthiest times for both mother and child. It has proved critical to 
the reduction of infant mortality in numerous developing countries.
  Contraceptive access is also critical to disease prevention. 
According to the WHO, the leading cause of last year's 4.3 million new 
HIV cases was unprotected sex. Access to condoms is a matter of life 
and death.
  And of those millions, how many were parents? More than 13 million 
children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to AIDS. 
That is 12 percent of all the orphaned children in the world--more than 
10 million children.
  Cutting off the flow of contraceptives would be an enormous step back 
for the health of the world's women, children and families. The 
underlying bill before us takes a commonsense approach to global health 
that will reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. It 
will also help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and improve infant and child 
survival rates.
  This amendment would take us in the opposite direction. I urge all of 
my colleagues to vote no on the Smith/Stupak amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mrs. Lowey of New York.
  An amendment by Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lowey

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) 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 CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 201, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 533]

                               AYES--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--201

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Simpson
     Sullivan
     Weiner

                              {time}  1825

  Ms. FALLIN changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. CONYERS and Ms. SLAUGHTER 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the

[[Page H6900]]

gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 218, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 534]

                               AYES--205

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Pickering
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Simpson
     Sullivan
     Weiner
     Whitfield


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1832

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have had conversations with Mr. Blunt and 
I have also had conversations with Mr. Obey, and I want to tell the 
Members of the House that it would be my intention if we complete this 
bill and we can complete the Legislative appropriations bill tonight in 
the next 5\1/2\ hours, then it would be my intention that we would not 
meet tomorrow.
  I want all the Members to understand that we will complete the 
Legislative appropriations bill this week, but if we can complete both 
of those bills tonight, it would be my intention that we would not be 
meeting tomorrow.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              afghanistan

       Sec. 623. Of the funds appropriated under titles III and IV 
     of this Act, not less than $1,057,050,000 shall be made 
     available for humanitarian, reconstruction, and related 
     assistance for Afghanistan: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available pursuant to this section, $3,000,000 should be made 
     available for reforestation activities: Provided further, 
     That funds made available pursuant to the previous proviso 
     should be matched, to the maximum extent possible, with 
     contributions from American and Afghan businesses: Provided 
     further, That of the funds allocated for assistance for 
     Afghanistan from this Act not less than $75,000,000 shall be 
     made available to support programs that directly address the 
     needs of Afghan women and girls, including for the Afghan 
     Independent Human Rights Commission, the Afghan Ministry of 
     Women's Affairs, and for women-led nonprofit organizations in 
     Afghanistan.


                notification on excess defense equipment

       Sec. 624. Prior to providing excess Department of Defense 
     articles in accordance with section 516(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the Department of Defense shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations to the same extent 
     and under the same conditions as are other committees 
     pursuant to subsection (f) of that section: Provided, That 
     before issuing a letter of offer to sell excess defense 
     articles under the Arms Export Control Act, the Department of 
     Defense shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of such 
     Committees if such defense articles are significant military 
     equipment (as defined in section 47(9) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act) or are valued (in terms of original acquisition 
     cost) at $7,000,000 or more, or if notification is required 
     elsewhere in this Act for the use of appropriated funds for 
     specific countries that would receive such excess defense 
     articles: Provided further, That such Committees shall also 
     be informed of the original acquisition cost of such defense 
     articles.


                       global fund accountability

       Sec. 625. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, 20 percent of the funds that are appropriated by this 
     Act for a contribution to support the Global Fund to Fight 
     AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the ``Global Fund'') shall be 
     withheld from obligation to the Global Fund until the 
     Secretary of State certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that the Global Fund--
       (1) is releasing incremental disbursements only if grantees 
     demonstrate progress against clearly defined performance 
     indicators;
       (2) is providing support and oversight to country-level 
     entities, such as country coordinating mechanisms, principal 
     recipients, and Local Fund Agents (LFAs), to enable them to 
     fulfill their mandates;
       (3) has a full-time, professional, independent Office of 
     Inspector General that is fully operational;

[[Page H6901]]

       (4) requires LFAs to assess whether a principal recipient 
     has the capacity to oversee the activities of sub-recipients;
       (5) is making progress toward implementing a reporting 
     system that breaks down grantee budget allocations by 
     programmatic activity;
       (6) has adopted a policy on the public release of documents 
     produced by the Office of the Inspector General;
       (7) is tracking and encouraging the involvement of civil 
     society, including faith-based organizations, in country 
     coordinating mechanisms and program implementation; and
       (8) has provided to the Secretary of State a report on 
     faith-based organizations as described in subsection (b).
       (b) The report referred to in subsection (a)(8) is a report 
     that provides a description and assessment of grants and sub-
     grants provided by the Global Fund to faith-based 
     organizations. The report shall include--
       (1) on a county-by-country basis--
       (A) a description of the amount of grants and sub-grants 
     provided to faith-based organizations; and
       (B) an assessment of the extent to which faith-based 
     organizations have been or are involved in the Country 
     Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) process of the Global Fund; and
       (2) a description of actions the Global Fund has taken and 
     will take to enhance the involvement of faith-based 
     organizations in the CCM process, particularly in countries 
     in which the involvement of faith-based organizations has 
     been underrepresented.


       prohibition on bilateral assistance to terrorist countries

       Sec. 626. (a) Funds appropriated for bilateral assistance 
     under any heading of this Act and funds appropriated under 
     any such heading in a provision of law enacted prior to the 
     enactment of this Act, shall not be made available to any 
     country which the President determines--
       (1) grants sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or 
     group which has committed an act of international terrorism; 
     or
       (2) otherwise supports international terrorism.
       (b) The President may waive the application of subsection 
     (a) to a country if the President determines that national 
     security or humanitarian reasons justify such waiver. The 
     President shall publish each waiver in the Federal Register 
     and, at least 15 days before the waiver takes effect, shall 
     notify the Committees on Appropriations of the waiver 
     (including the justification for the waiver) in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                          debt-for-development

       Sec. 627. In order to enhance the continued participation 
     of nongovernmental organizations in debt-for-development and 
     debt-for-nature exchanges, a nongovernmental organization 
     which is a grantee or contractor of the United States Agency 
     for International Development may place in interest bearing 
     accounts local currencies which accrue to that organization 
     as a result of economic assistance provided under title III 
     of this Act and, subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, any interest 
     earned on such investment shall be used for the purpose for 
     which the assistance was provided to that organization.


                           separate accounts

       Sec. 628. (a) Separate Accounts for Local Currencies.--
       (1) If assistance is furnished to the government of a 
     foreign country under chapters 1 and 10 of part I or chapter 
     4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under 
     agreements which result in the generation of local currencies 
     of that country, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development shall--
       (A) require that local currencies be deposited in a 
     separate account established by that government;
       (B) enter into an agreement with that government which sets 
     forth--
       (i) the amount of the local currencies to be generated; and
       (ii) the terms and conditions under which the currencies so 
     deposited may be utilized, consistent with this section; and
       (C) establish by agreement with that government the 
     responsibilities of the United States Agency for 
     International Development and that government to monitor and 
     account for deposits into and disbursements from the separate 
     account.
       (2) Uses of local currencies.--As may be agreed upon with 
     the foreign government, local currencies deposited in a 
     separate account pursuant to subsection (a), or an equivalent 
     amount of local currencies, shall be used only--
       (A) to carry out chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 of 
     part II (as the case may be), for such purposes as--
       (i) project and sector assistance activities; or
       (ii) debt and deficit financing; or
       (B) for the administrative requirements of the United 
     States Government.
       (3) Programming accountability.--The United States Agency 
     for International Development shall take all necessary steps 
     to ensure that the equivalent of the local currencies 
     disbursed pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A) from the separate 
     account established pursuant to subsection (a)(1) are used 
     for the purposes agreed upon pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
       (4) Termination of assistance programs.--Upon termination 
     of assistance to a country under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or 
     chapter 4 of part II (as the case may be), any unencumbered 
     balances of funds which remain in a separate account 
     established pursuant to subsection (a) shall be disposed of 
     for such purposes as may be agreed to by the government of 
     that country and the United States Government.
       (5) Reporting requirement.--The Administrator of the United 
     States Agency for International Development shall report on 
     an annual basis as part of the justification documents 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on the use of 
     local currencies for the administrative requirements of the 
     United States Government as authorized in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B), and such report shall include the amount of local 
     currency (and United States dollar equivalent) used and/or to 
     be used for such purpose in each applicable country.
       (b) Separate Accounts for Cash Transfers.--
       (1) If assistance is made available to the government of a 
     foreign country, under chapter 1 or 10 of part I or chapter 4 
     of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as cash 
     transfer assistance or as non-project sector assistance, that 
     country shall be required to maintain such funds in a 
     separate account and not commingle them with any other funds.
       (2) Applicability of other provisions of law.--Such funds 
     may be obligated and expended notwithstanding provisions of 
     law, which are inconsistent with the nature of this 
     assistance including provisions which are referenced in the 
     Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference 
     accompanying House Joint Resolution 648 (House Report No. 98-
     1159).
       (3) Notification.--At least 15 days prior to obligating any 
     such cash transfer or non-project sector assistance, the 
     President shall submit a notification through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     which shall include a detailed description of how the funds 
     proposed to be made available will be used, with a discussion 
     of the United States interests that will be served by the 
     assistance (including, as appropriate, a description of the 
     economic policy reforms that will be promoted by such 
     assistance).
       (4) Exemption.--Non-project sector assistance funds may be 
     exempt from the requirements of subsection (b)(1) only 
     through the notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                      enterprise fund restrictions

       Sec. 629. (a) Prior to the distribution of any assets 
     resulting from any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of 
     an Enterprise Fund, in whole or in part, the President shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations, in accordance 
     with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations, a plan for the distribution of the assets of 
     the Enterprise Fund.
       (b) Funds made available under titles II through V of this 
     Act for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the minimum 
     rate necessary to make timely payment for projects and 
     activities.


                      financial market assistance

       Sec. 630. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     headings ``TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'', ``DEVELOPMENT 
     ASSISTANCE'', ``TRANSITION INITIATIVES'', ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT 
     FUND'', ``INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE'', 
     ``ASSISTANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET 
     UNION'', ``NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND 
     RELATED PROGRAMS'', and ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND 
     BALTIC STATES'', not less than $40,000,000 should be made 
     available for building capital markets and financial systems 
     in countries eligible to receive United States assistance.


authorities for the peace corps, inter-american foundation and african 
                         development foundation

       Sec. 631. Unless expressly provided to the contrary, 
     provisions of this or any other Act, including provisions 
     contained in prior Acts authorizing or making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, shall not be construed to prohibit activities 
     authorized by or conducted under the Peace Corps Act, the 
     Inter-American Foundation Act or the African Development 
     Foundation Act. The agency shall promptly report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations whenever it is conducting 
     activities or is proposing to conduct activities in a country 
     for which assistance is prohibited.


                  impact on jobs in the united states

       Sec. 632. None of the funds appropriated under titles II 
     through V of this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     provide--
       (1) any financial incentive to a business enterprise 
     currently located in the United States for the purpose of 
     inducing such an enterprise to relocate outside the United 
     States if such incentive or inducement is likely to reduce 
     the number of employees of such business enterprise in the 
     United States because United States production is being 
     replaced by such enterprise outside the United States; or
       (2) assistance for any program, project, or activity that 
     contributes to the violation of internationally recognized 
     workers rights, as defined in section 507(4) of the Trade Act 
     of

[[Page H6902]]

     1974, of workers in the recipient country, including any 
     designated zone or area in that country: Provided, That the 
     application of section 507(4) (D) and (E) of such Act should 
     be commensurate with the level of development of the 
     recipient country and sector, and shall not preclude 
     assistance for the informal sector in such country, micro and 
     small-scale enterprise, and smallholder agriculture.


                          special authorities

       Sec. 633. (a) Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, 
     Montenegro, Victims of War, Displaced Children, and Displaced 
     Burmese.--Funds appropriated by this Act that are made 
     available for assistance for Afghanistan may be made 
     available notwithstanding section 612 of this Act or any 
     similar provision of law and section 660 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, and funds appropriated in titles II 
     and III of this Act that are made available for Iraq, 
     Lebanon, Montenegro, Pakistan, and for victims of war, 
     displaced children, and displaced Burmese, and to assist 
     victims of trafficking in persons and, subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, 
     to combat such trafficking, may be made available 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law.
       (b) Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation 
     Activities.--Funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of sections 103 through 106, and chapter 4 of part 
     II, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be used, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of supporting tropical forestry and biodiversity conservation 
     activities and energy programs aimed at reducing greenhouse 
     gas emissions: Provided, That such assistance shall be 
     subject to sections 116, 502B, and 620A of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961.
       (c) Personal Services Contractors.--Funds appropriated by 
     this Act to carry out chapter 1 of part I, chapter 4 of part 
     II, and section 667 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     and title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, may be used by the United States 
     Agency for International Development to employ up to 25 
     personal services contractors in the United States, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of providing direct, interim support for new or expanded 
     overseas programs and activities managed by the agency until 
     permanent direct hire personnel are hired and trained: 
     Provided, That not more than 10 of such contractors shall be 
     assigned to any bureau or office: Provided further, That such 
     funds appropriated to carry out title II of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, may be made 
     available only for personal services contractors assigned to 
     the Office of Food for Peace.
       (d)(1) Waiver.--The President may waive the provisions of 
     section 1003 of Public Law 100-204 if the President 
     determines and certifies in writing to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate that it is important to the national security 
     interests of the United States.
       (2) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) shall be effective for no more than a period 
     of 6 months at a time and shall not apply beyond 12 months 
     after the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Small Business.--In entering into multiple award 
     indefinite-quantity contracts with funds appropriated by this 
     Act, the United States Agency for International Development 
     may provide an exception to the fair opportunity process for 
     placing task orders under such contracts when the order is 
     placed with any category of small or small disadvantaged 
     business.
       (f) Reconstituting Civilian Police Authority.--In providing 
     assistance with funds appropriated by this Act under section 
     660(b)(6) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, support for 
     a nation emerging from instability may be deemed to mean 
     support for regional, district, municipal, or other sub-
     national entity emerging from instability, as well as a 
     nation emerging from instability.
       (g) World Food Program.--Of the funds managed by the Bureau 
     for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance of the 
     United States Agency for International Development, from this 
     or any other Act, not less than $10,000,000 shall be made 
     available as a general contribution to the World Food 
     Program, notwithstanding any other provision of law.
       (h) Extension of Authority.--
       (1) With respect to funds appropriated by this Act that are 
     available for assistance for Pakistan, the President may 
     waive the prohibition on assistance contained in section 608 
     of this Act subject to the requirements contained in section 
     1(b) of Public Law 107-57, as amended, for a determination 
     and certification, and consultation, by the President prior 
     to the exercise of such waiver authority.
       (2) Section 612 of this Act and section 620(q) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not apply with respect 
     to assistance for Pakistan from funds appropriated by this 
     Act.
       (3) Notwithstanding the date contained in section 6 of 
     Public Law 107-57, as amended, the provisions of sections 2 
     and 4 of that Act shall remain in effect through the current 
     fiscal year.
       (i) Middle East Foundation.--Of the funds appropriated in 
     this Act under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' that are 
     available for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, may be 
     made available, including as an endowment, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law and following consultations with 
     the Committees on Appropriations, to establish and operate a 
     Middle East Foundation, or any other similar entity, whose 
     purposes include to support democracy, governance, human 
     rights, and the rule of law: Provided, That such funds may be 
     made available to the Foundation only to the extent that the 
     Foundation has commitments from sources other than the United 
     States Government to at least match the funds provided under 
     the authority of this subsection: Provided further, That 
     provisions contained in section 201 of the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989 (excluding the 
     authorizations of appropriations provided in subsection (b) 
     of that section and the requirement that a majority of the 
     members of the board of directors be citizens of the United 
     States provided in subsection (d)(3)(B) of that section) 
     shall be deemed to apply to any such foundation or similar 
     entity referred to under this subsection, and to funds made 
     available to such entity, in order to enable it to provide 
     assistance for purposes of this section: Provided further, 
     That prior to the initial obligation of funds for any such 
     foundation or similar entity pursuant to the authorities of 
     this subsection, other than for administrative support, the 
     Secretary of State shall take steps to ensure, on an ongoing 
     basis, that any such funds made available pursuant to such 
     authorities are not provided to or through any individual or 
     group that the management of the foundation or similar entity 
     knows or has reason to believe, advocates, plans, sponsors, 
     or otherwise engages in terrorist activities: Provided 
     further, That section 629 of this Act shall apply to any such 
     foundation or similar entity established pursuant to this 
     subsection: Provided further, That the authority of the 
     Foundation, or any similar entity, to provide assistance 
     shall cease to be effective on September 30, 2010.
       (j) Extension of Authority.--The Foreign Operations Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 
     (Public Law 101-167) is amended--
       (1) in section 599D (8 U.S.C. 1157 note)--
       (A) in subsection(b)(3), before ``2007'' by striking 
     ``and'', and after ``2007'' by inserting, ``and 2008,'' and
       (B) in subsection (e), by striking ``2007'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2008''; and
       (2) in section 599E (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) in subsection 
     (b)(2), by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2008''.


                     arab league boycott of israel

       Sec. 634. It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Arab League boycott of Israel, and the secondary 
     boycott of American firms that have commercial ties with 
     Israel, is an impediment to peace in the region and to United 
     States investment and trade in the Middle East and North 
     Africa;
       (2) the Arab League boycott, which was regrettably 
     reinstated in 1997, should be immediately and publicly 
     terminated, and the Central Office for the Boycott of Israel 
     immediately disbanded;
       (3) all Arab League states should normalize relations with 
     their neighbor Israel;
       (4) the President and the Secretary of State should 
     continue to vigorously oppose the Arab League boycott of 
     Israel and find concrete steps to demonstrate that opposition 
     by, for example, taking into consideration the participation 
     of any recipient country in the boycott when determining to 
     sell weapons to said country; and
       (5) the President should report to Congress annually on 
     specific steps being taken by the United States to encourage 
     Arab League states to normalize their relations with Israel 
     to bring about the termination of the Arab League boycott of 
     Israel, including those to encourage allies and trading 
     partners of the United States to enact laws prohibiting 
     businesses from complying with the boycott and penalizing 
     businesses that do comply.


                       eligibility for assistance

       Sec. 635. (a) Assistance Through Nongovernmental 
     Organizations.--Restrictions contained under titles II 
     through V of this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     in support of programs of nongovernmental organizations from 
     funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     chapters 1, 10, 11, and 12 of part I and chapter 4 of part II 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and from funds 
     appropriated under the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN 
     EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES'': Provided, That before using 
     the authority of this subsection to furnish assistance in 
     support of programs of nongovernmental organizations, the 
     President shall notify the Committees on Appropriations under 
     the regular notification procedures of those committees, 
     including a description of the program to be assisted, the 
     assistance to be provided, and the reasons for furnishing 
     such assistance: Provided further, That nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to alter any existing statutory 
     prohibitions against abortion or involuntary sterilizations 
     contained in this or any other Act.
       (b) Public Law 480.--During fiscal year 2008, restrictions 
     contained in this or any other Act with respect to assistance 
     for a country shall not be construed to restrict assistance 
     under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated to 
     carry

[[Page H6903]]

     out title I of such Act and made available pursuant to this 
     subsection may be obligated or expended except as provided 
     through the regular notification procedures of the Committees 
     on Appropriations.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to countries that support international terrorism; 
     or
       (2) with respect to section 116 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law prohibiting 
     assistance to the government of a country that violates 
     internationally recognized human rights.


                         reservations of funds

       Sec. 636. (a) Funds appropriated under titles II through V 
     of this Act which are specifically designated may be 
     reprogrammed for other programs within the same account 
     notwithstanding the designation if compliance with the 
     designation is made impossible by operation of any provision 
     of this or any other Act: Provided, That any such 
     reprogramming shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That assistance that is reprogrammed pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be made available under the same terms 
     and conditions as originally provided.
       (b) In addition to the authority contained in subsection 
     (a), the original period of availability of funds 
     appropriated by this Act and administered by the United 
     States Agency for International Development that are 
     specifically designated for particular programs or activities 
     by this or any other Act shall be extended for an additional 
     fiscal year if the Administrator of such agency determines 
     and reports promptly to the Committees on Appropriations that 
     the termination of assistance to a country or a significant 
     change in circumstances makes it unlikely that such 
     designated funds can be obligated during the original period 
     of availability: Provided, That such designated funds that 
     are continued available for an additional fiscal year shall 
     be obligated only for the purpose of such designation.


                 ceilings and designated funding levels

       Sec. 637. Ceilings and specifically designated funding 
     levels contained in this Act shall not be applicable to funds 
     or authorities appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     any subsequent Act unless such Act specifically so directs: 
     Provided, That specifically designated funding levels or 
     minimum funding requirements contained in any other Act shall 
     not be applicable to funds appropriated by this Act.


                 prohibition on publicity or propaganda

       Sec. 638. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
     the United States not authorized before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act by the Congress: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $25,000 may be made available to carry out the 
     provisions of section 316 of Public Law 96-533.


           prohibition of payments to united nations members

       Sec. 639. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to titles II through V of this Act for carrying out 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used to pay in 
     whole or in part any assessments, arrearages, or dues of any 
     member of the United Nations or, from funds appropriated by 
     this Act to carry out chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the costs for participation of 
     another country's delegation at international conferences 
     held under the auspices of multilateral or international 
     organizations.


              nongovernmental organizations--documentation

       Sec. 640. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to titles II through V of this Act shall be 
     available to a nongovernmental organization which fails to 
     provide upon timely request any document, file, or record 
     necessary to the auditing requirements of the United States 
     Agency for International Development.


  prohibition on assistance to foreign governments that export lethal 
   military equipment to countries supporting international terrorism

       Sec. 641. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by titles II through V of this Act may be 
     available to any foreign government which provides lethal 
     military equipment to a country the government of which the 
     Secretary of State has determined is a terrorist government 
     for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979. The prohibition under this section with respect to a 
     foreign government shall terminate 12 months after that 
     government ceases to provide such military equipment. This 
     section applies with respect to lethal military equipment 
     provided under a contract entered into after October 1, 1997.
       (b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other 
     similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President 
     determines that furnishing such assistance is important to 
     the national interests of the United States.
       (c) Whenever the waiver authority of subsection (b) is 
     exercised, the President shall submit to the appropriate 
     Congressional committees a report with respect to the 
     furnishing of such assistance. Any such report shall include 
     a detailed explanation of the assistance to be provided, 
     including the estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and 
     an explanation of how the assistance furthers United States 
     national interests.


  withholding of assistance for parking fines and real property taxes 
                       owed by foreign countries

       Sec. 642. (a) Subject to subsection (c), of the funds 
     appropriated under titles II through V of this Act that are 
     made available for assistance for a foreign country, an 
     amount equal to 110 percent of the total amount of the unpaid 
     fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties and unpaid 
     property taxes owed by the central government of such country 
     shall be withheld from obligation for assistance for the 
     central government of such country until the Secretary of 
     State submits a certification to the appropriate 
     congressional committees stating that such parking fines and 
     penalties and unpaid property taxes are fully paid.
       (b) Funds withheld from obligation pursuant to subsection 
     (a) may be made available for other programs or activities 
     funded by this Act, after consultation with and subject to 
     the regular notification procedures of the appropriate 
     congressional committees, provided that no such funds shall 
     be made available for assistance for the central government 
     of a foreign country that has not paid the total amount of 
     the fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties and unpaid 
     property taxes owed by such country.
       (c) Subsection (a) shall not include amounts that have been 
     withheld under any other provision of law.
       (d)(1) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements 
     set forth in subsection (a) with respect to parking fines and 
     penalties no sooner than 60 days from the date of enactment 
     of this Act, or at any time with respect to a particular 
     country, if the Secretary determines that it is in the 
     national interests of the United States to do so.
       (2) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements set 
     forth in subsection (a) with respect to the unpaid property 
     taxes if the Secretary of State determines that it is in the 
     national interests of the United States to do so.
       (e) Not later than six months after the initial exercise of 
     the waiver authority in subsection (d), the Secretary of 
     State, after consultations with the City of New York, shall 
     submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations 
     describing a strategy, including a timetable and steps 
     currently being taken, to collect the parking fines and 
     penalties and unpaid property taxes and interest owed by 
     nations receiving foreign assistance under this Act.
       (f) In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The term ``fully adjudicated'' includes circumstances 
     in which the person to whom the vehicle is registered--
       (A)(i) has not responded to the parking violation summons; 
     or (ii) has not followed the appropriate adjudication 
     procedure to challenge the summons; and
       (B) the period of time for payment of or challenge to the 
     summons has lapsed.
       (3) The term ``parking fines and penalties'' means parking 
     fines and penalties--
       (A) owed to--
       (i) the District of Columbia; or
       (ii) New York, New York; and
       (B) incurred during the period April 1, 1997, through 
     September 30, 2007.
       (4) The term ``unpaid property taxes'' means the amount of 
     unpaid taxes and interest determined to be owed by a foreign 
     country on real property in the District of Columbia or New 
     York, New York in a court order or judgment entered against 
     such country by a court of the United States or any State or 
     subdivision thereof.


    limitation on assistance for the plo for the west bank and gaza

       Sec. 643. None of the funds appropriated under titles II 
     through V of this Act may be obligated for assistance for the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the West Bank and 
     Gaza unless the President has exercised the authority under 
     section 604(a) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 
     1995 (title VI of Public Law 104-107) or any other 
     legislation to suspend or make inapplicable section 307 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and that suspension is 
     still in effect: Provided, That if the President fails to 
     make the certification under section 604(b)(2) of the Middle 
     East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 or to suspend the 
     prohibition under other legislation, funds appropriated by 
     this Act may not be obligated for assistance for the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization for the West Bank and Gaza.


                     war crimes tribunals drawdown

       Sec. 644. If the President determines that doing so will 
     contribute to a just resolution of charges regarding genocide 
     or other violations of international humanitarian law, the 
     President may direct a drawdown pursuant to section 552(c) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of up to $30,000,000 of 
     commodities and services for the United Nations War Crimes 
     Tribunal established with regard to the former Yugoslavia by 
     the United Nations Security Council or such other tribunals 
     or commissions as the Council may establish or authorize to 
     deal with such violations, without regard to the ceiling 
     limitation contained in paragraph (2) thereof: Provided, That 
     the determination required under this section shall be in 
     lieu of any determinations otherwise required under section 
     552(c): Provided further, That the drawdown made under

[[Page H6904]]

     this section for any tribunal shall not be construed as an 
     endorsement or precedent for the establishment of any 
     standing or permanent international criminal tribunal or 
     court: Provided further, That funds made available for 
     tribunals other than Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or the Special Court 
     for Sierra Leone shall be made available subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                               landmines

       Sec. 645. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     demining equipment available to the United States Agency for 
     International Development and the Department of State and 
     used in support of the clearance of landmines and unexploded 
     ordnance for humanitarian purposes may be disposed of on a 
     grant basis in foreign countries, subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the President may prescribe.


           restrictions concerning the palestinian authority

       Sec. 646. None of the funds appropriated under titles II 
     through V of this Act may be obligated or expended to create 
     in any part of Jerusalem a new office of any department or 
     agency of the United States Government for the purpose of 
     conducting official United States Government business with 
     the Palestinian Authority over Gaza and Jericho or any 
     successor Palestinian governing entity provided for in the 
     Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply to the acquisition of additional 
     space for the existing Consulate General in Jerusalem: 
     Provided further, That meetings between officers and 
     employees of the United States and officials of the 
     Palestinian Authority, or any successor Palestinian governing 
     entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of 
     Principles, for the purpose of conducting official United 
     States Government business with such authority should 
     continue to take place in locations other than Jerusalem. As 
     has been true in the past, officers and employees of the 
     United States Government may continue to meet in Jerusalem on 
     other subjects with Palestinians (including those who now 
     occupy positions in the Palestinian Authority), have social 
     contacts, and have incidental discussions.


               prohibition of payment of certain expenses

       Sec. 647. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under titles III or IV of this Act under the 
     heading ``INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING'' or 
     ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'' for Informational 
     Program activities or under the headings ``CHILD SURVIVAL AND 
     HEALTH PROGRAMS FUND'', ``DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'', and 
     ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' may be obligated or expended to pay 
     for--
       (1) alcoholic beverages; or
       (2) entertainment expenses for activities that are 
     substantially of a recreational character, including but not 
     limited to entrance fees at sporting events, theatrical and 
     musical productions, and amusement parks.


                                 haiti

       Sec. 648. (a) The Government of Haiti shall be eligible to 
     purchase defense articles and services under the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), for the Coast Guard.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated by this act under titles III 
     and IV, not less than $201,584,000 shall be available for 
     assistance for Haiti: Provided, That not less than the 
     following amounts of funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     following heading shall be made available--
       (1) $20,000,000 from ``CHILD SURVIVAL AND HEALTH PROGRAMS 
     FUND'';
       (2) $25,000,000 from ``DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'';
       (3) $83,000,000 from ``GLOBAL HIV/AIDS INITIATIVE'';
       (4) $63,394,000 from ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'';
       (5) $9,000,000 from ``INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND 
     LAW ENFORCEMENT'';
       (6) $990,000 from ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM''; 
     and
       (7) $200,000 from ``INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND 
     TRAINING''.
       (c) None of the funds made available in this Act under the 
     heading ``INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW 
     ENFORCEMENT'' may be used to transfer excess weapons, 
     ammunition or other lethal property of an agency of the 
     United States Government to the Government of Haiti for use 
     by the Haitian National Police until the Secretary of State 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that:
       (1) the United Nations Mission in Haiti has carried out the 
     vetting of the senior levels of the Haitian National Police 
     and has ensured that those credibly alleged to have committed 
     serious crimes, including drug trafficking and human rights 
     violations, have been suspended; and
       (2) the Haitian National Government is cooperating in a 
     reform and restructuring plan for the Haitian National Police 
     and the reform of the judicial system as called for in United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 1608 adopted on June 22, 
     2005.


                                colombia

       Sec. 649. (a) Availability of Funds for Assistance for 
     Colombia.--Of the funds appropriated in titles III and IV of 
     this Act, not more than $530,608,000 shall be available for 
     assistance for Colombia: Provided, That not more than 
     $49,500,000 shall be available from funds appropriated by 
     this Act under the headings ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING 
     PROGRAM'' and ``INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND 
     TRAINING'' for assistance for Colombia: Provided further, 
     That not less than $22,250,000 shall be available for rule of 
     law activities from funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     heading ``INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW 
     ENFORCEMENT'': Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated by this act under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT 
     FUND'', not less than $218,500,000 shall be apportioned 
     directly to the United States Agency for International 
     Development (USAID) for alternative development/institution 
     building and sustainable development programs, of which not 
     less than $15,000,000 shall be made available for economic 
     development activities in Afro-Colombian and indigenous 
     communities, in consultation with Afro-Colombian and 
     indigenous authorities and community members: Provided 
     further, That with respect to funds apportioned to USAID 
     under the previous proviso, the responsibility for policy 
     decisions for the use of such funds, including what 
     activities will be funded and the amount of funds that will 
     be provided for each of those activities, shall be the 
     responsibility of the Administrator of USAID in consultation 
     with the Assistant Secretary of State for International 
     Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Provided further, That 
     with respect to funds apportioned to USAID under the third 
     proviso of this section, not less than $16,500,000 shall be 
     available for judicial reform programs in Colombia; not less 
     than $8,250,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     organizations and programs to protect human rights; and not 
     less than $5,000,000 shall be made available for assistance 
     for the Fiscalia: Provided further, That funds made available 
     to furnish assistance to the Government of Colombia in this 
     Act and prior year Acts making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs, may be 
     used (1) to support a unified campaign against narcotics 
     trafficking and terrorist organizations and activities; and 
     (2) to take actions to protect human health and welfare in 
     emergency circumstances, including undertaking rescue 
     operations: Provided further, That the authority contained in 
     the previous proviso shall cease to be effective if the 
     Secretary of State has credible evidence that the Colombian 
     Government is not conducting vigorous operations to restore 
     government authority and respect for human rights in areas 
     under the effective control of paramilitary, illegal self-
     defense groups, illegal security cooperatives, or other 
     criminal and guerrilla organizations: Provided further, That 
     the President shall ensure that if any helicopter procured 
     with funds in this Act or prior Acts making appropriations 
     for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
     programs, is used to aid or abet the operations of any 
     illegal self-defense group or illegal security cooperative, 
     such helicopter shall be immediately returned to the United 
     States.


         limitation on assistance to the palestinian authority

       Sec. 650. (a) Prohibition of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds 
     to the Palestinian Authority.
       (b) Waiver.--The prohibition included in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply if the President certifies in writing to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate that waiving such prohibition is 
     important to the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       (c) Period of Application of Waiver.--Any waiver pursuant 
     to subsection (b) shall be effective for no more than a 
     period of 6 months at a time and shall not apply beyond 12 
     months after the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Report.--Whenever the waiver authority pursuant to 
     subsection (b) is exercised, the President shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations detailing the 
     steps the Palestinian Authority has taken to arrest 
     terrorists, confiscate weapons and dismantle the terrorist 
     infrastructure. The report shall also include a description 
     of how funds will be spent and the accounting procedures in 
     place to ensure that they are properly disbursed.


              limitation on assistance to security forces

       Sec. 651. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign 
     country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that 
     such unit has committed gross violations of human rights, 
     unless the Secretary determines and reports to the Committees 
     on Appropriations that the government of such country is 
     taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of 
     the security forces unit to justice: Provided, That nothing 
     in this section shall be construed to withhold funds made 
     available under titles II through V of this Act from any unit 
     of the security forces of a foreign country not credibly 
     alleged to be involved in gross violations of human rights: 
     Provided further, That in the event that funds are withheld 
     from any unit pursuant to this section, the Secretary of 
     State shall promptly inform the foreign government of the 
     basis for such action and shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, assist the foreign government in taking 
     effective measures to bring the responsible members of the 
     security forces to justice.

[[Page H6905]]

                    foreign military training report

       Sec. 652. The annual foreign military training report 
     required by section 656 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     shall be submitted by the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of State to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate by the date specified 
     in that section.


                       authorization requirement

       Sec. 653. Funds appropriated by this Act, except funds 
     appropriated under the headings ``TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 
     AGENCY'', ``OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION'', and 
     ``GLOBAL HIV/AIDS INITIATIVE'', may be obligated and expended 
     notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 and section 
     15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956.


                                 libya

       Sec. 654. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out any diplomatic operations in Libya or 
     accept the credentials of any representative of the 
     Government of Libya until such time as the President 
     certifies to Congress that Libya has taken irrevocable steps 
     to pay, in its entirety, the total amount of the settlement 
     commitment of $10,000,000 to the surviving families of each 
     descendent of Pan Am Flight 103 and certifies to Congress 
     that Libya will continue to work in good faith to resolve the 
     outstanding cases of United States victims of terrorism 
     sponsored or supported by Libya, including the settlement of 
     the La Belle Discotheque bombing.


                         palestinian statehood

       Sec. 655. (a) Limitation on Assistance.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under titles II through V of this Act may be 
     provided to support a Palestinian state unless the Secretary 
     of State determines and certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that--
       (1) a new leadership of a Palestinian governing entity has 
     been democratically elected through credible and competitive 
     elections;
       (2) the elected governing entity of a new Palestinian 
     state--
       (A) has demonstrated a firm commitment to peaceful co-
     existence with the State of Israel;
       (B) is taking appropriate measures to counter terrorism and 
     terrorist financing in the West Bank and Gaza, including the 
     dismantling of terrorist infrastructures;
       (C) is establishing a new Palestinian security entity that 
     is cooperative with appropriate Israeli and other appropriate 
     security organizations; and
       (3) the Palestinian Authority (or the governing body of a 
     new Palestinian state) is working with other countries in the 
     region to vigorously pursue efforts to establish a just, 
     lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will 
     enable Israel and an independent Palestinian state to exist 
     within the context of full and normal relationships, which 
     should include--
       (A) termination of all claims or states of belligerency;
       (B) respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, 
     territorial integrity, and political independence of every 
     state in the area through measures including the 
     establishment of demilitarized zones;
       (C) their right to live in peace within secure and 
     recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
       (D) freedom of navigation through international waterways 
     in the area; and
       (E) a framework for achieving a just settlement of the 
     refugee problem.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the newly-elected governing entity should enact a 
     constitution assuring the rule of law, an independent 
     judiciary, and respect for human rights for its citizens, and 
     should enact other laws and regulations assuring transparent 
     and accountable governance.
       (c) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) if he 
     determines that it is vital to the national security 
     interests of the United States to do so.
       (d) Exemption.--The restriction in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to assistance intended to help reform the Palestinian 
     Authority and affiliated institutions, or a newly-elected 
     governing entity, in order to help meet the requirements of 
     subsection (a), consistent with the provisions of section 650 
     of this Act (``Limitation on Assistance to the Palestinian 
     Authority'').


                 limitations on assistance to colombia

       Sec. 656. (a) Withholding of Funds for Assistance to the 
     Colombian Armed Forces.--
       (1) Requirement to withhold assistance funding.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the headings ``ANDEAN 
     COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE'' and ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING 
     PROGRAM'' that are available for assistance for the Colombian 
     Armed Forces--
       (A) 25 percent of such funds under each such heading shall 
     be withheld from obligation until the Secretary of State 
     consults with, and submits a written certification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Colombia 
     has met the requirements described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (D) of paragraph (2); and
       (B) An additional 15 percent of such funds under each such 
     heading shall be withheld from obligation until July 31, 
     2008, and shall only be obligated after the Secretary of 
     State consults with, and submits a written certification to, 
     the Committees on Appropriations that, the Government of 
     Colombia is continuing to meet the requirements described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) and has met 
     the requirements described in subparagraphs (E) and (F) of 
     such paragraph.
       (2) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) The Commander General of the Colombian Armed Forces is 
     suspending from the Colombian Armed Forces those members, of 
     whatever rank, who, according to the Minister of Defense or 
     the Procuraduria General de la Nacion, have been credibly 
     alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, 
     including extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or 
     abetted paramilitary organizations.
       (B) The Government of Colombia is investigating and 
     prosecuting, in the civilian justice system, those members of 
     the Colombian Armed Forces, of whatever rank, who have been 
     credibly alleged to have committed human rights violations, 
     including extra-judicial killings, torture, or attacks 
     against human rights defenders, or to have aided or abetted 
     paramilitary organizations or successor armed groups, is 
     suspending such members during the course of investigation, 
     and is promptly punishing those members of the Colombian 
     Armed Forces found to have committed such violations of human 
     rights or to have aided or abetted paramilitary organizations 
     or successor armed groups.
       (C) The Colombian Armed Forces have made demonstrable 
     efforts to cooperate fully with civilian prosecutors and 
     judicial authorities in cases referred to in subparagraph (B) 
     (including providing requested information, such as the 
     identity of persons suspended from the Armed Forces and the 
     nature and cause of the suspension, and access to witnesses, 
     relevant military documents, and other requested 
     information).
       (D) The Government of Colombia is ensuring that the 
     Colombian Armed Forces are not violating the land and 
     property rights of Colombia's indigenous and Afro-Colombian 
     communities, and that the Colombian Armed Forces are 
     appropriately distinguishing between civilians, including 
     displaced persons, and combatants in their operations.
       (E) The Colombian Armed Forces have made substantial 
     progress in and are severing links (including denying access 
     to military intelligence, vehicles, and other equipment or 
     supplies, and ceasing other forms of active or tacit 
     cooperation) at all levels, with paramilitary organizations 
     or successor armed groups, especially in regions in which 
     such organizations have or had a significant presence.
       (F) The civilian judicial authorities of the Government of 
     Colombia are making demonstrable progress in dismantling 
     paramilitary leadership and financial networks by arresting 
     and vigorously prosecuting under civilian criminal law 
     individuals who have provided financial, planning, or 
     logistical support, or have otherwise aided or abetted 
     paramilitary organizations or successor armed groups, by 
     identifying and confiscating land and other assets illegally 
     acquired by paramilitary organizations or their associates 
     and returning such land or assets to their rightful owners, 
     by revoking reduced sentences for demobilized paramilitaries 
     who engage in new criminal activity, and by arresting, 
     prosecuting under civilian criminal law, and when requested, 
     promptly extraditing to the United States, new, re-armed, and 
     non-demobilized members of successor groups, especially in 
     regions in which these networks have or had a significant 
     presence.
       (3) Certain funds exempted.--The requirement to withhold 
     funds from obligation pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to funds made 
     available under the heading ``ANDEAN COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE'' 
     for continued support for the Critical Flight Safety Program 
     or any alternative development programs in Colombia 
     administered by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State.
       (4) Report.--At the time the Secretary of State submits the 
     certifications required by paragraph (1)(A) and (1)(B) of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall also submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations a report that contains, with 
     respect to each such paragraph, a detailed description of the 
     specific actions taken by both the Colombian Government and 
     Colombian Armed Forces which supports each requirement of the 
     certification, and the cases or issues brought to the 
     attention of the Secretary for which the response or action 
     taken by the Colombian Government or Armed Forces has been 
     inadequate.
       (b) Congressional Notification.--Funds made available by 
     this Act for the Colombian Armed Forces shall be subject to 
     the regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       (c) Consultative Process.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter 
     until September 30, 2010, the Secretary of State shall 
     consult with internationally recognized human rights 
     organizations regarding progress in meeting the requirements 
     contained in subsection (a)(2).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Aided or abetted.--The term ``aided or abetted'' means 
     to provide any support to

[[Page H6906]]

     paramilitary or successor armed groups, including taking 
     actions which allow, facilitate, or otherwise foster the 
     activities of such groups.
       (2) Paramilitary groups.--The term ``paramilitary groups'' 
     means illegal self-defense groups and illegal security 
     cooperatives, including those groups and cooperatives that 
     have formerly demobilized but continue illegal operations, as 
     well as parts thereof.


 prohibition on assistance to the palestinian broadcasting corporation

       Sec. 657. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide equipment, 
     technical support, consulting services, or any other form of 
     assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.


        support of peace process and demobilization in colombia

       Sec. 658. (a) Assistance for Demobilization and Disarmament 
     of Former Irregular Combatants in Colombia.--(1) Of the funds 
     appropriated in title III of this Act under the heading 
     ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'', up to $23,000,000 shall be 
     available for assistance for the demobilization and full 
     dismantlement of foreign terrorist organizations in Colombia 
     in accordance with the funding designations contained in 
     paragraph (2) and, in the case of assistance under paragraph 
     (2)(D), the certification requirements contained in paragraph 
     (3).
       (2) Funding designation.--Of the funds made available 
     pursuant to paragraph (1)--
       (A) $10,000,000 shall be made available to support the 
     Justice and Peace and Human Rights Units of the Fiscalia for 
     implementation of the Justice and Peace Law;
       (B) not less than $5,000,000 shall be made available to 
     support the Fiscalia, Procuraduria, or Defensoria for 
     establishment of a victims' protection program;
       (C) not less than $3,000,000 shall be made available to the 
     Defensoria to support legal representation of victims as 
     required by the Justice and Peace Law; and
       (D) up to $5,000,000 shall be made available for assistance 
     for the demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration of 
     former members of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) in 
     Colombia, specifically the United Self-Defense Forces of 
     Colombia (AUC), the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 
     (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), if the 
     Secretary of State submits a certification described in 
     paragraph (3) to the Committees on Appropriations prior to 
     the initial obligation of amounts for such assistance.
       (3) Certification.--The certification required by paragraph 
     (2)(D) is a certification that--
       (A) assistance for the fiscal year will be provided only 
     for individuals who:
       (i) have verifiably renounced and terminated any 
     affiliation or involvement with FTOs or other illegal armed 
     groups;
       (ii) are meeting all the requirements of the Colombia 
     Demobilization Program, including having fully and truthfully 
     disclosed their involvement in past crimes and their 
     knowledge of the foreign terrorist organizations structure, 
     financing sources, illegal assets, and the location of 
     kidnapping victims and bodies of the disappeared; and
       (iii) are not involved in threatening or intimidating human 
     rights defenders.
       (B) the Government of Colombia is providing full 
     cooperation to the Government of the United States to 
     extradite the leaders and members of the FTOs who have been 
     indicted in the United States for murder, kidnapping, 
     narcotics trafficking, and other violations of United States 
     law, and is immediately extraditing to the United States 
     those commanders, leaders and members indicted in the United 
     States who are credibly alleged to have breached the terms of 
     the Colombia Demobilization Program, including by failing to 
     fully confess their crimes, failing to disclose their assets, 
     or committing new crimes since the approval of the Justice 
     and Peace Law;
       (C) the Government of Colombia is not taking any steps to 
     legalize the titles of land or other assets illegally 
     obtained and held by FTOs, their associates, or successors, 
     has established effective procedures to identify such land 
     and assets, and is vigorously confiscating and returning such 
     land and other assets to their rightful owners; and the 
     Government of Colombia's reintegration programs exclude any 
     projects that would leave illegally obtained land or assets 
     in the possession of FTO members, their associates, or 
     successors;
       (D) members of FTOs who receive sentence reductions under 
     the Colombian Justice and Peace Law are serving their 
     sentences in maximum-security penitentiary establishments, 
     under conditions of detention that are appropriate to deter 
     and effectively prevent them from continuing to engage in 
     criminal activity;
       (E) the Government of Colombia is implementing a concrete 
     and workable framework for dismantling the organizational 
     structures of foreign terrorist organizations;
       (F) funds are not made available as cash payments to 
     individuals and are available only for activities relating to 
     demobilization, disarmament, reintegration (including 
     training and education), and vetting; and
       (G) the Government of Colombia is promptly, impartially, 
     and thoroughly investigating all attacks against human rights 
     defenders allegedly committed by FTOs or other illegal armed 
     groups.
       (4) Report.--The report accompanying the certification 
     required by paragraph (3) shall specify, with respect to each 
     condition described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of 
     paragraph (3)--
       (A) the action taken by the Colombian Government which 
     supports the certification;
       (B) the cases or issues brought to the attention of the 
     Secretary for which the response or action taken by the 
     Colombian Government has been inadequate; and
       (C) the views of the Colombian Attorney General and the 
     Inspector General with respect to the Colombian Government's 
     actions in relation to the conditions described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (3).
       (5) Consultative process.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter 
     until September 30, 2010, the Secretary of State shall 
     consult with internationally recognized human rights and 
     justice organizations, including organizations representing 
     internally displaced persons, and representatives of victims 
     of demobilized FTOs, regarding progress in meeting the 
     conditions contained in paragraph (3).
       (6) Foreign terrorist organization defined.--In this 
     subsection the term ``foreign terrorist organization'' means 
     an organization designated as a terrorist organization under 
     section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (7) Congressional notification.--Funds made available in 
     title III of this Act for demobilization/reintegration of 
     former members of FTOs in Colombia shall be subject to prior 
     consultation with, and the regular notification procedures 
     of, the Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) Assistance to the Organization of American States (OAS) 
     Mission To Support the Peace Process in Colombia.--Of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act under the heading ``ECONOMIC 
     SUPPORT FUND'', not less than $3,000,000 shall be made 
     available to support the peace process in Colombia, as 
     follows:
       (1) not less than $2,700,000 shall be made available to the 
     OAS Mission to Support the Peace Process in Colombia to 
     assist the mission to fulfill its mandate of independent 
     international verification of the paramilitary demobilization 
     process; and
       (2) not less than $300,000 may be made available to the 
     Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to conduct 
     monitoring of the demobilization process.


                       west bank and gaza program

       Sec. 659. (a) Oversight.--For fiscal year 2008, 30 days 
     prior to the initial obligation of funds for the bilateral 
     West Bank and Gaza Program, the Secretary of State shall 
     certify to the Committees on Appropriations that procedures 
     have been established to assure the Comptroller General of 
     the United States will have access to appropriate United 
     States financial information in order to review the uses of 
     United States assistance for the Program funded under the 
     heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' for the West Bank and Gaza.
       (b) Vetting.--Prior to the obligation of funds appropriated 
     by this Act under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' for 
     assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, the Secretary of State 
     shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that such 
     assistance is not provided to or through any individual, 
     private or government entity, or educational institution that 
     the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, 
     plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist 
     activity nor those that have as a trustee any member of a 
     certified foreign terrorist organization. The Secretary of 
     State shall, as appropriate, establish procedures specifying 
     the steps to be taken in carrying out this subsection and 
     shall terminate assistance to any individual, entity, or 
     educational institution which she has determined to be 
     involved in or advocating terrorist activity.
       (c) Prohibition.--
       (1) None of the funds appropriated under titles II thourgh 
     V of this Act for assistance under the West Bank and Gaza 
     program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing 
     or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have 
     committed acts of terrorism.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds made available by this or prior appropriations act, 
     including funds made available by transfer, may be made 
     available for obligation for security assistance for the West 
     Bank and Gaza until the Secretary of State reports to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     on the benchmarks that have been established for security 
     assistance for the West Bank and Gaza and reports on the 
     extent of Palestinian compliance with such benchmarks.
       (d) Audits.--
       (1) The Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall ensure that Federal or non-
     Federal audits of all contractors and grantees, and 
     significant subcontractors and sub-grantees, under the West 
     Bank and Gaza Program, are conducted at least on an annual 
     basis to ensure, among other things, compliance with this 
     section.
       (2) Of the funds appropriated by this Act up to $1,000,000 
     may be used by the Office of the Inspector General of the 
     United States Agency for International Development for 
     audits, inspections, and other activities in furtherance of 
     the requirements of this subsection.
       (e) Subsequent to the certification specified in subsection 
     (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct an

[[Page H6907]]

     audit and an investigation of the treatment, handling, and 
     uses of all funds for the bilateral West Bank and Gaza 
     Program in fiscal year 2008 under the heading ``ECONOMIC 
     SUPPORT FUND''. The audit shall address--
       (1) the extent to which such Program complies with the 
     requirements of subsections (b) and (c), and
       (2) an examination of all programs, projects, and 
     activities carried out under such Program, including both 
     obligations and expenditures.
       (f) Not later than 180 days after enactment of this act, 
     the secretary of state shall submit a report to the 
     committees on appropriations updating the report contained in 
     section 2106 of chapter 2 of title II of Public Law 109-13.


          contributions to the united nations population fund

       Sec. 660. (a) Limitations on Amount of Contribution.--Of 
     the amounts made available under ``International 
     Organizations and Programs'' and ``Child Survival and Health 
     Programs Fund'' accounts for fiscal year 2008, $40,000,000 
     shall be made available for the United Nations Population 
     Fund (UNFPA): Provided, That of this amount, not less than 
     $23,000,000 shall be derived from funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``International Organizations and Programs''.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated under the 
     heading ``INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS'' in this 
     Act that are available for UNFPA, that are not made available 
     for UNFPA because of the operation of any provision of law, 
     shall be transferred to the ``CHILD SURVIVAL AND HEALTH 
     PROGRAMS FUND'' account and shall be made available for 
     family planning, maternal, and reproductive health 
     activities, subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.
       (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds in China.--None of the 
     funds made available under this Act may be used by UNFPA for 
     a country program in the People's Republic of China.
       (d) Conditions on Availability of Funds.--Amounts made 
     available under this Act for UNFPA may not be made available 
     to UNFPA unless--
       (1) UNFPA maintains amounts made available to UNFPA under 
     this section in an account separate from other accounts of 
     UNFPA;
       (2) UNFPA does not commingle amounts made available to 
     UNFPA under this section with other sums; and
       (3) UNFPA does not fund abortions.
       (e) Report to Congress and Dollar-for-Dollar Withholding of 
     Funds.--
       (1) Not later than four months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to 
     the appropriate Congressional committees indicating the 
     amount of funds that the UNFPA is budgeting for the year in 
     which the report is submitted for a country program in the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (2) If a report under subparagraph (d) indicates that the 
     UNFPA plans to spend funds for a country program in the 
     People's Republic of China in the year covered by the report, 
     then the amount of such funds that the UNFPA plans to spend 
     in the People's Republic of China shall be deducted from the 
     funds made available to the UNFPA after March 1 for 
     obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year in which the 
     report is submitted.
       (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the 
     authority of the President to deny funds to any organization 
     by reason of the application of another provision of this Act 
     or any other provision of law.


                             war criminals

       Sec. 661. (a)(1) None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available under titles II through V of this 
     Act may be made available for assistance, and the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive 
     Director at each international financial institution to vote 
     against any new project involving the extension by such 
     institutions of any financial or technical assistance, to any 
     country, entity, or municipality whose competent authorities 
     have failed, as determined by the Secretary of State, to take 
     necessary and significant steps to implement its 
     international legal obligations to apprehend and transfer to 
     the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 
     (the ``Tribunal'') all persons in their territory who have 
     been indicted by the Tribunal and to otherwise cooperate with 
     the Tribunal.
       (2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to 
     humanitarian assistance or assistance for democratization.
       (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply unless the 
     Secretary of State determines and reports to the appropriate 
     Congressional committees that the competent authorities of 
     such country, entity, or municipality are--
       (1) cooperating with the Tribunal, including access for 
     investigators to archives and witnesses, the provision of 
     documents, and the surrender and transfer of indictees or 
     assistance in their apprehension; and
       (2) are acting consistently with the Dayton Accords.
       (c) Not less than ten days before any vote in an 
     international financial institution regarding the extension 
     of any new project involving financial or technical 
     assistance or grants to any country or entity described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, shall provide to 
     the Committees on Appropriations a written justification for 
     the proposed assistance, including an explanation of the 
     United States position regarding any such vote, as well as a 
     description of the location of the proposed assistance by 
     municipality, its purpose, and its intended beneficiaries.
       (d) In carrying out this section, the Secretary of State, 
     the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development, and the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall consult with representatives of human rights 
     organizations and all government agencies with relevant 
     information to help prevent indicted war criminals from 
     benefiting from any financial or technical assistance or 
     grants provided to any country or entity described in 
     subsection (a).
       (e) The Secretary of State may waive the application of 
     subsection (a) with respect to projects within a country, 
     entity, or municipality upon a written determination to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such assistance directly 
     supports the implementation of the Dayton Accords.
       (f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Country.--The term ``country'' means Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.
       (2) Entity.--The term ``entity'' refers to the Federation 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro and the 
     Republika Srpska.
       (3) Municipality.--The term ``municipality'' means a city, 
     town or other subdivision within a country or entity as 
     defined herein.
       (4) Dayton accords.--The term ``Dayton Accords'' means the 
     General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, together with annexes relating thereto, done at 
     Dayton, November 10 through 16, 1995.


                               user fees

       Sec. 662. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Director at each international 
     financial institution (as defined in section 1701(c)(2) of 
     the International Financial Institutions Act) and the 
     International Monetary Fund to oppose any loan, grant, 
     strategy or policy of these institutions that would require 
     user fees or service charges on poor people for primary 
     education or primary healthcare, including prevention, 
     treatment and care efforts for HIV/AIDS, malaria, 
     tuberculosis, and infant, child, and maternal well-being, in 
     connection with the institutions' financing programs.


                           funding for serbia

       Sec. 663. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for assistance for the central Government of Serbia 
     and the Government of Montenegro after May 31, 2008, if the 
     President has made the determination and certification 
     contained in subsection (c).
       (b) After May 31, 2008, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     should instruct the United States Executive Director at each 
     international financial institution to support loans and 
     assistance to the Government of Serbia and Government of 
     Montenegro subject to the conditions in subsection (c): 
     Provided, That section 576 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, as 
     amended, shall not apply to the provision of loans and 
     assistance to the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro 
     through international financial institutions.
       (c) The determination and certification referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a determination by the President and a 
     certification to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of Serbia and the Government of Montenegro is--
       (1) cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal 
     for the former Yugoslavia including access for investigators, 
     the provision of documents, timely information on the 
     location, travel, and sources of financial support of 
     indictees, and the surrender and transfer of indictees or 
     assistance in their apprehension, including Ratko Mladic;
       (2) taking steps that are consistent with the Dayton 
     Accords to end Serbian financial, political, security and 
     other support which has served to maintain separate Republika 
     Srpska institutions; and
       (3) taking steps to implement policies which reflect a 
     respect for minority rights and the rule of law.
       (d) This section shall not apply to Kosovo and Montenegro, 
     humanitarian assistance or assistance to promote democracy.


                   community-based police assistance

       Sec. 664. (a) Authority.--Funds made available by title III 
     of this Act to carry out the provisions of chapter 1 of part 
     I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, may be used, notwithstanding section 660 of that Act, 
     to enhance the effectiveness and accountability of civilian 
     police authority through training and technical assistance in 
     human rights, the rule of law, strategic planning, and 
     through assistance to foster civilian police roles that 
     support democratic governance including assistance for 
     programs to prevent conflict, respond to disasters, address 
     gender-based violence, and foster improved police relations 
     with the communities they serve.
       (b) Notification.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to prior consultation with, and the regular 
     notification procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations.


                  special debt relief for the poorest

       Sec. 665. (a) Authority To Reduce Debt.--The President may 
     reduce amounts owed to

[[Page H6908]]

     the United States (or any agency of the United States) by an 
     eligible country as a result of--
       (1) guarantees issued under sections 221 and 222 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
       (2) credits extended or guarantees issued under the Arms 
     Export Control Act; or
       (3) any obligation or portion of such obligation, to pay 
     for purchases of United States agricultural commodities 
     guaranteed by the Commodity Credit Corporation under export 
     credit guarantee programs authorized pursuant to section 5(f) 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of June 29, 
     1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the Food for Peace Act of 
     1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), or section 202 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-
     501).
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only to implement multilateral official debt relief 
     and referendum agreements, commonly referred to as ``Paris 
     Club Agreed Minutes''.
       (2) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only in such amounts or to such extent as is 
     provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
       (3) The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised only with respect to countries with heavy debt 
     burdens that are eligible to borrow from the International 
     Development Association, but not from the International Bank 
     for Reconstruction and Development, commonly referred to as 
     ``IDA-only'' countries.
       (c) Conditions.--The authority provided by subsection (a) 
     may be exercised only with respect to a country whose 
     government--
       (1) does not have an excessive level of military 
     expenditures;
       (2) has not repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism;
       (3) is not failing to cooperate on international narcotics 
     control matters;
       (4) does not engage in a consistent pattern of gross 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights 
     (including its military or other security forces); and
       (5) is not ineligible for assistance because of the 
     application of section 527 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
       (d) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to the funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``DEBT 
     RESTRUCTURING''.
       (e) Certain Prohibitions Inapplicable.--A reduction of debt 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be considered assistance 
     for the purposes of any provision of law limiting assistance 
     to a country. The authority provided by subsection (a) may be 
     exercised notwithstanding section 620(r) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 or section 321 of the International 
     Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975.


             authority to engage in debt buybacks or sales

       Sec. 666. (a) Loans Eligible for Sale, Reduction, or 
     Cancellation.--
       (1) Authority to sell, reduce, or cancel certain loans.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     may, in accordance with this section, sell to any eligible 
     purchaser any concessional loan or portion thereof made 
     before January 1, 1995, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961, to the government of any eligible country as 
     defined in section 702(6) of that Act or on receipt of 
     payment from an eligible purchaser, reduce or cancel such 
     loan or portion thereof, only for the purpose of 
     facilitating--
       (A) debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, or 
     debt-for-nature swaps; or
       (B) a debt buyback by an eligible country of its own 
     qualified debt, only if the eligible country uses an 
     additional amount of the local currency of the eligible 
     country, equal to not less than 40 percent of the price paid 
     for such debt by such eligible country, or the difference 
     between the price paid for such debt and the face value of 
     such debt, to support activities that link conservation and 
     sustainable use of natural resources with local community 
     development, and child survival and other child development, 
     in a manner consistent with sections 707 through 710 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, if the sale, reduction, or 
     cancellation would not contravene any term or condition of 
     any prior agreement relating to such loan.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President shall, in accordance with 
     this section, establish the terms and conditions under which 
     loans may be sold, reduced, or canceled pursuant to this 
     section.
       (3) Administration.--The Facility, as defined in section 
     702(8) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall notify 
     the administrator of the agency primarily responsible for 
     administering part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of 
     purchasers that the President has determined to be eligible, 
     and shall direct such agency to carry out the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of a loan pursuant to this 
     section. Such agency shall make adjustment in its accounts to 
     reflect the sale, reduction, or cancellation.
       (4) Limitation.--The authorities of this subsection shall 
     be available only to the extent that appropriations for the 
     cost of the modification, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made in advance.
       (b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The proceeds from the sale, 
     reduction, or cancellation of any loan sold, reduced, or 
     canceled pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the 
     United States Government account or accounts established for 
     the repayment of such loan.
       (c) Eligible Purchasers.--A loan may be sold pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) only to a purchaser who presents plans 
     satisfactory to the President for using the loan for the 
     purpose of engaging in debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-
     development swaps, or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (d) Debtor Consultations.--Before the sale to any eligible 
     purchaser, or any reduction or cancellation pursuant to this 
     section, of any loan made to an eligible country, the 
     President should consult with the country concerning the 
     amount of loans to be sold, reduced, or canceled and their 
     uses for debt-for-equity swaps, debt-for-development swaps, 
     or debt-for-nature swaps.
       (e) Availability of Funds.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) may be used only with regard to funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``DEBT 
     RESTRUCTURING''.


                            basic education

       Sec. 667. Of the funds appropriated by title III of this 
     Act, not less than $750,000,000 shall be made available for 
     assistance for developing countries for basic education. Of 
     this amount, not less than $265,000,000 shall be provided and 
     implemented in countries that have an approved national 
     education plan.
       (a) Coordinator.--There shall be established within the 
     Department of State in the immediate office of the Secretary 
     of State, a Coordinator of United States Government 
     activities to provide basic education assistance in 
     developing countries (hereinafter in this section referred to 
     as the ``Coordinator'').
       (b) Responsibilities.--That this Coordinator shall have 
     primary responsibility for the oversight and coordination of 
     all resources and international activities of the United 
     States Government that provide assistance in developing 
     countries for basic education. The individual serving as the 
     Coordinator may not hold any other position in the Federal 
     Government during the individual's time of service as 
     Coordinator.
       (c) Strategy.--The President shall develop a comprehensive 
     integrated United States Government strategy to provide 
     assistance in developing countries for basic education within 
     90 days of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 30, 2008, 
     the Secretary of State shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations on the implementation of United States 
     Government assistance programs in developing countries for 
     basic education.
       (e) Funds appropriated by title II of Public Law 109-102 
     and provided to the Comptroller General pursuant to section 
     567 of that Act shall be available until expended and are 
     also available to the Comptroller General to conduct further 
     evaluations of basic education programs in developing 
     countries under the direction of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                        reconciliation programs

       Sec. 668. Of the funds appropriated by title III of this 
     Act under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'', not less 
     than $12,000,000 shall be made available to support Conflict 
     Resolution and Reconciliation Programs and an additional 
     amount of $11,000,000 shall be made available to support 
     Middle East People to People Coexistence Programs to promote 
     activities which bring together individuals of different 
     ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds from areas of 
     civil conflict and war.


                                 sudan

       Sec. 669. (a) Limitation on Assistance.--Subject to 
     subsection (d):
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for 
     assistance for the Government of Sudan.
       (2) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for the cost, as defined in section 502, of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying loans and loan 
     guarantees held by the Government of Sudan, including the 
     cost of selling, reducing, or canceling amounts owed to the 
     United States, and modifying concessional loans, guarantees, 
     and credit agreements.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of 
     State determines and certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that--
       (1) The Government of Sudan honors its pledges to cease 
     attacks upon civilians and disarms and demobilizes the 
     Janjaweed and other government-supported militias;
       (2) The Government of Sudan and all government-supported 
     militia groups are honoring their commitments made in all 
     previous cease-fire agreements;
       (3) The Government of Sudan is allowing unimpeded access to 
     Darfur to humanitarian aid organizations, the human rights 
     investigation and humanitarian teams of the United Nations, 
     including protection officers, and the international 
     monitoring team that is based in Darfur and has the support 
     of the United States;
       (c) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (b) shall not 
     apply to--
       (1) humanitarian assistance;
       (2) assistance for the Darfur region, Southern Sudan, 
     Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State, Blue Nile State, and 
     Abyei; and
       (3) assistance to support implementation of the 
     Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement 
     or any other internationally-recognized viable peace 
     agreement in Sudan.
       (d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``Government of Sudan'', shall

[[Page H6909]]

     not include the Government of Southern Sudan.
       (e) Notwithstanding any other law, assistance in this Act 
     may be made available to the Government of Southern Sudan to 
     provide non-lethal military assistance, military education 
     and training, and defense services controlled under the 
     International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CRF 120.1 et 
     seq.) if the Secretary of State--
       (1) determines that the provision of such items is in the 
     national interest of the United States; and
       (2) not later than 15 days before the provision of any such 
     assistance, notifies the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives 
     of such determination.


                        trade capacity building

       Sec. 670. Of the funds appropriated by this Act, under the 
     headings ``DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'', ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN 
     EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES'', ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'', 
     ``ANDEAN COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE'', and ``ASSISTANCE FOR THE 
     INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION'', not less 
     than $525,000,000 should be made available for trade capacity 
     building assistance: Provided, That $10,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT 
     FUND'' shall be made available for labor and environmental 
     capacity building activities relating to the free trade 
     agreement with the countries of Central America and the 
     Dominican Republic.


 excess defense articles for central and south european countries and 
                        certain other countries

       Sec. 671. Notwithstanding section 516(e) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)), during fiscal 
     year 2008, funds available to the Department of Defense may 
     be expended for crating, packing, handling, and 
     transportation of excess defense articles transferred under 
     the authority of section 516 of such Act to Albania, 
     Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Former Yugoslavian 
     Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, India, Iraq, Kazakhstan, 
     Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Pakistan, 
     Romania, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine.


 assistance to colombia law enforcement to combat illegal armed groups

       Sec. 672. (a) Assistance to Law Enforcement and 
     Intelligence Agencies.--
       (1) Withholding obligations of funds.--The Secretary of 
     State shall withhold the obligation of funds for assistance 
     to any Colombian law enforcement or intelligence agency, 
     including the Colombian National Police, the Fiscalia, and 
     the Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (the 
     Intelligence Service), if the Secretary determines that--
       (A) there has been significant infiltration of the agency 
     by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the 
     National Liberation Army (ELN), or the United Self-Defense 
     Forces of Colombia (AUC), successor groups, or criminal 
     organizations; or
       (B) the agency's leadership has willfully provided any 
     support to such groups, including taking actions or failing 
     to take actions which allow, facilitate, or otherwise foster 
     the activities of such groups.
       (2) Resumption of assistance.--The Secretary of State may 
     resume the obligation of funds suspended under paragraph (1) 
     if the Secretary determines and certifies to the Committees 
     on Appropriations, based on a careful review of the structure 
     and membership of the agency involved, that it has credibly 
     and effectively eliminated the penetration of individuals 
     associated with illegal armed groups, and removed those 
     leaders and members who were providing support to such 
     groups.
       (b) Illegal Armed Groups.--
       (1) Denial of visas to supporters of colombian illegal 
     armed groups.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     State shall not issue a visa to any alien who the Secretary 
     determines, based on credible evidence--
       (A) has willfully provided any support to the Revolutionary 
     Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army 
     (ELN), or the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), 
     or successor groups, including taking actions or failing to 
     take actions which allow, facilitate, or otherwise foster the 
     activities of such groups; or
       (B) has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise 
     participated in the commission of gross violations of human 
     rights, including extra-judicial killings, in Colombia.
       (2) Waiver.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the Secretary 
     of State determines and certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, on a case-by-case basis, that the issuance of 
     a visa to the alien is necessary to support the peace process 
     in Colombia or for urgent humanitarian reasons.


                                  cuba

       Sec. 673. None of the funds appropriated by this Act under 
     the heading ``INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW 
     ENFORCEMENT'' may be made available for assistance to the 
     Government of Cuba.


                         gender-based violence

       Sec. 674. Programs funded under titles III and IV of this 
     Act that provide training for foreign police, judicial, and 
     military officials, shall include, where appropriate, 
     programs and activities that address gender-based violence.


  limitation on economic support fund assistance for certain foreign 
    governments that are parties to the international criminal court

       Sec. 675. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' may be used to 
     provide assistance to the government of a country that is a 
     party to the International Criminal Court and has not entered 
     into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 
     98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal 
     Court from proceeding against United States personnel present 
     in such country.
       (b) The President may, with prior notice to Congress, waive 
     the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (``NATO'') member country, a 
     major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, 
     Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New 
     Zealand), Taiwan, or such other country as he may determine 
     if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that it is important to the national interests of 
     the United States to waive such prohibition.
       (c) The President may, with prior notice to Congress, waive 
     the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a 
     particular country if he determines and reports to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that such country has 
     entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to 
     Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International 
     Criminal Court from proceeding against United States 
     personnel present in such country.
       (d) The prohibition of this section shall not apply to 
     countries otherwise eligible for assistance under the 
     Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, notwithstanding section 
     606(a)(2)(B) of such Act.


                                 tibet

       Sec. 676. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury should instruct 
     the United States Executive Director at each international 
     financial institution to use the voice and vote of the United 
     States to support projects in Tibet if such projects do not 
     provide incentives for the migration and settlement of non-
     Tibetans into Tibet or facilitate the transfer of ownership 
     of Tibetan land and natural resources to non-Tibetans; are 
     based on a thorough needs-assessment; foster self-sufficiency 
     of the Tibetan people and respect Tibetan culture and 
     traditions; and are subject to effective monitoring.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not less 
     than $5,000,000 of the funds appropriated by title III of 
     this Act under the heading ``ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND'' should 
     be made available to nongovernmental organizations to support 
     activities which preserve cultural traditions and promote 
     sustainable development and environmental conservation in 
     Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in 
     other Tibetan communities in China, and not less than 
     $250,000 should be made available to the National Endowment 
     for Democracy for human rights and democracy programs 
     relating to Tibet.


                           western hemisphere

       Sec. 677. (a) Not less than the amounts of funds initially 
     allocated for the fiscal year 2007 pursuant to section 653(a) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for El Salvador, 
     Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras under the headings ``CHILD 
     SURVIVAL AND HEALTH PROGRAMS FUND'' and ``DEVELOPMENT 
     ASSISTANCE'', should be made available for each such country 
     from funds appropriated under such headings by this Act.
       (b) Not less than the aggregate amount of funds initially 
     allocated for the fiscal year 2007 pursuant to section 653(a) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for countries in the 
     Western Hemisphere under the heading ``FOREIGN MILITARY 
     FINANCING PROGRAM'', should be made available for such 
     countries from funds appropriated under such heading by this 
     Act: Provided, That not less than the following amounts from 
     funds appropriated by this Act under such heading shall be 
     made available to enhance security in the Western Hemisphere 
     consistent with democratic principles and the rule of law--
       (1) $48,000,000 for assistance for Colombia;
       (2) $4,800,000 for assistance for El Salvador;
       (3) $500,000 for assistance for Honduras;
       (4) $300,000 for assistance for Bolivia;
       (5) $250,000 for assistance for Guatemala; and
       (6) $100,000 for assistance for Belize.
       (c) Funds made available pursuant to subsection (b) shall 
     be subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations.


     united states agency for international development management

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 678. (a) Authority.--Up to $81,000,000 of the funds 
     made available in title III of this Act to carry out the 
     provisions of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     including funds appropriated under the heading ``ASSISTANCE 
     FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES'', may be used by 
     the United States Agency for International Development 
     (USAID) to hire and employ individuals in the United States 
     and overseas on a limited appointment basis pursuant to the 
     authority of sections 308 and 309 of the Foreign Service Act 
     of 1980.
       (b) Restrictions.--

[[Page H6910]]

       (1) The number of individuals hired in any fiscal year 
     pursuant to the authority contained in subsection (a) may not 
     exceed 175.
       (2) The authority to hire individuals contained in 
     subsection (a) shall expire on September 30, 2009.
       (c) Conditions.--The authority of subsection (a) may only 
     be used to the extent that an equivalent number of positions 
     that are filled by personal services contractors or other 
     non-direct hire employees of USAID, who are compensated with 
     funds appropriated to carry out part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, including funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC 
     STATES'', are eliminated.
       (d) Priority Sectors.--In exercising the authority of this 
     section, primary emphasis shall be placed on enabling USAID 
     to meet personnel positions in technical skill areas 
     currently encumbered by contractor or other non-direct hire 
     personnel.
       (e) Consultations.--The USAID Administrator shall consult 
     with the Committees on Appropriations at least on a quarterly 
     basis concerning the implementation of this section.
       (f) Program Account Charged.--The account charged for the 
     cost of an individual hired and employed under the authority 
     of this section shall be the account to which such 
     individual's responsibilities primarily relate. Funds made 
     available to carry out this section may be transferred to and 
     merged and consolidated with funds appropriated for 
     ``OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 
     INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT''.
       (g) Management Reform Pilot.--Of the funds made available 
     in subsection (a), USAID may use, in addition to funds 
     otherwise available for such purposes, up to $10,000,000 to 
     fund overseas support costs of members of the Foreign Service 
     with a Foreign Service rank of four or below: Provided, That 
     such authority is only used to reduce USAID's reliance on 
     overseas personal services contractors or other non-direct 
     hire employees compensated with funds appropriated to carry 
     out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including 
     funds appropriated under the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN 
     EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES''.
       (h) Disaster Surge Capacity.--Funds appropriated under 
     title III of this Act to carry out part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, including funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC 
     STATES'', may be used, in addition to funds otherwise 
     available for such purposes, for the cost (including the 
     support costs) of individuals detailed to or employed by the 
     United States Agency for International Development whose 
     primary responsibility is to carry out programs in response 
     to natural disasters.


                        opic transfer authority

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 679. Whenever the President determines that it is in 
     furtherance of the purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, up to a total of $20,000,000 of the funds appropriated 
     under title III of this Act may be transferred to and merged 
     with funds appropriated by this Act for the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation Program Account, to be subject to the 
     terms and conditions of that account: Provided, That such 
     funds shall not be available for administrative expenses of 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Provided 
     further, That designated funding levels in this Act shall not 
     be transferred pursuant to this section: Provided further, 
     That the exercise of such authority shall be subject to the 
     regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.


                         reporting requirement

       Sec. 680. The Secretary of State shall provide the 
     Committees on Appropriations, not later than April 1, 2008, 
     and for each fiscal quarter, a report in writing on the uses 
     of funds made available under the headings ``FOREIGN MILITARY 
     FINANCING PROGRAM'', ``INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND 
     TRAINING'', and ``PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS'': Provided, That 
     such report shall include a description of the obligation and 
     expenditure of funds, and the specific country in receipt of, 
     and the use or purpose of the assistance provided by such 
     funds.


                       anticorruption provisions

       Sec. 681. Twenty percent of the funds appropriated under 
     title V of this Act under the heading ``INTERNATIONAL 
     DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'', shall be withheld from disbursement 
     until the Secretary of the Treasury reports to the 
     appropriate Congressional committees on the extent to which 
     the World Bank has completed the following:
       (1) World Bank procurement guidelines have been applied to 
     all procurement financed in whole or in part by a loan from 
     the World Bank or a credit agreement or grant from the 
     International Development Association (IDA).
       (2) The World Bank proposal ``Increasing the Use of Country 
     Systems in Procurement'' dated March 2005 has been withdrawn.
       (3) The World Bank maintains a strong central procurement 
     office staffed with senior experts who are designated to 
     address commercial concerns, questions, and complaints 
     regarding procurement procedures and payments under IDA and 
     World Bank projects.
       (4) Thresholds for international competitive bidding have 
     been established to maximize international competitive 
     bidding in accordance with sound procurement practices, 
     including transparency, competition, and cost-effective 
     results for the Borrowers.
       (5) All tenders under the World Bank's national competitive 
     bidding provisions are subject to the same advertisement 
     requirements as tenders under international competitive 
     bidding.
       (6) Loan agreements between the World Bank and the 
     Borrowers have been made public.


                               indonesia

       Sec. 682. Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     heading ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'', not more than 
     $6,000,000 may be made available for assistance for 
     Indonesia, until the Secretary of State reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on steps taken by the Government 
     of Indonesia on the following--
       (1) prosecution and punishment, in a manner proportional to 
     the crime, for members of the Armed Forces who have been 
     credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human 
     rights;
       (2) cooperation by the Armed Forces, at the direction of 
     the President of Indonesia, with civilian judicial 
     authorities and with international efforts to resolve cases 
     of gross violations of human rights in East Timor and 
     elsewhere; and
       (3) implementation by the Armed Forces, at the direction of 
     the President of Indonesia, of reforms to increase the 
     transparency and accountability of their operations and 
     financial management.


                    establishment of the growth fund

       Sec. 683. Establishment of the GROWTH Fund.--
       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State, acting through the 
     Director of United States Foreign Assistance, shall establish 
     the Global Resources and Opportunities for Women to Thrive 
     (GROWTH) Fund for the purpose of enhancing economic 
     opportunities for very poor, poor, and low-income women in 
     developing countries with a focus on--
       (A) increasing women-owned enterprise development;
       (B) increasing property rights for women;
       (C) increasing women's access to financial services;
       (D) increasing women in leadership in implementing 
     organizations, such as indigenous nongovernmental 
     organizations, community-based organizations, and regulated 
     financial intermediaries;
       (E) improving women's employment benefits and conditions; 
     and
       (F) increasing women's ability to benefit from global 
     trade.
       (2) Role of usaid missions.--The Fund shall be available to 
     USAID missions to apply for additional funding to support 
     specific additional activities that enhance women's economic 
     opportunities or to integrate gender into existing economic 
     opportunity programs.
       (b) Activities Supported.--The Fund shall be available to 
     USAID missions to support--
       (1) initiatives to eliminate legal and institutional 
     barriers to women's ownership of assets, access to credit, 
     access to information and communication technologies, and 
     engagement in business activities within or outside of the 
     home;
       (2) microfinance and microenterprise development programs 
     that--
       (A) specifically target women with respect to outreach and 
     marketing; and
       (B) provide products specifically to address women's 
     assets, needs, and the barriers women encounter with respect 
     to participation in enterprise and financial services;
       (3) programs, projects, and activities for enterprise 
     development for women in developing countries that--
       (A) in coordination with developing country governments and 
     interested individuals and organizations, encourage or 
     enhance laws, regulations, enforcement, and other practices 
     that promote access to banking and financial services for 
     women-owned small- and medium-sized enterprises, and 
     eliminate or reduce regulatory barriers that may exist in 
     this regard;
       (B) promote access to information and communication 
     technologies (ICT) with training in ICT for women-owned 
     small- and medium-sized enterprises;
       (C) provide training, through local associations of women-
     owned enterprises or nongovernmental organizations in record 
     keeping, financial and personnel management, international 
     trade, business planning, marketing, policy advocacy, 
     leadership development, and other relevant areas;
       (D) provide resources to establish and enhance local, 
     national, and international networks and associations of 
     women-owned small- and medium-sized enterprises;
       (E) provide incentives for nongovernmental organizations 
     and regulated financial intermediaries to develop products, 
     services, and marketing and outreach strategies specifically 
     designed to facilitate and promote women's participation in 
     small- and medium-sized business development programs by 
     addressing women's assets, needs, and the barriers they face 
     to participation in enterprise and financial services; and
       (F) seek to award contracts to qualified indigenous women-
     owned small- and medium-sized enterprises, including for 
     post-conflict reconstruction and to facilitate employment of 
     indigenous women, including during post-conflict 
     reconstruction in jobs not traditionally undertaken by women;
       (4) programs, projects, and activities for the promotion of 
     private property rights and

[[Page H6911]]

     land tenure security for women in developing countries that 
     are implemented by local, indigenous nongovernmental and 
     community-based organizations dedicated to addressing the 
     needs of women, especially women's organizations that--
       (A) advocate to amend and harmonize statutory and customary 
     law to give women equal rights to own, use, and inherit 
     property;
       (B) promote legal literacy among women and men about 
     property rights for women and how to exercise such rights;
       (C) assist women in making land claims and protecting 
     women's existing claims; and
       (D) advocate for equitable land titling and registration 
     for women;
       (5) activities to increase women's access to employment and 
     to higher quality employment with better remuneration and 
     working conditions in developing countries, including access 
     to insurance and other social safety nets, in informal and 
     formal employment relative to core labor standards determined 
     by the International Labor Organization. Such activities 
     should include--
       (A) public education efforts to inform poor women and men 
     of their legal rights related to employment;
       (B) education and vocational training tailored to enable 
     poor women to access opportunities in potential growth 
     sectors in their local economies and in jobs within the 
     formal and informal sectors where women are not traditionally 
     highly represented;
       (C) efforts to support self-employed poor women or wage 
     workers to form or join independent unions or other labor 
     associations to increase their income and improve their 
     working conditions; and
       (D) advocacy efforts to protect the rights of women in the 
     workplace, including--
       (i) developing programs with the participation of civil 
     society to eliminate gender-based violence; and
       (ii) providing capacity-building assistance to women's 
     organizations to effectively research and monitor labor 
     rights conditions;
       (6) assistance to governments and organizations in 
     developing countries seeking to design and implement laws, 
     regulations, and programs to improve working conditions for 
     women and to facilitate their entry into and advancement in 
     the workplace;
       (7) training and education to women in civil society, 
     including those organizations representing poor women, and to 
     women-owned enterprises and associations of such enterprises, 
     on how to respond to economic opportunities created by trade 
     preference programs, trade agreements, or other policies 
     creating market access, including training on United States 
     market access requirements and procedures;
       (8) capacity-building for women entrepreneurs, including 
     microentrepreneurs, on production strategies, quality 
     standards, formation of cooperatives, market research, and 
     market development;
       (9) capacity-building to women, including poor women, to 
     promote diversification of products and value-added 
     processing;
       (10) training to official government negotiators 
     representing developing countries in order to enhance the 
     ability of such negotiators to formulate trade policy and 
     negotiate agreements that take into account the respective 
     needs and priorities of a country's poor women and men;
       (11) training to local, indigenous women's groups in 
     developing countries in order to enhance their ability to 
     collect information and data, formulate proposals, and inform 
     and impact official government negotiators representing their 
     country in international trade negotiations of the respective 
     needs and priorities of a country's poor women and men; and
       (12) technical assistance and capacity-building to local, 
     indigenous civil society for--
       (A) local indigenous women's organizations to the maximum 
     extent practicable; and
       (B) nongovernmental organizations and regulated financial 
     intermediaries that demonstrate a commitment to gender equity 
     in their leadership either through current practice or 
     through specific programs to increase the representation of 
     women in their governance and management.


                            peacekeeping cap

       Sec. 684. (a) In General.--Section 404(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 
     1995, (22 U.S.C. 287e note) is amended at the end by adding 
     the following: ``(v) For assessments made during calendar 
     year 2008, 27.1 percent.''.

                      limitation on basing in iraq

       Sec. 685. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Government of the United States to enter into 
     a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.

  Mrs. LOWEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 190, line 26, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 190, line 25, insert ``permanent'' before ``basing 
     rights agreement''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I bring to the 
floor of the House under limitation on bases in Iraq is an amendment 
that addresses the subject matter that we have debated on the floor at 
least twice before that I recall. And I believe there is a consensus 
here in this Congress, and certainly there has been a message that has 
been put forth by the President, that we are not interested in 
permanent bases in Iraq but we do have bases there and we do have 
temporary basing agreements.
  So as I read through this appropriations bill and it says that ``None 
of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Government 
of the United States to enter into a basing rights agreement between 
the United States and Iraq,'' that language clearly forbids any 
agreements, however temporary they might be. And so the amendment that 
I bring to the floor simply adds the word ``permanent'' to that 
language. So that now, if the amendment is adopted, it will read that 
none of the funds may be used to enter into a ``permanent'' basing 
rights agreement.
  I think it is a matter of language and semantics here but a matter of 
clarity, too. And I would point out that in our last debate in the 2007 
DOD approps, Mr. Murtha made the statement, what we are saying with 
this bill is that at this point in time there shouldn't be any 
permanent bases in Iraq. What I have done is offer an amendment that 
simply says there won't be any of the funds used to promote permanent 
bases in Iraq out of this Foreign Ops bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment. And 
I want to be clear to my colleague from Iowa we all agree that the 
United States should not be an occupying power in Iraq, but in no way 
does my acceptance of this amendment come to my or the American 
people's acquiescence to establishing any other kind of short- or long-
term basing agreements in Iraq. But we are accepting the amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we may not have the 
same view on how to proceed in Iraq, but it is my intention to 
foreclose any permanent bases in Iraq and allow those that are under 
agreement now and perhaps temporary ones that might be negotiated to 
get us through this process. I think that is the intent on both sides 
of the aisle. I think that is the intent of the White House. So I 
believe we are consistent in our understanding.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, while I understand that the Chairwoman is 
prepared to accept it, this amendment causes me great concern.
  Given Mr. King's history in opposition to the underlying provision, I 
believe that this amendment is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to 
leaving U.S. troops in Iraq long-term.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, when our troops come home, they 
should all come home.
  And three times, twice in 2006 and once this year Congress passed--
and the President signed into law--legislation prohibiting permanent 
military bases in Iraq.
  The prospect of having long-term military bases would send the wrong 
message to our troops, the Iraqi people, and the world.
  The prospect of an indefinite occupation fuels the insurgency by 
serving as a recruiting tool for insurgents and places targets on the 
backs of our troops.
  The Iraq Study Group has recognized the importance of unequivocally 
declaring that we have no intention of remaining in Iraq permanently.
  Key administration officials, including Secretary Gates have 
pronounced that we are not

[[Page H6912]]

going to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.
  Even President Bush has declared that we `do not support an 
indefinite occupation' in Iraq.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish this were a genuine attempt to prohibit 
an indefinite occupation in Iraq.
  I'm concerned that it is not.


                     prohibition on use of torture

       Sec. 686. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the 
     use of torture by any official or contract employee of the 
     United States Government.


                    report on indonesian cooperation

       Sec. 687. Funds available under the heading ``INTERNATIONAL 
     MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING'' may only be made available 
     for assistance for Indonesia if the Secretary of State 
     submits a report to the Committees on Appropriations that 
     describes--
       (1) Steps taken by the Indonesian government to deny 
     promotion to and to remove from service military officers 
     indicted for serious crimes; the extent to which the 
     Indonesian Government is cooperating with international 
     efforts to bring current and past officials to justice; and 
     that past and present Indonesian military officials are 
     cooperating with domestic inquiries into past abuses, 
     including the forced disappearance and killing of student 
     activists in 1998 and 1999;
       (2) The Indonesian government's response to the report of 
     the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in 
     Timor-Leste and the June 2006 report of the report to the 
     Secretary-General of the Commission of Experts to Review the 
     Prosecution of Serious Violations of Human Rights in Timor-
     Leste in 1999;
       (3) Steps taken by the Indonesian government to implement 
     and enforce the 2004 Indonesian law which requires the 
     Indonesian military to divest itself of legal and illegal 
     businesses before 2009; and
       (4) The extent to which the Indonesian government has 
     removed restrictions impending access to and travel within 
     the provinces of Papua and West Irian Jaya by United Nations 
     personnel, diplomats, journalists, international non-
     governmental organization personnel and researchers, 
     humanitarian and human rights workers and others.


limitation on assistance to foreign countries that refuse to extradite 
  to the united states any individual accused in the united states of 
                   killing a law enforcement officer

       Sec. 688. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Department of State may be used to provide assistance to 
     the central government of a country which has notified the 
     Department of State of its refusal to extradite to the United 
     States any individual indicted in the United States for 
     killing a law enforcement officer, as specified in a United 
     States extradition request.


      governments that have failed to permit certain extraditions

       Sec. 689. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Department of State, other than funds provided under the 
     heading ``INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW 
     ENFORCEMENT'', may be used to provide assistance to the 
     central government of a country with which the United States 
     has an extradition treaty and which government has notified 
     the Department of State of its refusal to extradite to the 
     United States any individual charged with a criminal offense 
     for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without 
     the possibility of parole.


         international monetary fund budget and hiring ceilings

       Sec. 690. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States Executive Director at the International 
     Monetary Fund to use the voice of the United States to ensure 
     that any loan, project, agreement, memorandum, instrument, 
     plan or other program of the International Monetary Fund does 
     not penalize countries for increased government spending on 
     healthcare or education by exempting such increases from 
     national budget caps or restraints, hiring or wage bill 
     ceilings or other limits imposed by the International 
     Monetary Fund.


                          environment programs

       Sec. 691. (a) Funding.--Of the funds appropriated under the 
     heading ``DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE'', not less than 
     $501,000,000 shall be made available for programs and 
     activities which directly protect biodiversity and promote 
     clean energy.
       (b) Climate Change Report.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date on which the President's fiscal year 2009 budget 
     request is submitted to Congress, the President shall submit 
     a report to the Committees on Appropriations describing in 
     detail the following--
       (1) all Federal agency obligations and expenditures, 
     domestic and international, for climate change programs and 
     activities in fiscal year 2009, including an accounting of 
     expenditures by agency with each agency identifying climate 
     change activities and associated costs by line item as 
     presented in the President's Budget Appendix; and
       (2) all fiscal year 2007 obligations and estimated 
     expenditures, fiscal year 2008 estimated expenditures and 
     estimated obligations, and fiscal year 2009 requested funds 
     by the United States Agency for International Development, by 
     country and central program, for each of the following:
       (A) to promote the transfer and deployment of a wide range 
     of United States clean energy and energy efficiency 
     technologies;
       (B) to assist in the measurement, monitoring, reporting, 
     verification, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;
       (C) to promote carbon capture and sequestration measures;
       (D) to help meet such countries' responsibilities under the 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change; and
       (E) to develop assessments of the vulnerability to impacts 
     of climate change and mitigation and adaptation response 
     strategies.
       (c) Extraction of Natural Resources.--(1) The Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall inform the managements of the 
     international financial institutions and the public that it 
     is the policy of the United States that any assistance by 
     such institutions (including but not limited to any loan, 
     credit, grant, or guarantee) for the extraction and export of 
     oil, gas, coal, timber, or other natural resource should not 
     be provided unless the government of the country has in place 
     or is taking the necessary steps to establish functioning 
     systems for:
       (A) accurately accounting for revenues and expenditures in 
     connection with the extraction and export of the type of 
     natural resource to be extracted or exported;
       (B) the independent auditing of such accounts and the 
     widespread public dissemination of the audits; and
       (C) verifying government receipts against company payments 
     including widespread dissemination of such payment 
     information, and disclosing such documents as Host Government 
     Agreements, Concession Agreements, and bidding documents, 
     allowing in any such dissemination or disclosure for the 
     redaction of, or exceptions for, information that is 
     commercially proprietary or that would create competitive 
     disadvantage.
       (2) Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report to 
     the Committees on Appropriations describing, for each 
     international financial institution, the amount and type of 
     assistance provided, by country, for the extraction and 
     export of oil, gas, coal, timber, or other national resource 
     since September 30, 2005.


                               uzbekistan

       Sec. 692. Assistance may be provided to the central 
     Government of Uzbekistan only if the Secretary of State 
     determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that the Government of Uzbekistan is making substantial and 
     continuing progress in meeting its commitments under the 
     ``Declaration on the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation 
     Framework Between the Republic of Uzbekistan and the United 
     States of America'', including respect for human rights, 
     establishing a genuine multi-party system, and ensuring free 
     and fair elections, freedom of expression, and the 
     independence of the media, and that a credible international 
     investigation of the May 31, 2005, shootings in Andijan is 
     underway with the support of the Government of Uzbekistan: 
     Provided, That for the purposes of this section 
     ``assistance'' shall include excess defense articles.


    discrimination against minority religious faiths in the russian 
                               federation

       Sec. 693. None of the funds appropriated for assistance 
     under this Act may be made available for the Government of 
     the Russian Federation, after 180 days from the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, unless the President determines and 
     certifies in writing to the Committees on Appropriations that 
     the Government of the Russian Federation has implemented no 
     statute, executive order, regulation or similar government 
     action that would discriminate, or which has as its principal 
     effect discrimination, against religious groups or religious 
     communities in the Russian Federation in violation of 
     accepted international agreements on human rights and 
     religious freedoms to which the Russian Federation is a 
     party.


                          war crimes in africa

       Sec. 694. (a) The Congress reaffirms its support for the 
     efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 
     (ICTR) and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) to bring 
     to justice individuals responsible for war crimes and crimes 
     against humanity in a timely manner.
       (b) Funds appropriated by this Act, including funds for 
     debt restructuring, may be made available for assistance to 
     the central government of a country in which individuals 
     indicted by ICTR and SCSL are credibly alleged to be living, 
     if the Secretary of State determines and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such government is 
     cooperating with ICTR and SCSL, including the surrender and 
     transfer of indictees in a timely manner: Provided, That this 
     subsection shall not apply to assistance provided under 
     section 551 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or to 
     project assistance under title II of this Act: Provided 
     further, That the United States shall use its voice and vote 
     in the United Nations Security Council to fully support 
     efforts by ICTR and SCSL to bring to justice individuals 
     indicted by such tribunals in a timely manner.
       (c) The prohibition in subsection (b) may be waived on a 
     country by country basis if the President determines that 
     doing so is in the national security interest of the United 
     States: Provided, That prior to exercising such waiver 
     authority, the President shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, in classified form if 
     necessary, on:

[[Page H6913]]

       (1) the steps being taken to obtain the cooperation of the 
     government in surrendering the indictee in question to the 
     court of jurisdiction;
       (2) a strategy, including a timeline, for bringing the 
     indictee before such court; and
       (3) the justification for exercising the waiver authority.


        combatting piracy of united states copyrighted materials

       Sec. 695. (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of State 
     may carry out a program of activities to combat piracy in 
     countries that are not members of the Organization for 
     Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including 
     activities as follows:
       (1) The provision of equipment and training for law 
     enforcement, including in the interpretation of intellectual 
     property laws.
       (2) The provision of training for judges and prosecutors, 
     including in the interpretation of intellectual property 
     laws.
       (3) The provision of assistance in complying with 
     obligations under applicable international treaties and 
     agreements on copyright and intellectual property.
       (b) Consultation With World Intellectual Property 
     Organization.--In carrying out the program authorized by 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, consult with and provide assistance to the World 
     Intellectual Property Organization in order to promote the 
     integration of countries described in subsection (a) into the 
     global intellectual property system.
       (c) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under the heading ``INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL 
     AND LAW ENFORCEMENT'', $5,000,000 may be made available in 
     fiscal year 2008 for the program authorized by subsection 
     (a).


                    oversight of iraq reconstruction

       Sec. 696. (a) Section 3001 of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of 
     Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106; 117 Stat. 
     1238; 5 U.S.C. App., note to section 8G of Public Law 95-
     452), as amended by section 1054(b) of the John Warner 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
     (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2397), section 2 of the Iraq 
     Reconstruction Accountability Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-
     440), and section 3801 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' 
     Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``pay rates.'' and 
     inserting ``pay rates, and may exercise the authorities of 
     subsections (b) through (i) of section 3161 of title 5, 
     United States Code (without regard to subsection (a) of such 
     section).'';
       (2) in subsection (o)(1)(B) by striking ``fiscal year 2006 
     or fiscal year 2007'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 
     through 2008''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of such section the following 
     subsection:
       ``(p) Rule of Construction.--For the purposes of carrying 
     out the duties of the Inspector General, any United States 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2008 for the reconstruction of Iraq, 
     irrespective of the designation of such funds, shall be 
     deemed to be amounts appropriated or otherwise made available 
     to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.''.
       (b) Section 1054(a) of Public Law 109-364 is amended by 
     striking ``fiscal year 2006'' and inserting ``fiscal years 
     2006 through 2008''.


                 united nations headquarters renovation

       Sec. 697. It is the sense of the Congress that the amount 
     of any loan for the renovation of the United Nations 
     headquarters building located in New York, New York, should 
     not exceed $600,000,000: Provided, That if any loan exceeds 
     $600,000,000, the Secretary of State shall notify the 
     Congress of the current cost of the renovation and cost 
     containment measures.


                           neglected diseases

       Sec. 698. Of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Child Survival and Health Programs Fund'', not less than 
     $18,000,000 shall be made available to support an integrated 
     response to the control of neglected diseases including 
     intestinal parasites, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis, 
     onchocerciasis, trachoma and leprosy: Provided, That the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development shall consult with the Committees on 
     Appropriations, representatives from the relevant 
     international technical and nongovernmental organizations 
     addressing the specific diseases, recipient countries, donor 
     countries, the private sector, UNICEF and the World Health 
     Organization: (1) on the most effective uses of such funds to 
     demonstrate the health and economic benefits of such an 
     approach; and (2) to develop a multilateral, integrated 
     initiative to control these diseases that will enhance 
     coordination and effectiveness and maximize the leverage of 
     United States contributions with those of other donors: 
     Provided further, That funds made available pursuant to this 
     section shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                          assistance for egypt

       Sec. 699. (a) Foreign Military Financing Program.--Of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act for Egypt under the heading 
     ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'', $200,000,000 shall 
     not be made available for obligation until the Secretary of 
     State certifies and reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that the Government of Egypt has taken 
     concrete and measurable steps to--
       (1) enact and implement a new judicial authority law that 
     protects the independence of the judiciary;
       (2) review criminal procedures and train police leadership 
     in modern policing to curb police abuses; and
       (3) detect and destroy the smuggling network and smuggling 
     tunnels that lead from Egypt to Gaza.

                              {time}  1845


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boustany

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boustany:
       Strike section 699 of the bill (relating to assistance for 
     Egypt).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, first let me start by saying I have deep 
respect for the work that Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf have 
done with this bill. I also have shared the major concerns that both of 
you have with regard to the internal Egyptian reforms that you're 
advocating. I share those same concerns. I am also deeply concerned 
about the border situation between Egypt and Gaza and the smuggling of 
arms that's ongoing.
  My amendment takes a step to strike the language in section 699 from 
the bill that I believe unnecessarily places restrictions on the FMF 
funding for Egypt. I believe these restrictions are actually harmful to 
U.S. national strategic interests.
  I have to say that clearly Egypt has been a vital strategic partner 
in the region for many, many years, and this is not the way that the 
U.S. should treat its friends and reward its friends.
  If you look at the record, Egypt has worked with us to expedite the 
processing of our nuclear warships going through the Suez Canal when 
otherwise it would take weeks. Also, the Egyptian Government has shared 
critical intelligence with us across the board, and there has been 
significant military cooperation for quite some time now.
  The other things that have happened is that Egypt has worked hard to 
maintain the March 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. And even as we 
speak tonight, there are plans being facilitated by Egypt to bring Ehud 
Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas together at Sharm el-Sheikh next week. So 
clearly Egypt is trying to do what it can to help facilitate the peace 
process.
  I believe this funding is a critical part of keeping the peace with 
Israel, maintaining balance in this part of the region. And also I 
believe it's in the interest of Israel's national security as well, in 
addition to being in our national security interest.
  The current language in the bill would place, I believe, unrealistic 
restrictions. It requires the Secretary of State to provide certain 
certifications which are going to be very difficult to provide. And it 
may just simply end up being political cover. And in the interest of 
good policy, without browbeating our important ally Egypt in this 
process, I think we can work with them in a more cooperative way as we 
go forward to achieve the things that we're trying to achieve, such as 
getting stability on the border with Gaza, reducing the smuggling or 
arms, and also moving forward on internal reforms in Egypt itself.
  This ally is important. I think we need to work with them. We need to 
understand their timelines, and work with them and respect that 
timeline as we go forward.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of his amendment.
  Section 699, as proposed in this Foreign Operations bill, risks 
undermining the significant progress we have made in a vital strategic 
partnership.

[[Page H6914]]

  Mr. Chairman, it is critical to remember that our friend and ally 
Egypt led the Arab world in establishing a model for peaceful 
cooperation in the Middle East. The Camp David Accords ushered in an 
unprecedented era of cooperation between Egypt and the United States, 
as well as between Egypt and Israel. This peace has held for nearly 30 
years. The benefits to the world have been very significant, and the 
consequences, particularly to Egypt, have also been considerable, 
including the assassination of former President Anwar Sadat.
  Egypt has been the cultural and historical center of the Arab world 
and is poised to play a significant role in fostering peace and 
maintaining a very delicate balance of stability in the Middle East. 
Even now, as my colleague mentioned, Egyptian President Mubarak is 
preparing for an emergency summit with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, 
King Abdullah of Jordan, and Palestinian President Abbas to address the 
potentially explosive situation in Gaza.
  Mr. Chairman, I had actually hoped to offer an amendment today to 
section 699 to help address the serious concerns involving the 
smuggling of arms, weapons and contraband across the border into Gaza, 
a pressing concern which has become even more urgent given recent news. 
However, this amendment would not have been ruled in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the desire of my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee to see progress on human rights and civil 
reform in Egypt. I deeply share this concern as well and eagerly look 
for the right mechanism to achieve this goal. But I oppose the 
methodology of penalizing our diplomatic and military cooperation 
efforts.
  U.S.-Middle East policy is complex and a delicate undertaking, at 
best. And despite the good intentions here, I fear that section 699 
could backfire and harm one of our best and most vital strategic 
relationships in the region.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my colleague. I think he's right on the spot.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, this is a difficult and sensitive issue 
that the House has debated many times before in many different ways.
  We all know that Egypt is an important ally of the United States. We 
all know that Egypt plays a very important role in the Middle East, and 
that role will even be more crucial in the months ahead. We all know 
that Egypt was the first Arab country to have made peace with Israel, 
and that the peace, while not nearly as warm or as forward-leaning as 
many of us would have liked, has held for close to 30 years. That is 
why Egypt has consistently received more foreign assistance in this 
bill than virtually any country other than Israel. And that is true of 
this year's bill as well.
  Nevertheless, there is a frustration level with our very good ally 
over two key issues, the Egyptian Government's increasingly harsh 
response to dissent of any kind and the government's failure to take 
serious steps to stopping the smuggling from Egypt to Gaza.
  When Israel withdrew all of its population and military forces from 
Gaza nearly 2 years ago, one of the biggest concerns was what to do 
about Gaza's border with Egypt. Some in Israel argued that Israeli 
forces should remain at the border to ensure that it did not become an 
opening to allow the smuggling of weapons and terrorists to Gaza. Those 
who argue that Israel needed to completely withdraw and that Egypt 
could effectively play that role ultimately prevailed. Israel and Egypt 
even reworked parts of their peace agreement to allow for an expanded 
Egyptian force on that border. Unfortunately, however, those forces 
have not done the job, have not stopped the smuggling.
  As was highlighted so vividly during the recent fighting in Gaza, the 
forces of Hamas are very well equipped. The bulk of that equipment has 
come through that border. Especially now that Hamas has effectively 
taken over in Gaza, it is critically important that Egypt do everything 
within its power, including stopping these armed shipments before they 
even get to the Gaza border, to put an end to this deadly arms trade.
  The language in the bill does not cut aid to Egypt, which many have 
wanted to do, I can assure you. It simply fences off a portion of 
Egypt's assistance, pending a report and certification by the Secretary 
of State that Egypt is taking steps to, one, enact a new judicial law; 
two, to curb police abuses; three, to detect and destroy the smuggling 
network into Gaza.
  I believe it is a moderate and reasonable approach to two very 
difficult and important issues that we have discussed on numerous 
occasions, to no avail, with our good friends in Egypt.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield to my good friend from 
California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. 
Lantos.
  Mr. LANTOS. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I want to speak 
very strongly to support her position.
  The nightmare that is unfolding in Gaza is in no small measure the 
responsibility of the Government of Egypt.
  Egypt has a huge military, and it boggles the mind to assume that the 
Egyptian military would not have been able to seal Gaza from the 
constant flow of drugs, weapons and persons being trafficked into Gaza 
had they attempted to do so.
  Now, we all understand that the prime culprit in Gaza is Hamas, the 
terrorist organization. A secondary culprit is the previous corrupt 
regime of Yasser Arafat, which led to the parliamentary victory of 
Hamas. But the Egyptian Government has a heavy responsibility for what 
is the present situation in Gaza. It is a terrorist-controlled area, 
weapons flowing in, drugs flowing in, trafficked persons flowing in. 
And to have the minimum of a certification by our Secretary of State 
that at the very least Egypt at long last has decided to control this 
very dangerous border is an extremely modest measure. I would have 
preferred far more severe measures in this regard, but I strongly 
support this measure.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to Mr. 
Ellison.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman and commend 
the gentlewoman for her good wisdom and excellent intentions behind 
section 699 which would conditionalize aid to Egypt. However, I must 
rise in support of the amendment that has been brought by Mr. Boustany 
because I believe that the impact of this piece in the bill would 
signal to the region a very hostile and unhealthy message.
  The message that we should be sending to allies in the region is that 
we want to work constructively and productively to seal that border. I 
would point out that sealing borders is no easy enterprise. But I also 
believe that with a greater amount of help and with proper resources 
that the border could well be sealed between Gaza and Egypt.
  This conditionalizing sends a signal that Egypt, that it is criticism 
of Egypt, that Egypt is somehow not putting forth the proper effort. 
Given that Egypt is such a long-standing and important ally, I think 
this is not the right message to send.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that no subcommittee chairman 
presided over the provision of more financial aid to Egypt than I did 
during the 10 years that I was chairman of the subcommittee.
  I think it is also fair to say that I have, on many occasions, tried 
to see to it that when this body looked at questions in the Middle East 
that it looked at the interests of all of the parties fairly. But I 
rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  We have a dilemma. Egypt is an important and welcome ally. I have 
always considered them to be a friend. They have played a very 
constructive role in the Middle East. But in recent years, I am sad to 
say, Egypt has displayed an increasingly brutal repression of freedom 
that is contrary to everything that America is supposed to stand for. 
We have seen the beating of

[[Page H6915]]

demonstrators in Bull Connor fashion. We have seen the jailing of 
political opponents.
  We have to speak out. Unlike some wildly romantic beliefs of some of 
the neocons in this country, like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the 
Vice President, I do not naively believe that we can force democracy 
down the throats of a region that has had little experience with it. We 
have seen in the case of Hamas how democratic forms can be abused and 
subverted by undemocratic means. But, nonetheless, I do believe that we 
have an obligation to expect that countries with whom we are so closely 
associated will perform within certain norms of decency when it comes 
to the question of human rights.
  To indicate our concern, while still expressing our respect for a 
treasured friend, we have fenced $200 million in military aid until the 
administration can honesty certify that Egypt has greatly improved its 
human rights conduct and has done more to effectively prevent the 
illicit supply of arms from being smuggled into Gaza.
  In my view, this is a balanced approach. It does not cut off aid. It 
leaves options open. It certainly leaves a very large amount of 
military aid to Egypt unfettered in any way whatsoever, enough to 
continue all existing ongoing military contracts.
  It is a balanced approach. It is a nuanced approach. It is aimed at 
military aid, because only the military in the Egyptian government, in 
my view, has the influence to make this come to a responsible and 
friendly conclusion.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment so 
that America can send a message consistent with our values, while still 
recognizing our geopolitical relationships.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of 
the committee's language. In fact, I think the language is very 
moderate, perhaps even, from my own perspective, a little bit too 
moderate because I think we could have put some other conditions on it.
  Ayman Nour is still in prison. I visited Ayman Nour's wife. He is 
still in prison. He is not very, very well. We have interceded on his 
behalf, the Congress and everyone else. But Ayman Nour is still in 
prison.
  The Coptic Christians. The life of the Coptic Christians is worse 
today than it has been for a long while. So if you're a Coptic 
Christian in Egypt, you're in trouble.
  For the Baha'is, the Baha'is in Egypt just live the most miserable 
life that you can possibly live. They are not even recognized. They 
cannot even get a card for a driver's license. They are a nonentity. 
They are not even there. They are not. So they can't move. They can't 
do anything.
  There is anti-Semitic and anti-Christian editorials and cartoons in 
their newspapers. Just look at what they say. The government controls 
those newspapers. So if a government controls a newspaper and anti-
Semitism and anti-Christian language is in there, does that not mean 
that someone in the government is saying that?
  Also, the language is moderate. They gunned down the Sudanese. I was 
there shortly after they gunned down the Sudanese. There are many 
Sudanese that live there, and they gunned them down. There is police 
brutality.
  The Gaza. The gentleman, Mr. Lantos, was right with regard to the 
Gaza. They have a powerful military. They could be doing much, much 
more.
  Egypt is a great nation. It is a great nation. They are great people. 
They are our friends. But friends have to be honest with friends.
  Mr. Obey was exactly right. We have given them, Mr. Obey would have 
this figure better than I would, over $15 billion. Martin Luther King 
said, in the end, we will remember not the words that were of our 
enemies but the silence of our friend. As a friend, for us not to speak 
out on this issue, we would be derelict in our duty. We would be 
derelict in our duty.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, 
and in support of it, and would say to the gentlewoman, the Chairwoman, 
it would have sent a very refreshing message if one of the other 
conditionalities had been with regard to the Coptic Christians, who are 
very patriotic people in Egypt and who love their country and who 
always speak proudly of their country and who always honor their 
country; and also if we had conditionality language with regard to the 
Baha'is. But I think Mr. Obey is right. I agree with the Chairwoman. I 
would hope that we would defeat the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:


                  relief for the hmong and montagnards

       Sec. 699A. Automatic Relief for the Hmong and 
     Montagnards.--Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(B)), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new clause: ``Clause (vi) 
     shall not apply to the Hmong or Montagnards on the basis of 
     any act or event occurring in or before 1975''.
       Technical Correction.--(1) In General.--Section 
     212(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking 
     ``Subclause (VII)'' and replacing it with ``Subclause (IX)''.


                  report on anti-corruption activities

       Sec. 699B. (a) Report Required.--Not later than May 1, 
     2008, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development and the Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium 
     Challenge Corporation, shall submit to Committees on 
     Appropriations a report on the level of corruption in each 
     country that receives assistance in this Act under the 
     heading ``Development Assistance'', ``Assistance for Eastern 
     Europe and the Baltic States'', or ``Assistance for the 
     States of the Former Soviet Union''.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report required by 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) assess the level of corruption in each country's 
     political, economic, and judicial sectors, including detailed 
     information regarding specific acts of corruption;
       (2) assess the extent to which recent elections in each 
     country have been free and fair;
       (3) include information regarding steps each country has 
     taken to combat corruption;
       (4) describe at the program, project, and activity level 
     how the United States assistance is designed to strengthen 
     anti-corruption activities in each country, including 
     specific outcome goals and objectives; and
       (5) include an identification of countries that the 
     Secretary of State determines require special scrutiny for 
     fiscal year 2009, including an identification of countries 
     that the Secretary determines are not making significant 
     efforts to comply with minimum standards for anti-corruption 
     activities.
       (c) Methodology.--Not later than September 30, 2007, the 
     Secretary of State shall provide to the Committees on 
     Appropriations a detailed description of--
       (1) the methodology for assessing the level of corruption 
     in each country for purposes of preparing the report required 
     by subsection (a) and for evaluating each country's annual 
     progress in fighting corruption; and
       (2) the indicators upon which the Secretary will make such 
     assessments.


 programs to improve democracy, the rule of law, and governance in iran

       Sec. 699C. Of the funds appropriated in this Act, 
     $50,000,000 should be made available for programs to improve 
     democracy, the rule of law, and governance in Iran.

                              {time}  1915


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for negotiating the participation of additional 
     countries under the visa waiver program described in section 
     217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 20, 2007, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H6916]]

  Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its points of 
entry, and specifically I believe that we should prevent additional 
countries from joining the United States visa waiver program until we 
have technical and human resources to secure our points of entry. I do 
not believe our Nation can afford to allow more visitors in the United 
States without screening them prior to arrival.
  This amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate 
additional visa waiver countries. The State Department should not be 
using funds to negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable 
and tamper-resistant biometric identification standards that were 
mandated by the U.S. PATRIOT Act as a cornerstone of the entry-exit 
system are fully operational. We refer to that, Mr. Chairman, as the 
US-VISIT program. There are currently 27 visa waiver countries, and I 
believe it is too risky to negotiate additional countries without first 
having our security screening system in place.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to provide more opportunities for 
terrorists to breach a loophole in our security. How much time does our 
Nation have before ICE, the Immigration Customs Enforcement, the air 
marshals or the TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the 
next Richard Reid?
  For example, Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan 
descent, a name we all know very well, actually used his French 
passport, without a U.S. visa, on February 23, 2001. He flew from 
London to Chicago and on to Oklahoma City, where he began the flight 
training at an aviation school.
  Fortunately, on August 16, 2001, INS arrested Moussaoui because he 
had remained in the United States well beyond the 90 days that were 
allowed under the visa waiver program entrants and he was in violation 
of the requirement that visa waiver program travelers enter for 
business or tourism. Had INS and law enforcement not been literally on 
top of their game, Mr. Speaker, Moussaoui could have been a part of the 
9/11 attacks. That was his intent. We stopped him, but he was here on a 
visa waiver.
  A more recent example can be summarized in a June 18, just this 
month, 2007, ABC News reported about suicide bombers who were sent to 
the United States and Europe after being trained in Afghanistan. The 
story references this recent terrorist video where the Taliban military 
commander, Mansoor Dadullah, is found saying in this video, ``These 
Americans, Canadians, British and Germans, come here to Afghanistan 
from faraway places.'' This story further confirms, Mr. Speaker, what 
we already know: Terrorist forces are recruiting from the Western 
World, the same countries who are established members of our visa 
waiver program.
  I feel that we cannot continue a loophole that allows homegrown 
European terrorists access to the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the visa waiver program was only designed to be a 
temporary program for a small and select group of nations, starting 
with the U.K., Japan and France. Now, 27 countries participate in the 
visa waiver program, believe me, enough to keep ICE and TSA exceedingly 
busy. Do we really need to fund efforts to add a 28th and 29th country 
to their list of responsibilities?
  I just don't want to see our Nation attacked because we couldn't 
carry through with our commitment to security first. I ask my 
colleagues, please, support this commonsense Gingrey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly, I have mixed feelings about this amendment. I 
don't think that the appropriations bill is the proper place to 
consider issues that are clearly authorization issues, and yet I know 
that there is considerable concern about this program.
  Let me simply say that in the interests of time and because I think 
the equities are split, that we would be willing to accept the 
gentleman's amendment, with the understanding that we would need to 
give the administration an opportunity in conference to express any 
concerns about it and consider any adjustments that might be made that 
would be mutually agreed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee 
for yielding, and I certainly appreciate his willingness to understand 
the necessity of the amendment. Indeed, I appreciate it and will agree 
to that, and hope the administration will follow through on the 
amendment. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:


 LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON RELATIONS WITH 
                                 TAIWAN

       Sec. 6xx. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce any of the provisions in the Memorandum to 
     all Department and Agency Executive Secretaries dated, 
     February 2, 2001, and entitled ``Guidelines on Relations With 
     Taiwan''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Tancredo-Chabot amendment would prevent the State 
Department from expending any funds to enforce several arbitrary and 
archaic guidelines that inhibit or altogether prevent U.S. officials 
from communicating with their counterparts in Taiwan. These 
restrictions range from just silly to downright absurd.
  Among other things, the so-called guidelines do not permit meetings 
with Taiwanese diplomats or elected officials in State Department 
buildings, the White House or Old Executive Office Building. They 
prevent executive branch personnel from the Foreign Affairs agencies 
and those above the rank of GS-14 from attending Taiwan's annual 
reception in Washington. They prevent executive branch personnel from 
attending meetings at Twin Oaks, the former residence of Taiwan's 
Ambassador here in Washington. They prevent travel to Taiwan by 
officials above a certain rank from the Defense Department and the 
State Department. They prohibit executive branch personnel from 
corresponding directly with Taiwan officials.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would be 
prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment, with the understanding 
that the committee will continue to investigate the effect of the 
amendment as we take it to conference with the other body later in the 
year.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
will be very brief. I appreciate the gentleman and I don't want to take 
time here. I would just make a couple of points.
  This amendment is long overdue. Taiwan is our friend. It is a 
longtime democratic ally and a major trading partner. Just across the 
Taiwan Strait you have Communist China, with its more than 900 missiles 
pointed directly at Taiwan. China operates under a dictatorship. Its 
human rights record is abysmal. It ignores the rule of law. It 
practices religious persecution. It warehouses political prisoners. It 
carries out an unconscionable coercive abortion policy. Yet when it 
comes to dealing with the two nations diplomatically, we often treat 
Taiwan like a pariah nation and kowtow to the Beijing bullies.
  So I would commend the gentleman from Colorado for bringing forth 
this amendment, and I want to thank the distinguished chairman for 
accepting the amendment.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, as co-chair of the Congressional Taiwan 
Caucus, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long, we have allowed China to dictate our 
relationship with Taiwan.

[[Page H6917]]

If anything, it should be the other way around. Taiwan consistently 
holds free and fair democratic elections. Taiwan respects human rights 
and labor standards. Taiwan is a free, democratic nation.
  As the greatest democracy in the history of the world, we have an 
obligation to support other democracies and nurture them around the 
globe. We must be a beacon, a light to the world, showing the way 
forward for other democracies. Only then, will democracy finally 
flourish--and only if we show the way.
  Mr. Chairman, our priorities are backwards when we place China's 
concerns ahead of a democratic country's. We must end these arbitrary 
and archaic restrictions on our relations with Taiwan. I urge support 
for this amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's 
offer, and I yield back the balance of my time and accept the offer you 
have made to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Herseth Sandlin Sandlin

  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Ms. Herseth Sandlin :
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out the diversity visa program under 
     sections 201(e), 203(c), or 204(a)(1)(I) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(e), 1153(c), and 
     1154(a)(1)(I)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by 
my colleague and good friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, as well as 
Mr. DeFazio of Oregon, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas, Mr. Sherman of 
California and Mr. Tancredo of Colorado.
  The amendment is simple and straightforward. It would prohibit the 
use of funds in the bill to implement the Diversity Visa Program 
otherwise known as the ``visa lottery.''
  The visa lottery program was established in 1990 and awards about 
50,000 permanent-resident visas to foreign nationals by conducting a 
random lottery. In the last Congress, the State Department's inspector 
general testified before Congress that the Office of the Inspector 
General ``continues to believe that the Diversity Visa Program contains 
significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence 
officers, criminals and terrorists attempting to use the program for 
entry into the United States as permanent residents.''
  If for no other reason, national security is too important to allow 
this institutional randomness in our immigration policy. The visa 
lottery injects a level of unnecessary and responsible uncertainty into 
the immigration process. Our amendment is a practical provision that 
will make our Nation safer.
  When the House considered its immigration bill in the 109th Congress, 
the gentleman from Virginia and I joined together to offer an amendment 
eliminating the visa lottery program, and it passed with strong 
bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to provide similarly strong 
support to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota for yielding and for her leadership in bringing forth this 
amendment, which corrects a grievous problem with our immigration 
system.
  This visa lottery program is clearly unfair to lawful immigrant 
applicants who are abiding by our rules and going through the process. 
It pushes 50,000 people chosen totally at random ahead of hundreds of 
thousands of law-abiding immigrants waiting to be reunified with their 
families.
  The program is wrought with fraud. The State Department inspector 
general has said that the visa lottery program is subject to widespread 
abuse, and that identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are 
commonplace.
  A simple click on the State Department's visa lottery Web site is 
very revealing. The first thing you will notice on that Web site is a 
warning in bold red font about fraudulent websites and individuals. 
Indeed, a cottage industry has sprung up of individuals using the visa 
lottery program to take advantage of foreign nationals.
  No skills are necessary to enter the lottery. As we look around the 
country for programs that help meet needs of reunifying families or job 
skills for which there is a shortage in the United States, we have a 
program that gives 50,000 visas based on pure luck, and the applicants 
must only have the equivalent of a high school diploma. But the State 
Department has indicated they often have very few resources to make 
even this determination in countries that do not have systems similar 
to the United States.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is a national security 
threat. This program of selection purely at random makes it possible 
for visa lottery participants to be people who are from countries that 
are known to be state sponsors of terror. Nothing would prevent 
terrorist organizations from submitting numerous names for the lottery, 
and, as long as they don't have criminal backgrounds, they can receive 
not just a temporary visa like the 9/11 hijackers had, but a permanent-
resident visa to be permanently in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. The visa lottery 
program is based on the absurd notion that the group of people coming 
to the United States are insufficiently diverse. There has never been 
such a diverse group of people.
  The diversity lottery discriminates against those who live in Mexico, 
China or the Philippines on the theory, an absurd theory, that an 
immigrant from Paraguay will add more to American culture than one from 
Mexico. I think it is time to end this absurd cultural discrimination.
  It makes sense for our country to let people come here for family 
unification or because the immigrant brings special skills. The 
diversity lottery admits people who bring neither. They need no family 
ties nor special skills.
  Our other immigration programs require that the person either have a 
job or a family member who will issue an affidavit of support. Those 
coming here under the visa lottery have neither, and therefore are free 
to become a charge to our taxpayers.
  I look forward to having a comprehensive immigration law so that our 
immigration laws make sense, but let's kill the one element of our 
immigration laws that make the least sense now. We shouldn't 
discriminate against those with family in the United States, those with 
special skills, or those from Mexico, China or the Philippines, on the 
theory that somehow we enhance our culture more by admitting immigrants 
from one country as opposed to another.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for a brief 
discussion on the issue of the persecution of Coptic Christians in 
Egypt.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see a subject touched on here and 
would hope that Chairman Obey would be aware that under the State and 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill for 2008, $200 million of the 
$1.3 billion military assistance for Egypt will be withheld until the 
Secretary of State certifies that the Government of Egypt has taken 
concrete steps to reform its judiciary, to curb police abuses and 
address concerns about the smuggling of weapons from Egypt to Gaza.
  I strongly support this provision, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 
request that an additional provision, if the chairman would consider it 
at some

[[Page H6918]]

point, be added to ensure that the Government of Egypt also increase 
protections for human rights according to Egypt's own international 
human rights commitments, including the religious freedom of members of 
religious minorities, such as the Coptic Christians and Baha'is, among 
others.
  I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the committee would 
be so inclined at some point, if we could work with him in any way.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, at this point I 
am simply standing in for the subcommittee chair, but I would simply 
say that while I am not frankly as totally familiar with the issue as I 
am with, for instance, the record of the Egyptian Government in jailing 
Mr. Nour and other political opponents, I certainly have seen that 
concern expressed many times, and I would think the conferees would be 
interested in improving human rights records on Egypt's part with 
respect to all groups, including Coptic Christians.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. WOLF. I thank the chairman of the committee and thank the 
gentleman from Arizona.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from South Dakota?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. With respect to the amendment of the gentlewoman, I have 
some considerable disquiet about the Appropriations Committee on the 
basis of 3 minutes discussion pronouncing judgment on complicated 
matters with respect to immigration, but let me simply say I would be 
willing to accept the amendment as an expression of concern on the 
subject and would hope that the administration would deal with the 
concerns as the committee goes to conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be expended in violation of section 243(d) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)) (relating to 
     discontinuing granting visas to nationals of countries 
     denying or delaying accepting aliens removed from the United 
     States).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, 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. Chairman, my amendment would simply prevent the 
State Department from continuing to selectively ignore Federal statute.
  The Federal statute in question instructs the State Department to 
discontinue the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to 
citizens of countries who refuse our attempts to repatriate or deport 
their nationals. As I mentioned, the State Department often chooses to 
disregard this statute.
  In fact, some dozen nations around the world routinely refuse to 
accept their citizens who have come here illegally or violated the 
terms of their visas. Iraq is just one example. As a result, Iraqi 
aliens who would otherwise be deported are free to remain in the United 
States.
  Last year, I sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff asking why an Iraqi 
national by the name of Gavan Alkadi was not deported but instead was 
released into the public. Gavan Alkadi have been convicted of an 
aggravated felony and has been arrested nearly 70 times in Colorado.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I would yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. As I understand this amendment, it simply indicates that 
the Department ought to enforce the law. I am not really inclined to 
object to that. In the interest of time, I am willing to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I appreciate the gentleman's offer.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for offering this amendment with me. I'll be brief because I don't 
think many Members here need to be convinced that we need our 
Government agencies to enforce the laws we give them and that they 
aren't arbitrary.
  Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the 
State Department to discontinue the issuance of visas to nations who 
fail to take back their nationals who have been ordered removed by our 
Government.
  Unfortunately, this step by our Government has never been taken. Why? 
The gentleman from Colorado and I joined on a letter to the Secretary 
of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to ask this very 
question. The chart I have here indicates the response we received and 
I quote:

       Department of Homeland Security Response: ``While visa 
     sanctions under Section 243(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act may be an effective tool in obtaining 
     repatriation cooperation, the severity that makes them 
     potentially effective also has the potential to negatively 
     impact other U.S. foreign relations objectives if not used 
     judiciously. When considering the use of 243(d) sanctions, 
     DHS must consider the potential repercussions to U.S. foreign 
     policy. Because the United States is pursuing a number of 
     initiatives with China on foreign policy issues, implementing 
     Section 243(d) sanctions could have counterproductive 
     effects.''--Donald H. Kent, Assistant Secretary, U.S. 
     Department of Homeland Security, January 10, 2007.

  Mr. Chairman, how this reads to me is that our trade with nations 
like China is more important than providing for the safety of the 
American people. Many of the people who we are trying to remove are 
hardened criminals, violent felons that we want off our streets. 
Because of two recent Supreme Court decisions, our government is 
limited in the length of time we can hold them in our jails while 
working to remove them. If we can't remove them in 6 months, they are 
to be set free. Now how many are we talking about here? As this chart 
shows, here are the top offending countries and the number roaming 
America:

TABLE 14.--BREAKDOWN IN THE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM COUNTRIES THAT
                      BLOCK OR INHIBIT REPATRIATION
                          [As of June 29, 2004]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Non-
                                          Detained   detained
            Eight countries               criminal  criminal/    Total
                                            non-       non-
                                          criminal   criminal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam................................        352      5,807      6,159
Jamaica................................        715     11,568     12,283
Iran...................................        105      7,039      7,144
India..................................        253     28,540     28,793
Ethiopia...............................        108      4,454      4,562
Eritrea................................         21        637        658
China..................................        885     72,315     73,200
Laos...................................        140      3,302      3,442
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................      2,579    133,662    136,241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
During FY 2003, the detention of criminal/non-criminal aliens from the
  top eight uncooperative countries that block or inhibit repatriation
  consumed 981,202 detention days and $83 million.
Source: DRO.

  According to a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General 
audit in April 2006, ``The difficulty that ICE is experiencing removing 
illegal aliens with final orders has, in effect, created a mini-amnesty 
program for tens of thousands of illegal aliens that are subject to 
removal from the U.S. It also encourages individuals from non-
cooperating countries such as China, India, and Iran to make attempts 
to enter the U.S. illegally.
  So let me close by again saying this amendment that I and the 
gentleman from Colorado are offering just says to enforce existing law. 
Unless these nations believe that they will not obtain a visa in the 
future, nothing is ever going to change.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase light bulbs for operations in the United 
     States unless the light bulbs have the ``ENERGY STAR'' or 
     ``Federal Energy Management Program'' designation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois

[[Page H6919]]

(Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that none of the 
funds made available in this bill may be used to purchase light bulbs 
for operation in the United States unless the light bulbs have the 
``Energy Star'' or the ``Federal Energy Management Program'' 
designation. What this means is that light bulbs purchased will have to 
be high-efficiency light bulbs.
  Right now, the most common high-efficiency bulbs are the compact 
fluorescent light bulb, known as a CFL. CFLs use approximately 75 
percent less energy than incandescent bulbs to provide the same amount 
of light. They also last approximately eight to ten times longer. 
Replacing an ordinary bulb with a comparable CFL saves up to $74 in 
energy costs over the bulb's lifetime.
  Today, Americans are rightly concerned about the impact of foreign 
energy dependence on our national security and the effect of global 
climate change on the future of our planet. This amendment helps us 
address both of these issues, while at the same time saving millions of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. In light of the fact that you and the other sponsors of the 
amendment have worked to narrow the scope of the amendment to just the 
funds that are involved to operations in the United States, the 
committee would be happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the chairman 
for accepting this. This is part of what we are working on.
  I introduced a bill to require all GSA buildings to use high-
efficiency bulbs. Mr. Inglis and I introduced this earlier this year. 
It is included in a comprehensive climate change bill which was 
reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee yesterday. 
I am very hopeful we can get this done through that piece of 
legislation for all GSA buildings, but this amendment here is a good 
start.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'', not more than $250,000,000 may be made 
     available for Pakistan.
       (b) Corresponding Transfer of Funds.--The amounts otherwise 
     provided by this Act are revised by increasing the amount 
     made available for ``United States Emergency Refugee and 
     Migration Assistance Fund'', and reducing the amount made 
     available for ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', by 
     $50,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering with my good friends 
from Washington and New York simply shifts $50 million from military 
aid for Pakistan to the Emergency Refugee and Mitigation Assistance 
Account. It would leave $250 million in Pakistani military aid, the 
same level that appeared in the chairwoman's original mark.
  In many areas of Federal spending, Congress has to make tough choices 
amongst important competing priorities. However, the choice between 
more military aid for Pakistan and assistance for refugees should be an 
easy one.
  Anybody who has witnessed the news in recent weeks understands the 
military dictatorship in Pakistan has had serious problems in terms of 
its treatment of civil society. It is one of the worst nuclear 
proliferators, which could not occur without the knowledge of the 
Pakistani government. Yet it has been the third-largest recipient of 
military aid from the United States since 9/11, receiving $10 billion 
over the last 6 years.
  Despite all that, Pakistan continues to allow the Taliban to operate 
in many parts of Pakistan and launch attacks against U.S. troops in 
Afghanistan. In fact, according to CQ Weekly, a U.S. Army officer 
stationed in Pakistan recently recalled watching a 2-mile-long line of 
Taliban fighters and suicide bombers walk across the border into 
Afghanistan unchallenged by Pakistani security forces.
  Pakistan even has a ``peace agreement'' with the Taliban and other 
terrorists in one province along the Afghan border and agreed to slash 
military patrols in areas with a substantial al Qaeda presence.
  At the same time, Pakistan's military dictator, General Musharraf, 
has dismissed the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and 
attempted to introduce restrictions on its television media.
  Forty pro-democracy protesters recently killed by security forces; 
and, since 2001, over 1,000 people have disappeared.
  On the other hand, Iraq is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the 
world. There have been 4 million innocent Iraqis who have been driven 
from their homes by violence and threats, including tens of thousands 
who are at risk because they helped the United States.
  This humanitarian crisis is rapidly becoming a regional security 
crisis, as Jordan and Syria are at risk of being destabilized by the 
millions of Iraqis they have taken in, 2 million Iraqis in Jordan and 
Syria.
  Despite this, efforts to provide assistance in the region are 
dramatically underfunded. The United States has admitted only 70 
refugees since October, only one in April and one in May. It is not 
getting better. It is getting worse. I think this is a blot on Congress 
as well as the administration, turning its back on these refugees.
  Adding $50 million in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance will 
allow assistance to reach more displaced Iraqis and help mitigate the 
impacts of the refugee crisis on other countries in the Middle East. 
This amendment offered by Mr. McDermott, Mr. Crowley and myself has the 
support of the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, 
Refugees International, the U.S.-India PAC, the U.S.-India Business 
Alliance and others who are deeply concerned about this humanitarian 
crisis.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I must very reluctantly lodge a point of 
order against the gentleman's amendment.
  The amendment proposes to appropriate funds in excess of the 
authorized amount. It therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I 
would ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule. The proponent of an item of 
appropriation carries the burden of persuasion on the question whether 
it is supported by an authorization in law.
  Section 2 of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, 
codified at 22 U.S.C. 2601, establishes the Emergency Refugee and 
Migration Assistance Fund and provides an authorization of 
appropriation not to exceed $100 million at any given time. The bill 
appropriates $45 million, and the amendment by the gentleman from 
Oregon appropriates another $50 million.
  Although the amendment would take the total for the fund to $95 
million in the bill, and thus ostensibly within the authorized level, 
the committee report on page 112 states that an additional $55 million 
was appropriated by Public Law 110-28. Those funds remain available 
until expended.

[[Page H6920]]

  Having reviewed this information, the Chair is unable to conclude 
that the item of appropriation in question is authorized in law.
  The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2 of rule XXI.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Forbes

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Forbes:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act under 
     the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' may be made available 
     for Ethiopia.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk is a simple, 
straightforward amendment. This amendment says that none of the funds 
under the Economic Support Fund may be made available to Ethiopia.
  In 2005, Ethiopia held democratic elections for the first time. As in 
any election, there were winners and losers. The opposition party won 
so many seats in that election that the ruling party immediately moved 
to limit the power of the parliament, stripping it of the power to 
craft a budget and allowing discussion exclusively on issues approved 
by the prime minister.
  When protests grew after several members refused to participate in 
the new government, violence ensued; and the opposition political 
leaders were arrested. Thousands of protesters were arrested since 
October 31, 2005; and, thankfully, most of them have been released. 
However, nearly 2 years later, 38 prisoners from the protest remain 
incarcerated.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I would yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman has persuaded me. I would be happy to accept 
the amendment in the interest of time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia Beach, Mrs. Drake.
  Mrs. DRAKE. I rise today to speak about a true freedom fighter, a man 
whose sense of the rule of law and democracy has kept him in prison for 
the past 2 years. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak for my 
constituent from Virginia Beach, Dr. Yacob Haile-Mariam.
  In 2005, Ethiopia held their national parliamentary elections. Dr. 
Yacob Haile-Mariam, a citizen of Ethiopia, resigned his position as 
professor at Norfolk State University and was elected to the parliament 
as a member of the opposition party.
  Soon after the election, Dr. Haile-Mariam was arrested. Last week, 
the Ethiopian tribunal, adjudicating this matter hastily and without 
notice, terminated the proceedings and found him guilty of the charges 
against him. Dr. Haile-Mariam faces sentencing, including the 
possibility of the death sentence.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, the conviction of Dr. Haile-Mariam and other members of 
the opposition party is adverse to the principles of democracy, freedom 
and human rights that the United States promotes across the globe. More 
importantly, the conviction of these individuals is contrary to the 
commitment Ethiopia has made in recent years to engage in a civil 
society and establish a democratic government which respects the rule 
of law, due process and international principles of human rights.
  The injustice of Dr. Haile-Mariam's imprisonment has been felt 
throughout Hampton Roads, most particularly by his loving and 
supportive family. I have been in contact with his brave wife, Tegist, 
and officials at the State Department since 2005 seeking a positive 
resolution to this unfortunate situation. While I do not believe 
decreasing funds from this particular account would expedite the 
release of Dr. Haile-Mariam, I could not stand by without speaking for 
a man whose voice has been taken from him.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:


   LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE INSTITUTE FOR 
                          SECURITY COOPERATION

       Sec. 6xx. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for programs at the Western Hemisphere Institute for 
     Security Cooperation located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 
20, 2007, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It ensures that no 
funds in this bill can be used for programs at the Western Hemisphere 
Institute for Security Cooperation, otherwise known as WHINSEC. It does 
not affect the funds in the Defense appropriations bill where the 
majority of WHINSEC's funding is provided.
  Last year was the first debate on the WHINSEC, the successor to the 
U.S. Army School of the Americas. Since last year, the WHINSEC has made 
a number of very disturbing decisions that bring into question its 
much-vaunted commitment to transparency and democratic values.
  For example, last year's debate brought to light a number of human 
rights cases involving WHINSEC students and instructors. Instead of 
using these cases as an opportunity to review its practices and 
procedures, instead of strengthening the vetting process and fixing any 
problems that might exist, the WHINSEC chose to attack the messengers.
  It asserted that Salvadoran Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz, 
responsible for the notorious 1983 Las Hojas massacre, never attended 
the WHINSEC. I guess they didn't check their own records because here 
is his name on the list of 2003 graduates.
  They attacked the reputation of the current Bolivian Human Rights 
Ombudsman, Waldo Albarracin, saying that he has no recollection of the 
military captain who had him kidnapped and tortured in 1997, the same 
Major Urzagaste who was at the WHINSEC in 2002. When Mr. Albarracin 
heard of this slander, he sent me a letter describing what happened to 
him and the role of Urzagaste.
  Mr. Chairman, like similar cases regarding corruption charges against 
three Colombian officers who attended the school, the WHINSEC dismissed 
the horror of Mr. Albarracin's torture as without merit because the 
courts dropped the case. Are WHINSEC officials ignorant about how 
military officers acted with impunity in Bolivia during the 1990s? Or 
in El Salvador during the 1980s? Are they ignorant of how the Colombian 
military benefits from the worst culture of impunity in the hemisphere 
today? The fact that charges of kidnapping, torture, murder, drug 
trafficking and corruption are routinely dropped is a major problem 
with Latin American militaries, not a virtue. Even more disturbing is 
how the WHINSEC responded to criticism. It chose to build a fortress 
around itself, to make sure that no one in the public, no human rights 
organization, no foreign policy analyst, would be able to review the 
names of WHINSEC's graduates and instructors.
  For the first time in the history of WHINSEC, including the 40-year 
history of its infamous predecessor, the

[[Page H6921]]

School of the Americas, Freedom of Information Act requests are being 
denied. I have in my hands the school's response regarding 2005 
graduates. Every single name is blacked out. Look at it, 18 pages, 
completely redacted. Is this anyone's idea of transparency? Of open 
relations with human rights and other policy organizations? This was a 
deliberate choice. The practice of secrecy extends to WHINSEC's public 
relations materials, where not a single solitary name of any of its 
Latin American students or teachers appears. So blacking out the names 
of graduates wasn't a mistake. It wasn't an anomaly. It's a deliberate 
decision to keep information secret, to avoid any kind of independent 
scrutiny or oversight.
  Is this the example we want our Latin American counterparts to copy? 
I hope not, Mr. Chairman.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the ranking member 
for yielding to me.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a security fence around Fort Benning, but 
I would not describe the home of the Infantry as a fortress by any 
stretch of the imagination, as my colleague just referred.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Once more, my good friend, and he is 
my good friend, from Massachusetts has so confused the record that it's 
really tough to know where to begin. But let me try.
  He argues that we need to shut down WHINSEC because nearly 30 years 
ago, several graduates of a different program, the School of the 
Americas, were found to have committed atrocities in their home 
countries, a tenuous conclusion indeed. I wonder if he would argue that 
we should shut down Harvard because the Unabomber actually took some 
classes there. Mr. Chairman, of course he wouldn't. Because my friend 
knows that when a student does something awful years after graduating, 
you can't reasonably hold the school accountable. And to do so would 
let one man's action deny thousands more the opportunity to grow and to 
learn. Essentially it would be throwing the baby out with the bath 
water.
  So let's set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. Over 60,000 members 
of Latin American security forces have trained at WHINSEC and its 
predecessor since the inception of the school; 99.99 percent have 
served their countries with honor and distinction. This is the fact.
  In order to ensure that known human rights offenders are not 
attending WHINSEC, potential participants undergo background checks by 
the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, the Bureau of Democracy, 
Human Rights and Labor and the Department of State, not vetted by 
WHINSEC.
  So I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that not one single credible 
accusation of human rights violations has been lodged against a 
graduate of WHINSEC. Not one. And I don't want the gentleman or my 
colleagues necessarily to take my word for this. I want to submit for 
the Record a letter from the United States Department of State, 
actually from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Patrick Duddy, in 
response to the Chairman of the Board of Visitors, the school board, 
WHINSEC school board, to Bishop Morlino dated January 7, 2007.


                            United States Department of State,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 2007.
     Bishop Robert C. Morlino,
     Chairman, Board of Visitors, Western Hemisphere Institute of 
         Security Cooperation.
       Dear Bishop Morlino: I would like to extend my 
     congratulations on your unanimous selection by the Board of 
     Visitors (BoV) members as incoming chairman for 2007. My 
     representative at the December 2006 meeting has conveyed to 
     me the BoV's request for additional information regarding 
     vetting of attendees at U.S. Government-funded security 
     training covered by the Leahy Amendment. As I mentioned in my 
     previous letter, the Department of State is committed to 
     implementing that law's restrictions on support for security 
     units for which credible evidence of human rights violations 
     exists. The Department has vetted tens of thousands of 
     training participants. We have expanded the scope of our 
     vetting to include individuals as well as units. The vetting 
     process includes a local background check by our embassies, 
     as well as checks by bureaus with regional responsibilities 
     (e.g., the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs) and by the 
     Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The Department 
     of State maintains the Abuse Case Evaluation System (ACES), 
     which is a central database that aggregates human rights 
     abuse data into a single, searchable location and facilitates 
     analysis of the data's validity. Personnel involved in the 
     Leahy vetting process use this database as a resource for 
     checking abuse allegations when conducting vetting requests. 
     If all checks come back negative, the Embassy is notified 
     that the individual is cleared for participation in training. 
     The Department vetting process is extremely thorough, and one 
     in which WHINSEC itself plays no role.
       As we have noted earlier, we find no evidence to 
     substantiate any claims that the individuals in my previous 
     letter were not properly vetted. We have no additional 
     information Colonel Francisco Del Cid of El Salvador. As you 
     will recall, I stated in my previous letter that we have no 
     record of Del Cid participating in any programs subject to 
     the provisions of the Leahy Amendment. Additional information 
     regarding the other cases is as follows:
       Captain Filmann Urzagaste of Bolivia attended a WHINSEC 
     program in 2002. It was alleged that he was involved the 1997 
     kidnapping of Waldo Albarracin, then a Bolivian human rights 
     official. The Bolivian Supreme Court declared the charges to 
     be without merit. Albarracin himself, in a recent interview 
     with U.S. Embassy personnel in La Paz, made no mention of 
     Urzagaste. When directly asked whether Urzagaste had been 
     involved, Albarracin indicated that he had no recollection of 
     Urzagaste. The Bolivian Supreme Court's website may be 
     consulted for further information: http://
www.tribunalconstitucional.gov.bo/resolucion1040.html
       With regard to the three Colombian officers mentioned 
     (Captain Dario Sierro Chapeta; Lieutenant Colonel Francisco 
     Patino Fonseca, and Captain Luis Benavides Guancha), we have 
     no record of any allegations regarding human rights 
     violations. Our records indicate that Dario Sierro and Patino 
     Fonseca attended WHINSEC in 2002, followed by Benavides 
     Guancha in 2003. A Colombian police internal investigation 
     into alleged corruption by the three came to light after they 
     attended WHINSEC and were back in Colombia. The three were 
     absolved as the charges were found to be unfounded and 
     described as unsubstantiated allegations. The Colombian 
     Attorney General's office has posted a short article on the 
     case at: http://www.fiscalia.gov.co/pag/divulgainoticias2005/
anticorrup/corrupNasNov17.htm.
       Thank you for your inquiry.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Patrick Duddy,
                                       Deputy Assistant Secretary.

  Mr. Chairman, every year the gentleman from Massachusetts states that 
participation in WHINSEC is declining as Latin American nations grow 
weary of our influence. However, the numbers tell a different story. In 
2005, 686 students from Latin America attended WHINSEC. In 2006 that 
number doubled, up to 1,217. And we saw Brazil for the first time, a 
fact that can't be overlooked as they have begun to participate, and 
they are the neighbors of who else but Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
  Another important fact the gentleman eschews is that the School of 
the Americas closed in 1999. That school closed. WHINSEC opened a year 
and a half later, in 2001, totally revamped its curriculum. The mission 
for WHINSEC, Mr. Chairman, could not be clearer. It's threefold: to 
provide professional education and training to military personnel, law 
enforcement officials and civilians. Number two, foster cooperation 
among participating nations. Thirdly, to promote democratic values and, 
let me emphasize, respect for human rights.
  Mr. Chairman, WHINSEC has consistently accomplished all of these 
goals, strengthening security cooperation between the United States and 
Latin America. In fact, the House Armed Services Committee recognized 
this as much as 2 weeks ago when we unanimously voted to recommend that 
the Department of Defense continue utilizing WHINSEC to strengthen 
security cooperation in the western hemisphere. The fiscal year 08 
National Defense Authorization Act, which included this provision, 
passed this body overwhelmingly by a vote of 397-27.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman 
hasn't been listening to me. The State Department letter that he is 
quoting is essentially a whitewash. That State Department letter says 
that Cid Diaz, who I mentioned who is responsible for the Las Hojas 
massacre, never attended the WHINSEC. I just showed you right here. 
This is from the WHINSEC. He

[[Page H6922]]

did. So the State Department was wrong. The State Department letter 
says that the Human Rights Ombudsman in Bolivia can't remember who his 
torturer was. I have a letter here from the Bolivian Ombudsman that 
says he feels he was slandered. So that letter is wrong. And I have 
proof that it is wrong.
  And you talk about accountability. Where's the accountability? This 
is the first time ever that we can't track the graduates. The school 
doesn't want to track the graduates. They say they don't have the time. 
So it has been up to human rights organizations. This is what we get in 
return. How do we know? How does anybody know? We need to do a better 
job.
  So you didn't listen to my statement, I would say respectfully to the 
gentleman from Georgia. What the State Department sent to you is wrong 
and I have the proof.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
and I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for offering it.
  By prohibiting any funding in this bill from being used for the 
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the 
infamous U.S. Army School of the Americas located at Fort Benning, 
Georgia, we can stand up for human rights, we can honor our principles 
and send a strong message to the world.
  The School of the Americas has been associated with human rights 
abuses, with many of its students linked to Latin American coups and 
vicious death squads. In 1989, graduates from the school killed six 
Jesuit priests, a housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador. And 
today they have a new name, but they have not changed the school's old 
patterns of abuse and conflict. The institute continues admitting and 
graduating known human rights abusers. Yes, Colonel Francisco del Cid 
Diaz, for example, who commanded a unit responsible for a notorious 
massacre of indigenous people in El Salvador in 1983, then attended the 
institute on our own soil as recently as 2003. And there are others 
just like him. It is clear that the institute continually fails not 
only to fully investigate the prior history of its students but also to 
track their activity after graduation. That is why nations like Costa 
Rica, Argentina and Uruguay have terminated their relationship with the 
institute. It is clear neither those nations nor this one have anything 
to gain by supporting an institution with such a marred, violent 
history.
  One hundred sixty-seven U.S. Catholic bishops agree. They have 
written Congress in support of this amendment and called for the 
institute's closure, recognizing that many of its graduates have 
consistently targeted Catholic clergy and lay workers across Latin 
America. As a Congresswoman, a Catholic and an American, I believe 
every action that we take sends the whole world a clear message about 
our priorities and values as a Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern amendment, make it clear 
we are serious about human rights and that the United States of America 
does not train murderers or killers and that we take the loss of human 
life seriously.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend and 
colleague from the great State of Georgia. The gentleman represents 
Fort Benning in Muscogee County, and it gives me great pleasure at this 
time to yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Gingrey, for doing 
this and his tireless work on presenting the WHINSEC good faith that 
they do.
  Mr. Chairman, it's a shame that every year defenders of the Western 
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation have to fight for its 
very existence. But the annual efforts of my colleague, Mr. McGovern, 
and others to close this important institution at least gives us a 
regular opportunity to discuss the great work done at WHINSEC in a 
national forum.
  It also gives Members of the House a chance to show their support for 
this educational institution that spreads American know-how and 
American values to our neighbors and allies throughout Latin America.
  At least since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, presidents and 
congressional leaders of both parties have included promotion of 
democracy throughout our hemisphere and the rest the world as a central 
tenet of U.S. foreign policy. The last 20 years have witnessed 
significant global progress in scores of countries. From the southern 
tip of South America to the northern reaches of Central Europe and 
throughout the Pacific Rim, the oppressed have become liberated.
  From the beginning of our Nation, we have belief that the right to 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness comes not from man or from 
law; those rights are God-given. Thus, we knows as Americans that we 
can't take all the credit for the growth of liberty and human rights, 
but we can take pride that our Nation has served for more than 100 
years as the loudest voice, the greatest advocate and the fiercest 
defender of democracy, liberty and individual determination.
  When we must, we wield the stick. We have fought and shed blood for 
democracy on the beaches of Normandy, the jungles of Vietnam and the 
deserts of Iraq.
  When we can, we wield the carrot. We promote our values to foreign 
students and our world-leading university system by increasing 
development through trade agreements and through targeted foreign aid.
  WHINSEC is a great example of the carrot approach. It's a positive 
influence through soft power. In other words, it's a positive influence 
through education and training.
  WHINSEC is based at Fort Benning, the world's largest infantry 
training center, which is in my district. Fort Benning plays a huge 
role in training the U.S. Army, the greatest fighting force in the 
history of the world. Manuals currently used at WHINSEC are identical 
to those used to train all U.S. Army personnel. WHINSEC operates the 
most advanced and sophisticated military human rights training program 
in the world.
  Comparable training is not available from any other nation or in any 
other American training facility. Without WHINSEC, Latin American 
militaries would not have any access to training in military human 
rights.
  In the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen great transition in the 
Latin American countries from the chains of totalitarianism towards the 
freedom of democracy. We have seen democratically elected governments 
become more stable, we have seen progress on free trade and more open 
markets, and we have seen economic growth.
  It's getting better, but challenges in the region remain. Fidel 
Castro and Hugo Chavez remain vocal adversaries to freedom in the 
American values.
  The arc of the universe bends toward justice, and these foes of 
freedom will fail in time, but the United States must continue to be 
the lighthouse among rocky waters. We must cooperate, educate, and 
assist our friends and our neighbors in Latin America. We do that best 
by supporting WHINSEC and the crucial work that is done there.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the McGovern amendment and let freedom 
ring throughout the Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a disconnect here. Let 
me again try to be crystal clear.
  The problem is that the WHINSEC takes no responsibility for knowing 
anything about the human rights records of their students before they 
come to the U.S. or when they return home. They say the vetting process 
is done by the State Department, and then they say they will not, will 
not, do follow-up after their students return to their home countries.
  How can they then claim that their training is effective? Doesn't 
that require some kind of follow-up or tracking of graduates? Nobody 
has addressed the fact that, up until just now, we would have access. 
There was public access to the people who went to the WHINSEC.
  That's how we knew about those who violated human rights, because we 
had the list. This is now the response that we get from this school 
about the people who attend the school, not just the students, but the 
instructors that they

[[Page H6923]]

bring in. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? 
What's wrong with laying a little sunshine in?
  Look, our standing around the world has never been lower. I hate to 
tell you something, but in Latin America this is one of the most 
unpopular schools that exists in the United States of America. People 
think that this is a school responsible for training or at least 
turning a blind eye to human rights violators, not just from years ago 
but recently.
  But, then again, we really can't tell you accurately and neither can 
you tell me accurately what the human rights records are of these 
people who are attending. Because it's all blacked out. I mean, this is 
not the way a school in the United States that trains for our military 
should operate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, at this time, it gives me great pleasure 
to yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we are speaking about today and not 1983.
  I have had the opportunity, since being a Member of Congress, to work 
in the area of professional military education. I must tell you it's 
important not just for American students, American leaders, American 
service personnel, but it's important for our friends and allies as 
well.
  I have nothing but great respect, great respect for my friend, my 
colleague from Massachusetts. I know how strongly he feels in his 
beliefs. But I must say that we are doing the right thing by keeping 
this school going and going well.
  We do not teach human rights abuse. This school bestows upon its 
students standards. It teaches them military art. It teaches them 
military-to-military relationships. It also instructs in the area of 
human rights.
  I have been to Latin America several times. Three weeks ago, I 
travelled again to the region with Dr. Gingrey and Mr. Conaway, visited 
Colombia and Panama. There we met with President Uribe of Colombia, 
President Torrijos of Panama, and other senior military and political 
leaders. Without exception, the leaders of those countries touted the 
WHINSEC program in Georgia as an exceptional opportunity for their men 
and women in uniform to gain not only technical knowledge but a deeper 
understanding of human rights.
  Furthermore, spending time in the United States gives them an 
opportunity to learn of American values, gives them the opportunity to 
make friends within the American military, with whom they will 
undoubtedly, in days and years ahead, will have the opportunity to 
work.
  I spoke with our American commanders in the field. They reiterated 
what I have heard many times before. Individuals who have been trained 
at WHINSEC performed better on their missions in their host country 
than those who have not.
  Our military commanders also cherished the relationships that they 
have built with their Latin American counterparts who participated in 
the program.
  In addition to comprehending our military culture and its operations, 
the school of graduates often are promoted and rapidly rise through the 
ranks. They understand what it is to have American values, and they 
understand about human rights which are taught there. The message from 
everyone was simple: Please keep that school open.
  Professional military education is so important, but it's also 
extremely important to allow our neighbors, our friends to the south. 
We can't forget them to participate in the professional military 
education of our country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, let me again make a point here that is 
that last year when we were debating this same issue, an Army officer 
trained at the School of the Americas murdered a DEA-trained anti-
narcotics unit in Colombia. This is still happening every day.
  We were told a little while ago that everything, we are referring to 
the distant past. Well, again, I mentioned the Bolivian ombudsman, Mr. 
Albarracin, who was tortured in Bolivia in 1997, and his torturer, 
Major Urzagaste, went to WHINSEC in 2002.
  Again, I am going to keep on saying this. I don't have a problem with 
training foreign militaries. What I have a problem with is this: the 
secrecy, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency.
  I am going to tell you something. We are going to find out, sooner or 
later, who some of these people are; and we are going to find out that 
they are responsible for atrocities. I gave them an example of somebody 
who was admitted to the school after he had been accused of torture.
  I mean, where is the vetting process? We need to do much better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of 
the subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. For 
years, many Members of Congress and activists, including the Maryknoll 
nuns based in my congressional district, fought to shut down the School 
of the Americas. The school's very existence was undermining United 
States efforts to promote civilian control of the military and respect 
for human rights in Latin America.
  So the Army closed the school of the Americas and reopened it a few 
weeks later with a new name, WHINSEC. Past questions about the School 
of the Americas has still not been resolved, giving us no basis on 
which to build a better, more credible, effective program at WHINSEC. 
We need to shine the light on the past of the School of the Americas in 
order to put WHINSEC on track to be a beacon of light for the 
militaries of Latin America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, how much additional time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
southwest Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who also represents Muscogee County, 
Columbus and Fort Benning.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent Fort Benning; and I represent the WHINSEC, 
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. This is a 
fine institution. It's designed and it is functioning, created just in 
2001 in response to the critique that you have heard today over and 
over again to promote professional education and training to eligible 
nations in the Western Hemisphere in democratic principles that are set 
forth in the charter of the Organization of American States.
  You have heard all of this critique, but if you look at the bill 
itself that we are debating tonight, on page 65, language is put in 
here specifically to address these concerns. It says, ``That the 
Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations, no 
later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, a report addressing how 
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation IMET program 
for fiscal year 2008 contributes to the promotion of human rights, 
respect for civilian authority and the rule of law, the establishment 
of legitimate judicial mechanisms for the military, and achieving the 
goal of right sizing military forces.''
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
minute on our side and the proponents' side so the gentleman can 
conclude his thoughts and we can have our last speaker.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of GEORGIA. The points that have been made and the 
critiques that have been made can all be addressed by the legislation 
written by the subcommittee, by the full committee in the bill and 
hopefully will be adopted by the House tonight.

                              {time}  2015

  And so I would urge the defeat of this amendment. I think that we 
need to proceed. We need to continue promoting democracy in our own 
neighborhood in the Western Hemisphere, and I think that the Western 
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation does just that, and I'd 
like for us to keep it and defeat this amendment.

[[Page H6924]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I don't want any more reports. What I want is accountability. I want 
to know whose going there. I want to know what happens to them when 
they go back to their country. I want to know their backgrounds before 
they go to the school.
  You know, we knew, we found out that 19 of the 26 trigger men who 
murdered in cold blood six Jesuit priests in El Salvador were graduates 
of the school because we had access to the names. We don't have access 
to the names anymore. And no report is going to give us access to the 
names.
  We want transparency. We want accountability. There are problems 
here. We need to address them. That's our job.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak 
in opposition to this amendment.
  There are anecdotes for folks who have gone through this school at 
various stages over the last 50 years or 40 years, who have turned bad 
and been bad people. But there are hundreds, literally thousands, of 
men and women who've been trained at these schools, have gone back to 
their country of origin and taken with them the values that they get 
here, the respect for civilian authority. The human rights training 
that's gone on since the WHINSEC was reformulated, that is invaluable.
  I've been to Colombia and Panama recently with my good colleagues, 
Chairman Skelton and Dr. Gingrey and listened to the firsthand reports 
from the men and women who serve in our military who tell us that the 
men and women who are trained in this school come back to those 
countries better prepared to lead their country down a path that we 
would respect and we would want them to lead.
  So I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I have great regard for the gentleman from Texas. But my question is, 
how do you know? Do you track all these people individually? Can you 
tell me that all these people whose names have been crossed out are 
pure, that they are following a code of human rights; that they're not 
guilty of atrocities against their people?
  That's the point here. I'm not arguing against the U.S. being 
involved in training programs. What I'm saying is that there's 
something fundamentally wrong with a training program where everything 
is secret; where we're told everybody is great, but yet we can't have 
access to track down the people who go to that school. We need to 
change that.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, what is truly disingenuous is that nobody 
here tonight speaking against WHINSEC, to my knowledge, has ever taken 
the time to visit the school.
  The gentleman, the author of the amendment, my good friend, talked 
about transparency. It's not because folks have not been invited. 
WHINSEC is so proud of its operation and record on human rights that it 
maintains an open-door policy. And Mr. Chairman, that would be true 
even for the School of the Americas Watch Group. They are welcome at 
any time to come in and look and talk to Colonel Perez, the director of 
the school, and look at the curriculum. Any Member of this body can 
show up unannounced to see for themselves what's being taught at 
WHINSEC.
  Those of us who've taken the time to visit understand the critical 
importance of engaging the leaders and the law enforcement personnel of 
our closest neighbors while spreading democracy and respect for human 
rights. We understand that unlike its predecessor, the School of the 
Americas, WHINSEC has a substantial human rights component that goes 
well beyond the training required by law.
  In fact, at a recent HASC hearing, Admiral Stavridis, the Commander 
of Southern Command, referred to WHINSEC as the military's crown jewel 
for human rights training.
  Mr. Chairman, as we've made clear, those who advocate cutting funding 
for WHINSEC do so in the absence of fact. WHINSEC has a spotless human 
rights record and a tremendous record of success in the Western 
Hemisphere.
  I urge all my colleagues, please vote ``no'' on the McGovern 
amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I'm not interested in going to visit a 
school and having hors d'oeuvres and a cocktail.
  I'm interested in who goes to the school. That's what I'm interested 
in. I want to follow-up who goes to the school, who's admitted to the 
school. And we used to be able to have access to that information. And 
even though the school didn't track the graduates, human rights 
organizations did. We are now being denied access. I mean, where's the 
transparency? You all talk about all the great graduates of this 
school. How do you know when you get this in return? This is not an 
open, transparent process.
  Furthermore, more and more countries in Latin America are saying we 
don't want to have anything to do with this school. Uruguay, Bolivia, 
Argentina, Costa Rica have all pulled out of the school. They don't 
want to have anything more to do with WHINSEC.
  Mr. Chairman, we've heard a great deal today that without the WHINSEC 
the U.S. would not be engaged in Latin America. Well, with all due 
respect, the U.S. trains 15,000 or more Latin American military 
officers and troops each and every year, less than 1,000 of them at the 
WHINSEC. We are very engaged in Latin American militaries, and none of 
these other programs carry the negative baggage that the WHINSEC does.
  We have heard that WHINSEC has trained the future leaders of Latin 
America. But, again, with all due respect, one of Latin America's 
problems has been that too many of its national leaders were from the 
military. We should be spending our time and our efforts on 
strengthening civilian and democratic institutions.
  We have heard assertions that that the WHINSEC is transparent and 
promotes democratic values. But WHINSEC's own actions show those claims 
to be a lie. What else do you need to see? I mean, what else do you 
need to see?
  Now, I suggest that instead of WHINSEC, we should support the model 
of Argentina. After separating from the WHINSEC last year, Argentina 
just opened a new military school where civilian, legal and human 
rights experts will teach every single military officer about the role 
of the military in a modern democratic state.
  Mr. Chair, America's reputation with the people of Latin America is 
at the lowest level ever. Cutting the funding for the WHINSEC will send 
a powerful message to the people of Latin America who, hopefully, will 
be the real future leaders of their nations, that the U.S. Congress 
finally gets it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just close with a few personal remarks. 
When I was working for our dear friend and former colleague, 
Congressman Joe Moakley, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her 
16-year old daughter were murdered in cold blood at the University of 
Central America in San Salvador.
  It made me sick to my stomach when I learned that 19 of the 26 
soldiers who murdered these priests are graduates of the School of the 
Americas. These priests were my friends, and I knew them. And over the 
years, we have raised concerns first about the School of the Americas 
and then its successor, the WHINSEC.
  We have asked for transparency. We have called for accountability. We 
have asked for specific follow-up with the graduates.
  Let me be perfectly clear. There's a reason why WHINSEC does not 
share information on its graduates and its teachers. They don't want us 
to do the follow-up. They don't want us to point out what they should 
be doing.
  Passage of this amendment will send a strong signal to Latin America 
that we do care about human rights. But it will also send a signal to 
our own military that business as usual is not acceptable.
  Vote ``yes'' on the McGovern-Lewis amendment.

                                   La Paz, Bolivia, June 18, 2007.
       Dear Honorable James McGovern, I am writing to you in 
     regards to the participation of police Captain Filmann 
     Urzagaste Rodriguez in human rights violations in Bolivia, 
     specifically in relation to his involvement in my kidnapping, 
     detention and torture.

[[Page H6925]]

       The events took place in January of 1997, while I held the 
     presidential seat of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights 
     of Bolivia (the country's largest non governmental human 
     rights organization). On the morning of January 25th of the 
     aforementioned year I left my residence and hailed a taxi in 
     direction to the University. After traveling approximately 
     300 meters, the taxi was intercepted by two other vehicles 
     from which a group of men dressed in civilian clothing forced 
     me out of the taxi and dragged me into one of the vehicles. I 
     did not have enough time to count the number of people but I 
     estimate the number to be between 8 to 10 men. Once in the 
     vehicle they proceeded to cover my eyes and forced me to lie 
     face down on the floor of the backseat. The vehicle then 
     drove to the outside of the city, I was able to notice the 
     difference as I felt the dust from the road hitting my face. 
     With the vehicle in motion I was subjected to torture by my 
     kidnappers. I could not see their faces and was unable to 
     identify them. By their actions I concluded that the 
     objective was to physically eliminate me or make me 
     disappear. Nonetheless, during the terrorist operative I 
     noticed a sudden change; I could hear an intensive exchange 
     of communications taking place between the men in the vehicle 
     and another source through hand held transmitters or walkie-
     talkies. The vehicle made a sharp turn and seemed to head in 
     a direction back towards the city. After approximately two 
     hours I was placed in a closed room, surrounded by silence. 
     After noticing that I couldn't hear anybody breathing close 
     to me I removed the blindfolds and realized that I was in a 
     police holding cell, thus concluding who had carried out the 
     operation, there was no doubt that the police were 
     responsible.
       Sometime during the night I was taken from the cell and 
     moved to a police administered clinic due to the lesions on 
     my body (I could feel a few broken ribs and I was unable to 
     move my body). Until that point, neither my family nor the 
     other members of the Human Rights Assembly were aware of my 
     whereabouts, but thanks to one of the doctors, whose identity 
     I guard to this day, who was kind enough to contact them over 
     phone on my behalf. Thanks to this information, a lot of 
     people were informed of my whereabouts within the hour.
       Under international pressure and public scrutiny, the then 
     President of the Republic, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, fired 
     the Police Chief. Nonetheless, the government protected the 
     identities of the authors of my kidnapping due to the 
     involvement of Minister Carlos Sanchez Berzain. This is why 
     those responsible have not been brought to justice.
       The then Captain of the Bolivian Police, Filmann Urzagaste 
     Rodriguez, played a role in the events. This information was 
     obtained through the Bolivian police force, given that at the 
     time the event became public, high commanding police officers 
     began accusing one another. Unfortunately the officer [i.e. 
     Urzagaste] and others benefited by the impunity provided by 
     the powers of the political sphere.
       This is what I can inform in summary of this particular 
     case.
       In my condition as the current Defender of the People of 
     Bolivia [i.e. Ombudsman] and a human rights activist I 
     consider that the work your office has been carrying out to 
     obtain the definitive closing of the institution formerly 
     known as the ``School of the Americas'' to be of great 
     importance. Said entity is marked by a sad and shameful 
     history in our continent, it was there that the main 
     protagonists and authors of some of the worst crimes against 
     humanity executed in Latin America received instruction. I 
     send you my support and express my unconditional solidarity 
     in hopes that the legislative authorities of the United 
     Status attend to your request.
           Sincerely,
                                         Waldo Albarracin Sanchez,
                                Defender of the People of Bolivia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Last Name                    2nd Last Name            First Name                 Rank                 Country                 Course
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acevedo............................  De Arbaiza............  Marta.................  1LT..................  El Salvador..........  LDR-4-2
Aleman.............................  Molina................  Eduardo...............  1LT..................  El Salvador..........  LDR-4-2
Bolanos............................  Silva.................  Luis..................  1LT..................  Colombia.............  LDR-1
Del Cid............................  Diaz..................  Francisco.............  COL..................  El Salvador..........  LDR-4-2
Erazo..............................  Ojeda.................  Sebastian.............  1LT..................  Chile................  NPME-8-3
Gomez..............................  Dominguez.............  Fernando..............  1LT..................  Chile................  DEV-2-6
Ramirez............................  Donoso................  Jose..................  MSG..................  Chile................  DEV-2-6
Rapiman............................  Cayul.................  Oscar.................  MSG..................  Chile................  NPME-8-3
Toval..............................  Plazas................  Javier................  1LT..................  Colombia.............  LDR-1-2
Acevedo............................  Mujica................  Sebastian.............  MAJ..................  Paraguay.............  CMS-6
Acosta.............................  Lara..................  Delis.................  SSG..................  Venezuela............  NPME-8-2
Acosta.............................  Piantini..............  Catalino..............  LTC..................  Dom Rep..............  CMS-1-2
Acosta.............................  Nunez.................  Angel.................  CDT..................  El Salvador..........  LDR-4-2
Acosta.............................  Mesa..................  Fabian................  2LT..................  Colombia.............  TAC-6-2
Aduviri............................  Antezana..............  Jose..................  MSG..................  Bolivia..............  OJT
Aduviri............................  Antezana..............  Jose..................  MSG..................  Bolivia..............  DEV-2-3
Aduviri............................  Antezana..............  Jose..................  MSG..................  Bolivia..............  NPME-8-2
Aguero.............................  Alder.................  Pastor................  MAJ..................  Paraguay.............  CMS-7
Aguerre............................  Gutierrez.............  Jorge.................  PV2..................  Colombia.............  TAC-8-2
Aguilar............................  Rojas.................  Martin................  SSG..................  Panama...............  TAC-6-2
Aguilar............................  S.....................  Patricio..............  CPT..................  Ecuador..............  TAC-2
Aguilar............................  Valverde..............  Juan..................  CPT..................  Costa Rica...........  DEV-2-4
Aguilar............................  Manzano...............  Eduardo...............  PFC..................  Chile................  DEV-2-6
Aguilera...........................  Argueta...............  Ronald................  CDT..................  El Salvador..........  LDR-4-2
Aguilera...........................  Miranda...............  Pablo.................  PFC..................  Chile................  DEV-2-6
Aguirre............................  Stoaminga.............  Edgar.................  SPC..................  Ecuador..............  TAC-6-2
Alarcon............................  Mirand................  Pablo.................  SGT..................  Chile................  NPME-8-2
Alarcon............................  Bustos................  Jose..................  PFC..................  Chile................  NPME-8
Alas...............................  Luquez................  Hector................  MAJ..................  El Salvador..........  OPME-5
Albarracin.........................  ......................  Antonio...............  SGT..................  Colombia.............  NPME-8-2
Alcantara..........................  Silva.................  Pablo.................  CPT..................  Mexico...............  CMS-6
Aleman.............................  Sanchez...............  Llery.................  2LT..................  Honduras.............  LDR-4
Alfonso............................  Forero................  Javier................  CDT..................  Colombia.............  LDR-1-2
Aliaga.............................  Llantoy...............  Henrry................  SSG..................  Peru.................  NPME-8-3
Almeida............................  ......................  Jaime.................  LTC..................  Ecuador..............  CMS-5-6
Altamirano.........................  ......................  Gabriel...............  SGT..................  Ecuador..............  TAC-6-2
Alturo.............................  Quintero..............  Alexadner.............  SGT..................  Colombia.............  NPME-8-2
Alverez............................  Buitrago..............  German................  1LT..................  Colombia.............  CMS-5-8
Alvarez............................  Ochoa.................  Javier................  MAJ..................  Colombia.............  OPME-5
Alvarez............................  Vejar.................  Jorge.................  SGT..................  Chile................  NPME-8-2
Alvarez............................  ......................  Pablo.................  SGT..................  Uruguay..............  TAC-7
Alvarez............................  Palacio...............  Rodrigo...............  2LT..................  Honduras.............  LDR-4
Amarista...........................  ......................  Victor................  SFC..................  Venezuela............  NPME-8-2
Amaya..............................  Gomez.................  Jose..................  CDT..................  El Salvador..........  LDR-4-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. With great respect to the Representative from 
Massachusetts, I'd be remiss not to say the following:
  I have seen in 31 years in our military, us be resisted throughout 
this world for the power of our economy and the power of our military. 
But I've watched us be admired for the power of our ideals. And the 
story I'm about to tell I saw many times over.
  In command of a small ship, I pulled into a country. A young officer 
got underway with us. As we pulled back in, after an overnight, he said 
Captain, you treat your men, enlisted men, different than we do. I 
said, what do you mean? He said, you treat them as though they're equal 
to you. I said, they say yes, sir or no, sir. He said, no, you treat 
them as though they're equal human beings. We don't.
  My only comment is, I have seen that so many times, that that picture 
of a GI with the candy bar is true. We do make mistakes.
  But I truly ask, don't close this school. Improve it. It has made 
mistakes. It is needed for engagement of a good men and women in a good 
military to show the ideals of our country.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to 
just yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, once you sift through the mountain of 
misinformation presented on the floor tonight, it's clear that those 
who advocate cutting funding from WHINSEC do so, as I say, in the 
absence of fact. WHINSEC is not the School of the

[[Page H6926]]

Americas. WHINSEC has a spotless human rights record and is exceeding 
in helping the United States develop critical relationships with our 
closer neighbors.
  Mr. Chairman, in fact, it is time to let the School of the Americas 
go, and to give WHINSEC a chance.
  And so I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I move to strike the last word, and I'm pleased to yield 
to my colleague, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me say to the gentleman from Georgia, their record 
isn't spotless. We presented five cases last year. I mean, maybe you 
weren't listening to the debate, but we did. And the problem with this 
year is this is what the WHINSEC gave us, so we can't follow up.
  And to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I have great respect for, 
you know, I'm not against military training. And yeah, we need to do 
better. My amendment, by the way, doesn't cut off all funding for the 
WHINSEC. Most of that money is in the Defense bill. It only cuts off 
the money that is under the jurisdiction of this bill.
  And yes, it does need to be improved. I don't know how anybody can 
vote against this amendment in light of the fact that this is their, 
WHINSEC's, example of transparency. How do we follow up on the 
graduates? How can we follow up on whether the people that are going 
there are human rights abusers when we get this in return?
  Even under the infamous School of the Americas, we were given the 
names. That's how I found out that 19 of the 22 trigger men who 
murdered the Jesuit priests were graduates of the School of Americas. 
If I got this I never would have known that. This is what they have 
given us.
  Now, this is not transparency. This is not accountability. You want 
that school to do better, we need to send a message on the floor of the 
House today that we're not satisfied with business as usual, and the 
way to do that is vote for the McGovern amendment.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the McGovern-Lewis amendment. 
Let's take a stand for human rights. If this country stands for 
anything, it needs to stand out loud and four square for human rights, 
and this is one way to prove it. Vote for this amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Lewis 
amendment.
  This important amendment will prohibit funding to the infamous 
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) 
formerly known as the School of the Americas.
  We all know the history of this Institute that has long been 
associated with human rights abuses and many of its students have been 
tied to death squads and international coups.
  Despite assurances to the contrary by supporters of the WHINSEC, the 
continuing legacy of blood and terror by these graduates calls into 
question how these candidates are recruited and vetted.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when our occupation of Iraq has greatly 
damaged our credibility and standing in the world, the last thing we 
need to be doing is funding an organization like WHINSEC that is 
drenched in a legacy of secrecy, terror, and violence.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Lewis amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment 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 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of State as a contribution for the 
     United Nations Human Rights Council.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007 the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the 
gentlelady from New York, the chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Lowey, and 
my dear friend from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, for agreeing to accept this 
amendment and for their support and their leadership on this and other 
human rights issues.
  I also want to recognize my good friends, my esteemed colleagues who 
joined me in offering this amendment: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Stearns, Mr. 
McCaul, and Judge Poe.
  This amendment makes clear that the United States will not spend 
millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to support the travesty of the U.N. 
Human Rights Council, more appropriately named the Human Wrongs 
Council. It does not cut off U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular 
budget, but actually prohibits them from being used to support the 
Council in any way.
  Two days ago the so-called U.N. Human Rights Council celebrated its 
first birthday by giving gifts to repressive dictators and Islamic 
radicals, by halting unfinished investigations into human rights 
conditions in Cuba and Belarus, and creating a permanent agenda item 
relating to Israel.
  The actions against Israel took place as news reports documented the 
horrific actions by Hamas against innocent Palestinians, including 
those in Gaza clamoring to enter Israel. The Council has been fatally 
flawed from its inception in the year 2006, and has proven even more 
problematic than the already discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission 
that it was designated to replace.

                              {time}  2030

  Instead of becoming part of the solution, Mr. Chairman, the United 
Nations Human Rights Council continues to perpetuate intolerance, 
serving as a forum for hateful attacks against Israel by some of the 
worst violators of human rights.
  To cite just one of many examples, the Iranian representative to the 
Human Rights Council stated on December 12 of last year: ``There is an 
Israeli holocaust against Palestinian people here on a daily basis for 
more than 60 years, which was already noted by three special 
sessions.'' This is a human rights activist?
  In contrast, the Council has failed to condemn the genocide in 
Darfur, has failed to condemn the sprawling gulag in North Korea, has 
failed to condemn the political and human rights daily abuses in China 
and the bloody repression in Burma and Zimbabwe.
  Simply put, the U.N. Human Rights Council is a failure. We were right 
to refuse to dignify this poisonous talk-shop with our membership, and 
we must refuse to support it with our tax dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to my 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who has taken for many years a 
leadership substance on this issue.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my distinguished colleague 
for yielding.
  And I think her comment about the ``human wrong commission'' is 
appropriate, and I think that is a very apt way to explain it. When you 
talk about all the work they did, and she mentioned Darfur, that the 
Human Rights Council of the U.N. was unable to even pass a simple 
resolution dealing with it, that is unbelievable.
  But where did they spend most of their time? That is a good question 
we could ask. Do you know where they spent most of their time? 
Condemning Israel. The Council's sole country-specific resolution 
censured Israel and adopted a decision to discuss human rights 
violations committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories 
permanently and in all the Council's meetings. Every Council meeting 
would discuss Israel's alleged abuses against Palestinians, without 
mentioning Palestinian provocations or their aggression. It is just 
unbelievable. In fact, the Council adopted a resolution that strongly 
condemned Israel for ``violations of human rights and breaches of

[[Page H6927]]

international humanitarian law in Lebanon.'' In Lebanon, without 
reference to provocations by Hezbollah. Talk about a ``human wrong 
commission.'' This is it.
  So I am so gratified that this amendment has been accepted. I have a 
bill, H.R. 225, that outlines this amendment. I had an amendment last 
year on this subject in this appropriations process. We got 163 votes. 
But we lost. And I think a lot of people said, well, the U.N. is 
starting reforms in house. Let's give it a chance with its Human Rights 
Council. So we said, okay, we'll give it a chance. But, by all 
assessment it failed. In fact, the words of Peggy Hicks, the global 
advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, sums it up when she said: 
``The new Human Rights Council must be more than the dysfunctional old 
commission by another name.''
  So from that, to the comment of the Miami Herald when they wrote, 
``Why should these wolves guard the hen house?''
  I ask that we pass this amendment, and I thank my colleagues.
  Take the so-called reforms to the membership of the council. The 
original proposal by the former Secretary General Annan (AH-NON) was to 
reduce membership to enable the council to be smaller and more agile in 
acting against human rights offenses. Indeed, the UN did reduce the 
number of members--from 53 down to 47. These 47 UN members are elected 
to three-year terms on the UNHRC. The new geographic quota system 
ensures a majority of membership slots for the world's least democratic 
regions. The African and Asian regional groups control a 55% majority--
even more than they did on the former commission. Governments that 
routinely violate fundamental freedoms in their own countries shouldn't 
be setting the standards for anyone else.
  Under the new council, a country can be suspended from council 
membership due to continuing human rights abuses only if two-thirds of 
the members of the General Assembly agree to do so. That is the only 
protection against human rights abusers being elected to the council. 
However, in practice this provision is useless. Less than half of the 
General Assembly agreed that Sudan is guilty of any human rights 
violations. If the General Assembly cannot agree on such a blatantly 
clear cut case of human rights abuse, how can we expect them to agree 
on suspending membership of countries that are human rights? The answer 
is, we can't. Known abusers like Russia, China, Azerbaijan, Cuba, and 
Algeria were all elected members this last session.
  Finally, let us look at their actions. Under a General Assembly 
resolution, the Council has responsibility for ``promoting universal 
respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms 
for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal 
manner'' and it must ``address situations of violations of human 
rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make 
recommendations thereon.'' There have been several opportunities for 
the Council to act with numerous cases of human rights abuses around 
the world. In Darfur, there are 2.5 million people displaced by the 
violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two 
million dead in the 22 years of violence. But the Human Rights Council 
was unable to pass a resolution on Darfur. Neither did it act regarding 
the lack of civil and political rights across China, the 13 million 
women in Saudi Arabia who live in fear of beatings if they go anywhere 
alone, or the dire human-rights conditions of 23 million people in 
North Korea. It also failed to address the Iranian President's 
incitement to genocide or the fact that his country's legal system 
includes crucifixion, stoning and amputation as viable punishments.
  Ambassador Bolton stated at the creation of the new council, ``We 
want a butterfly. We're not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and 
declare it a success.'' As a result, the Administration announced that 
it would not seek a seat on the council in 2006 but would continue 
financial support, and may seek membership in 2007 if the Council 
proves effective.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  I agree with the intention of the amendment and thank my friend for 
raising this very important issue.
  I want to reiterate my support for the United Nations. I strongly 
believe in the mission of the United Nations. That plays an 
indispensable role in the world today. In fact, it has often been said 
that if the United Nations did not already exist, we would surely need 
to invent it.
  The U.N. plays an important role in maintaining international peace 
and security, promoting economic and social development, alleviating 
hunger, championing human rights, and supporting efforts to address 
humanitarian crises.
  However, the U.N. is by no means perfect. It is often too slow to act 
in times of crisis, and too often the U.N. is a reflection of the 
lowest common denominator, rather than the best and the brightest.
  A perfect example of the problems with the U.N. is the Human Rights 
Council. My friend and I agree that there are problems, and I want to 
assure my friend that as we move toward conference that we will ensure 
that none of the funds in the CIO account will go toward paying the 
costs of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
  And, again, I thank my friend.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my friend (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank our 
subcommittee chairman, Nita Lowey. I think she has done a remarkable 
job throughout the day and during her entire service in the United 
States Congress.
  And to my good friend Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, I want to thank her for 
her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come to put an end to the shenanigans at 
the United Nations. While murderous and dictatorial regimes in North 
Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan have starved and burned and raped and killed 
hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen, the United Nations Human 
Rights Council focuses its attention on the only democratic country in 
the Middle East: Israel. Israel, with a free press, a country with free 
elections, a vibrant economy, and an open society; a nation that has to 
defend itself from terrorists and terrorism, terrorists who would wipe 
it from the face of the Earth if they had half a chance. Now that is a 
human rights issue worth looking into.
  Mr. Chairman, the United Nations' Orwellian hypocrisy on human rights 
is so well known it has become a cliche. This body must take a stand 
against this mockery of a Human Rights Council. Let us cut off funding 
for this shameful and outrageous organization.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Poe:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to a 
     national or citizen of a country with which the United States 
     maintains diplomatic relations and the central government of 
     which has notified the Secretary of State of its refusal to 
     extradite to the United States any individual indicted in the 
     United States for killing a law enforcement officer, as 
     specified in a United States extradition request.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecutor and felony court judge 
in Texas, I tried a lot of cases where the victims of homicide were 
peace officers. Like any victim, these officers came from all ages and 
all races. The murder of a peace officer is one of the most serious 
crimes that can occur in any community.
  Unlike other victims, Mr. Chairman, peace officers carry the daily 
burden of protecting their communities from crime, everything from 
petty theft to the most violent and vicious of crimes. Every day these 
defenders of our cities put their lives on the line. They have asked to 
be in harm's way, and then when one is killed in the line of duty, 
their loss is deeply felt by the entire community.
  There are cases, however, when peace officers are killed and their 
killers happen to be immigrants from foreign countries, some legal 
immigrants, some illegal. And there are many cases where the home 
countries of these immigrants refuse to send them back to the United 
States to face their charges

[[Page H6928]]

once they are requested to be extradited to the United States from 
their home country.
  In 2002, a Los Angeles County sheriff was murdered by a Mexican 
citizen who was illegally in the country. However, the Mexican 
government refused for 5 years to extradite him to the United States to 
stand trial, and it only occurred this January when the charge was 
reduced.
  The same occurred in Denver in 2005 when a police officer by the name 
of Donnie Young was murdered, and only after the charges were reduced 
was the killer extradited back to this country.
  Killing police officers seems to also be a popular pastime for a few 
immigrants in Texas. In my hometown, a Houston police officer by the 
name of Rodney Johnson was shot four times and killed by an illegal 
immigrant in September of 2006. In fact, the last three law enforcement 
officers shot in Harris County, Texas, were shot by people who were 
illegally here in the United States.
  Fortunately, each of these killers were captured before they fled to 
their home country, and they will have their day in court. But what 
about the ones that don't get caught and flee to some other country? 
This problem is only increasing in States that border Mexico, where 
travel across the border is easy; and now violent drug cartels rule the 
area and certainly have no qualms about shooting at American peace 
officer.
  So this country should not be spending money toward admitting 
immigrants to the United States from any country that refuses to allow 
the United States to try police killers by harboring those killers in 
their country.
  I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me, along with the 
Fraternal Order of Police that has endorsed this amendment, to support 
limiting funds in this bill to be used for issuing visas to nationals 
or citizens of countries that have notified our State Department of 
their refusal to extradite to the United States an individual indicted 
for killing a peace officer in this country. We owe this to our peace 
officers and their families.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express reservations regarding 
the gentleman's amendment.
  I do share his deep concern over the refusal of certain countries to 
extradite to the United States any individual indicted in the United 
States for killing a law enforcement officer. I certainly do not 
condone the refusal of those governments to extradite those accused of 
murdering a law enforcement officer in order to allow the families of 
fallen law enforcement officers to see the person or persons involved 
face justice.
  However, the remedy that the gentleman is proposing is not targeted 
at the central government but at all persons from those countries 
applying for a visa. I just have some reservations about punishing the 
people of a country because their government is doing something 
objectionable that goes against the way we would like to be seen in the 
world.
  But I am prepared to accept the amendment and bring this matter to 
conference.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
chairman's concerns about this amendment, but it will be an effort to, 
of course, get those people back in the United States who are charged 
with the specific crime of killing a peace officer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I know it has been accepted, but this is an important amendment. My 
father was a policeman for 20 years in the city of Philadelphia.
  If a country isn't prepared to send somebody back, then we ought to 
do what the gentleman from Texas said. We ought to deny them the visa. 
And I will push for this when we get to conference. I think this is a 
good amendment.
  We just can't go to all these meetings and say we love our police 
officers and we honor them and then all of a sudden we walk away from 
them. The gentleman is exactly right. Let's pass this. I appreciate its 
being accepted. But I think we ought to pass it because they think we 
are a patsy.
  We also had a young man in my district who was run over and killed 
around Christmastime. And the guy left and went back to El Salvador, 
and that family hurts, are in pain every day, and they can't get this 
guy back. So I think if there is any deficiency in it, it probably 
ought to cover every felon but at least peace officers.
  So it is a good amendment, and it has been accepted. But, frankly, I 
think we should have asked for a roll call vote to get every Member on 
record for it. But since it has been accepted, let's keep it in the 
bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Blunt

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blunt:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the International Seabed Authority or the 
     Enterprise of the International Seabed Authority.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June, 20, 2007, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, nearly 25 years ago, President Ronald Reagan 
was given the option of signing what was at that time a little-known 
international treaty promising to bring the world's countries together 
to seamlessly and equitably manage the vast expanses of ocean covering 
the Earth.
  That accord, all 17 parts, 320 articles, and 9 annexes of it, was 
known the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was 
presented to the President as a key national security imperative, an 
important economic opportunity, and a powerful message of cooperation 
and trust to send to our current and future friends around the globe.
  Mr. Chairman, it didn't take President Reagan more than a few days to 
separate the rhetoric from the reality. He rightly interpreted the Law 
of the Sea Treaty, LOST, as a direct affront to American sovereignty 
and envisioned, presciently, as it turned out, that it might some day 
be used as a tool by foreign governments to exercise direct authority 
over American interests, activities, and industries.

                              {time}  2045

  President Reagan not only refused to sign the treaty, he fired the 
staffers that were responsible for negotiating it in the first place.
  More than a generation later, there is talk in the U.S. Senate that 
they may dust off this stale treaty once again and bring it to a vote. 
Before it does, I believe this House has an obligation to take a close 
look at one element of this accord, which will impact the way American 
companies invest in new technology, it will impede their ability to 
produce new energy, and has long-range implications.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk tonight will ensure 
that none of the funds spent in the State and Foreign Operations budget 
are used to support what's called the International Seabed Authority. 
It's a semi-autonomous, unelected body of the United Nations with 
authority to directly levy taxes and fines against American operators 
with or without their approval. Worse still, it would have the power to 
force a direct transfer of minerals and technology rights from the 
American companies that develop them to any competitor it sees fit.
  The Treaty's collision course with autonomous American Government is 
obvious, Mr. Chairman; the Seabed Authority is not only an obvious and 
very direct example of a U.N. effort to raise revenue without the input 
of the United States Government, but the Authority would also 
disincentivize private investment in offshore energy exploration which, 
in our current energy climate, is something this Congress should be 
working to avoid at all costs.

[[Page H6929]]

  We need all the energy we can get, whenever and wherever we find it. 
Submitting ourselves to an unelected, unaccountable, international 
ocean bureaucracy when it comes to distributing what American companies 
rightly explore doesn't strike me as the thing to do 25 years ago or 
today.
  Tonight, Mr. Chairman, I've come to the floor to ask my colleagues to 
consider the implications of ceding unprecedented authority to an 
agency of the U.N. without proper oversight, without legitimate 
safeguards, and without a whole lot of concern about the economic and 
security well-being of the United States.
  I urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I rise to accept the amendment, and I thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentlelady for accepting, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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. Jordan of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $2,956,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I don't pretend to know exactly 
how the billions of dollars in the Foreign Operations bill should be 
exactly split up and allocated, that's the work of the committee. And I 
appreciate the work of the Chair, the ranking member and those Members 
of the Congress who are part of that important committee.
  What I do understand is this: Government spends too much money. In 
fact, if you would talk to the American people, go out and poll the 
American people, talk to the families across this country and ask the 
simple question, does government spend too little or does government 
spend too much, is government too small or is government too big, does 
government take too much of your money in taxes, my guess is the vast 
majority of Americans across this country would say government is too 
big, takes way too much of my money and spends way too much.
  This amendment simply says this: We're not going to cut anything. 
We're just going to say it's appropriate for government to live on last 
year's level, just like all kinds of individuals, all kinds of 
families, all kinds of businesses across this country have to do.
  Specifically it would do this: It would reduce the total 
appropriations in the bill by $2.9 billion, taking it right back, 
keeping it right where it is at last year's spending level, while 
providing discretion for the administration to avoid any reductions in 
funding for the State of Israel. In simple terms it says this: We 
understand that special bond that the United States has with the State 
of Israel, and we're going to protect that; but we also understand 
government spends too much money, and it's appropriate that we say 
enough is enough, we have to hold the line on spending.
  And here's why it's critical: There is a financial crisis around the 
corner waiting for the United States, the people of this great country. 
Read Pete Peterson's book, ``Running on Empty,'' talking about the 
entitlement problems, what's happening with us, if we don't get 
spending under control, what it's going to mean to our economy in the 
future.
  Read today's Washington Post, front page of the business section, the 
entitlement column has pictures of the six leading Presidential 
candidates, three from each party. It says, ``Stumping for Attention to 
Deficit Disorder.'' It talks about this very problem.
  There is a financial crisis around the corner that we have to deal 
with. It's important we start now by simply saying let's hold the line.
  Second big thing why this is so important. Spending inevitably leads 
to tax increases. Spend, spend, spend leads to tax, tax, tax. The 
American people are overtaxed, we don't want to tax them anymore. In 
fact, we need to lower taxes so we can compete in the international 
marketplace we're in right now.
  We've got to deal with the financial situation that confronts us. 
We've got to hold taxes down. That's why it's important for us to start 
here and simply say we're going to hold the line on spending. Millions 
of families, millions of individuals, millions of businesses across 
this country are doing that very thing. It's not too much to ask the 
United States Congress to do the same thing.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is fiscally 
irresponsible, it will harm our national security, and I strongly 
oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the minority 
whip, the gentleman from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This amendment is really another test of the Congress' commitment to 
fiscal discipline.
  Today we're considering a State and Foreign Operations bill that is 
close to another record increase. I think it is below the President's 
number, but I've voted on a number of bills over the last several years 
that were below the President's number. And the fact is the President's 
number was too high, 9\1/2\ percent increase over last year's spending 
is too high. We can cut more than that, we can cut back to last year's 
spending, we can cut a percent, we can cut 2 percent, we can cut, go 
maybe even below last year's spending, but 9\1/2\ percent over last 
year's spending is too much money for this bill at this time.
  Not very many American families saw an increase last year of 9\1/2\ 
percent. First, you have to figure out where these massive increases 
are going. Fourteen and 15 percent increases for the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, $203 million, or a 17.6 percent, increase 
for the United States contribution to various international 
organizations.
  Second, you have to look at where this wasteful spending is going. 
We're funding things in this bill at increased levels like the 
International Copper Study Group in Lisbon, Portugal; the International 
Lead and Zinc Study Group at Lisbon, Portugal; the International 
Hydrographic Organization at Monte Carlo; the International Rubber 
Study Group in London, England; the International Tropical Timber 
Organization at Yokohama, Japan. A 9\1/2\ percent increase in a budget 
that American families will pay for, where not very many American 
families got a 9\1/2\ percent increase.
  We're going to have some legitimate debates about increases on 
spending in this country. I think increases on spending in other 
countries at this level are unacceptable. This is an important debate 
to have, it's an important vote to have. I encourage the gentleman to 
continue to make these kinds of principled stands.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I don't 
plan to use all of the 2 minutes.
  This amendment jeopardizes greatly the national security of the 
United States. It devastates program increases in key diplomatic 
functions that the Secretary of State has requested, in particular in 
the State Department.
  This bill is already $700 million below the President of the United 
States' request. And for the gentleman to offer an amendment to cut 
this bill $2.9 billion across the board has profound implications for 
the committee product.

[[Page H6930]]

  I would encourage Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill increases funding in the Foreign Operations 
bill to foreign countries almost at 10 percent. And as already stated, 
most Americans did not get a 10 percent increase in their income last 
year, but yet we are going to spend money in foreign countries. And 
much of this money is waste, total waste that Americans should not be 
funding at all. It gives money also to nations that constantly and 
consistently vote against us in the United Nations.
  It's important to note, however, none of this funding decrease will 
affect aid to our strongest ally to the Middle East, Israel; money that 
is well spent for the security of not only Israel, but the United 
States.
  So, increasing funding in this Foreign Operations bill is not 
acceptable. All we're doing in the gentleman from Ohio's amendment is 
to put in it at last year's level, and that's a good idea.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to talk about an 
amendment that I would have offered but won't do so because I 
understand it's subject to a point of order.
  Pakistan is scheduled to have crucial parliamentary elections in the 
fall of 2007 and the early winter of 2008. My amendment would withhold 
a portion of military aid to Pakistan unless those elections occurred 
and were free, fair and democratic.
  Specifically, the amendment would have withheld $175 million out of a 
total of $250 million that's allocated under this bill for foreign 
military financing in Pakistan. These funds would be released when the 
Secretary of State determined, giving due consideration to the 
credible, independent judgment of reliable agencies that elections in 
Pakistan were free, fair and democratic. The amendment also asks that 
all steps of the election process, from voter registration on through 
vote tabulation, be reviewed in reaching any such judgment.
  This amendment would send a powerful message to the people of 
Pakistan about the importance the United States places on the 
democratic process. Instead of just talking about the importance of 
democracy and saying that all peoples of the world should have these 
rights, the amendment quite literally would give Congress a chance to 
act consistently with its word.
  Since the coup in which he rose to power 8 years ago, President 
Musharraf has taken some positive steps, but his record is, at best, 
mixed, especially recently. Today, President Musharraf is fighting the 
most serious challenge to his 8-year dictatorship. The United States is 
supporting him fully, and I guess that means that the message from the 
United States to the Pakistani public would seem clear: The Bush 
administration sees the war on terrorism as topping everything, even 
support for democracy.
  On March 9, President Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was apparently seen as 
threatening to President Musharraf's plans to consolidate his power. 
That triggered street protests demanding Musharraf's resignation, 
followed by a government-led crackdown on lawyers, the opposition 
political parties, and the media. Thousands of lawyers nationwide have 
led marches joined by women's groups, journalists and opposition 
politicians.
  The roots of this crisis go back to a blind bargain that Washington 
made after 9/11 with a general and the army that had, up until then, 
been the main patrons of the Taliban. The administration ignored 
Musharraf's despotism in return for his promises to crack down on al 
Qaeda and the Taliban. Now, despite $10 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan 
since 2001, that deal is shattered.
  In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project 
issued a report card noting that Musharraf has made efforts to take on 
the threat of extremism, but has not shut down extremist-linked 
madrassas or terrorist camps.
  Taliban forces still pass freely across the Pakistan-Afghani border 
and operate in Pakistani tribal areas. These border groups gained 
political legitimacy last year when President Musharraf signed a series 
of dubious peace deals with the Pakistan Taliban.
  Extremist madrassas remain, and the extremism only becomes more 
pervasive and dangerous. Madrassa students are burning books, CDs and 
DVDs. Women in Islamabad have had acid doused in their faces for their 
failure to wear burkas, and have been harassed for driving cars.
  The military has refused to put a brake on their extremism. As 
terrorism author Ahmed Rashid said, Musharraf promised the 
international community that he would purge pro-Taliban elements from 
his security service and convinced the Bush administration that his 
philosophy of ``enlightened moderation'' was the only way to fend off 
Islamic extremism, but Pakistan today is still the center of global 
Islamic terrorism. Our own State Department concluded the same thing 
several weeks ago.
  Mr. Rashid is correct in saying that instead of confronting this 
threat, the army has focused on keeping Musharraf in power. In trying 
to spook the West into continuing to support him, he exaggerates 
grossly the strength of the Islamic parties and warns that they might 
take over his nuclear-armed country.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, the fact is the United States would be far safer if we 
supported a truly representative Pakistan government that could 
marginalize the Jihadists rather than placing all of its eggs in a 
Musharraf basket. A better outcome for all would be that everybody 
participate in free and fair elections, and we should act in favor of 
democracy with those policies.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness 
to withdraw the amendment. I know we'll work together on these very 
important issues. The discussion certainly will continue between this 
Congress and the administration as we move forward. I thank the 
gentleman again for withdrawing.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I will just say I appreciate the 
gentleman's speech and his passion, even though it had nothing to do 
with the subject at hand.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. David Davis).
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
friend from Ohio for yielding.
  It is interesting as I hear this debate, I am a new Member of 
Congress. I have been here 6 months now. I've heard speakers on the 
majority side talk about ``your amendment is irresponsible.'' I have a 
hard time understanding that.
  Quite frankly, coming from Tennessee, holding the line on spending is 
not irresponsible. I heard another speaker talk about cuts. Well, 
actually there is no cut. What your amendment actually does is hold it 
at the levels of last year's spending. That is not a cut.
  I have not gotten used to ``Washington speak'' yet, coming from the 
mountains in East Tennessee. In East Tennessee, a cut actually means 
you spend less money this year than you did last year. Your amendment 
says you're going to spend the same amount of money. We are talking 
about $34.2 billion. In East Tennessee, that is a lot of money. That 
goes a long way.
  Actually, what we are looking at in this appropriation bill is a 9.5 
percent increase in spending. When the rate of inflation is less than 3 
percent, this is a growth in spending of almost three to four times the 
rate of inflation.
  We have men and women all around America right now sitting at their 
kitchen tables trying to decide how they are going to balance their 
budgets. Why in the world are we in Congress trying to grow our budgets 
almost 10 percent when we have people across America that are trying to 
just balance their budget? Gas prices are high. They are worried about 
increases in taxes.
  The least we can do, the very least we can do, is just hold the line 
on spending. That is not a cut. That is not how I learned about cuts 
back in East Tennessee.

[[Page H6931]]

  I just hope that we will do everything we can to support your budget. 
I encourage support of your amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do 
so. Still, we are looking at, again, $34.2 billion. I think that is 
enough spending. We need to hold the line. Thank you for your 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I notice as I walk down the halls of the House office 
buildings these easels and these poster boards, I have been seeing 
those for last 3 or 4 years, talking about the national debt and what 
percentage of it is attributed to every man, woman and child in this 
country. I think that national debt is something like $8.77 trillion 
now. It is $29,000 for each man, woman and child.
  Well, the Democrats have come with these 11 spending bills, Mr. 
Chairman, to increase that spending an additional $23 billion. If my 
math is correct, then that raises the amount of debt for every man, 
woman and child in this country from $29,000 to $30,000.
  But wait just a second, Mr. Chairman. The way they are going to avert 
that is, you guessed it, raising taxes. They are going to put the 
largest tax increase in United States history on the backs of the 
American people. That is why the gentleman from Ohio has such a good 
amendment, to just simply say, let's go back to 2007 levels.
  Our hardworking men and women in this country, many of them, if not 
most of them, during this past year probably got no raise. Their cost 
of living went up. It didn't go down. So they are in a negative 
situation.
  Let's not make the matter worse by putting additional tax burden on 
the backs of the American people.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the gentleman that this 
bill is $700 million below the President's request. We all understand 
that the Nation is at war. We have tremendous challenges. This bill 
provides important resources to address these challenges 
internationally. It is absolutely irresponsible, in my judgment. It is 
not in the national security interests of the United States of America. 
I strongly oppose this irresponsible amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. 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 will be 
postponed.


               Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $342,430,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
offer this amendment. This amendment is what is affectionately referred 
to as the Hefley amendment. Former Congressman Hefley, who served in 
this body, offered an across-the-board decrease in spending in 
appropriations bills by 1 percent in an effort to try to bring about 
some fiscal responsibilities. I commend him at this time.
  I also want to recognize Congresswoman Blackburn, Congressman 
Hensarling, Congressman Feeney and Congressman Campbell for also 
offering similar amendments and commend them for their fiscal 
responsibility.
  There has been a lot of talk about money, and properly so, during 
this appropriation season. It is important, Mr. Chairman, however, to 
remember where that money comes from. That money comes from hardworking 
American taxpayers. It is their money. It is not the government's 
money. It is their money. It is easy here in Washington to lose sight 
of that fact.

                              {time}  2115

  But it is imperative that we remember with great responsibility and 
act with great reason as we move and spend the hard working American 
taxpayers' money.
  The big picture in this bill is that last year in this area of the 
Federal budget we spent as a Nation $31.2 billion. That is with a B, 
Mr. Chairman, $31.2 billion. The proposal today is to spend $34.2 
billion. That is an increase of 9.5 percent. This amendment would 
decrease that by 1 percent. By 1 percent. One penny out of every dollar 
savings for the American people. A savings of $342 million.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a small step, a symbolic 
step but is an important step, to let the American people know that, 
yes, we do believe that we respect the hard work that they do, and we 
also believe that it is important for Washington to get its fiscal 
house in order.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I am pleased to 
have the support of so many of my colleagues in this House on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for 
foreign assistance programs. This is not the way to balance the budget. 
Instead of an overall cut, we should work to decrease instability 
worldwide and address the underlying problems that cause that 
instability.
  The programs in this bill are pivotal to winning back the hearts and 
minds overseas. They address the most difficult problems in the world 
today, HIV-AIDS, famine, disease and disasters. The bill includes 
programs that work to address the root causes of global instability 
that require us to devote so many of our tax dollars to failed and 
failing states to ensure that we protect our Nation. It is these 
problems that have gotten us into the disastrous deficit that we are in 
and it is these problems that the programs in this bill will address.
  This bill is a carefully crafted, bipartisan measure. It is currently 
$700 million below the President's request. We have already cut enough 
from these important foreign assistance programs, and this amendment 
would cut an additional $324 million.
  Think about the most vulnerable and susceptible among us. This 
amendment would take $51 million from addressing global HIV-AIDS. Our 
goal is to turn the tide on this horrendous pandemic, not turn our 
backs. This bill currently has the funding to ramp up treatment, care 
and prevention activities. We can't turn around now.
  I strongly oppose this irresponsible amendment. It is not consistent 
with our national security. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. 
However, only in Washington by this majority party can a cut be an 
actual increase of $2.56 billion. Adopting this amendment would result 
in an increase of $2.56 billion. It is just a decrease in the slope of 
the increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and I 
thank him for his leadership.
  Again, how amazing. What an amazing place this is, when you are 
debating whether or not you are going to increase something called 
Foreign Operations 9.5 percent versus 8.5 percent growth, and somehow 
that is called a cut. Only in Washington, D.C. can you call an 8.5 
percent increase a cut.
  Now, the only thing that I see that is being cut is the family budget 
of hard

[[Page H6932]]

working American families as our friends on the other side of the aisle 
want to enact the single largest tax increase in American history. The 
average family in America, when this tax increase plan is complete, 
will have to pay an extra $3,000 a year in taxes. Mr. Chairman, that is 
a cut.
  Mr. Chairman, somehow I have heard that this amendment, the gentleman 
from Georgia is irresponsible for offering such an amendment. People 
who work hard for their paychecks in America would be lucky to have an 
8.5 percent increase.
  We are dealing with Foreign Operations here. Maybe we ought to be 
thinking about family budget operations. Already the Federal Government 
is spending $23,289 per American family. Our friends on the other side 
of the aisle now, as we are debating this appropriation bill, have a 
plan to spend an extra $23 billion in non-defense discretionary, on top 
of the $6 billion in the omnibus, on top of the $17 billion in the war 
supplemental, all to be paid for by the single largest tax increase in 
history. And it is irresponsible to only increase Foreign Operations 
8.5 percent?
  Let's protect the family budget from the Federal budget and support 
this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
rise in strong support of this bill and in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important the Record be clear about this 
endless rhetoric about tax increases. Here are the facts: The budget 
resolution that was adopted by the House does not raise taxes in this 
fiscal year or the next on anyone.
  When the tax cuts that the erstwhile majority enacted expire at the 
end of 2009, our budget resolution calls for us to look at the state of 
the economy, the state of the budget and the state of the situation, 
and, unlike the erstwhile majority, make a choice as to what to do. 
There is no tax increase in this fiscal year or the next one.
  What there is in this amendment is a strange sense of 
irresponsibility, that in a world where we are threatened by all kinds 
of threats and difficult problems, in a budget that is going to spend 
less than 1.5 percent out of every dollar we spend in improving our 
relations with countries around the world, that we have an 
irresponsible proposal like this.
  There is no tax increase this year. This amendment should be 
defeated.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are tonight, 6 months under control of the 
Democrat majority, and what has that majority wrought? The largest tax 
increase in U.S. history, an attempt in the past to change the rules of 
the House that have been in place since the times of Jefferson. And, of 
course, last week we saw the creation or attempted creation of slush 
funds to conceal where they wish to spend their increase of dollars.
  The gentleman from New Jersey who just spoke a moment ago said, quite 
candidly, that there is no tax increase this year or next year. What he 
didn't finish in his statement, of course, was, Mr. Chairman, that 
there will be a tax increase within the budget cycle that is before us.
  And these are not just my words, Mr. Chairman. I quote from the New 
York Times, who has looked at the budget that the Democrats have given 
us, and they have looked at that budget increase and the spending 
increase, and they too have said and agree with us that there is a tax 
increase coming on the American public and they even gave us numbers. 
If you are an average family in the State of New Jersey, a family of 
four making $70,000, you will see a tax increase of upwards to $1,500 
on you because of the budget of Democrats who are now in charge.
  In the bill before us, I come to the floor right now to commend the 
gentleman for his modest proposal to simply reduce the increase by the 
Democrats of 1 percent, a mere, in terms of Washington, $342 million.
  Mr. Chairman, we are still looking at an increase in spending for 
foreign aid of almost 10 percent, around an 8.5 percent increase for 
foreign aid. Quite honestly, when I go back to my districts and talk to 
my constituents, their interest is in their families here at home, in 
Sussex County, Bergen County, Passaic County and Warren County in the 
good State of New Jersey. They are asking, why are we increasing to 
such a dramatic extent for all this money on foreign aid when we have 
problems right here at home?
  Mr. Chairman, how many times have you heard from the other side of 
the aisle when they rail against spending for our brave men and women 
overseas on our military aid, when they say we should be spending those 
dollars here at home? We concur when it comes to foreign aid, we should 
direct those funds here at home.
  I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson) to shed some light on the misinformation that we have been 
hearing this evening about tax increases.
  It seems to me, Mr. Jackson, that we have this huge deficit that has 
been brought about by the Republican majority in the past 10 years, at 
least. Would you like to comment on it for 3 minutes?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  While talking about how we arrived at this deficit for new Members 
who are joining the body can be long and drawn out, but the number of 
tax decreases that we have voted on in this Congress under their 
leadership which greatly contributed to the enormous deficit that we 
presently confront, it would require several hours of discussion and 
probably pull some scabs off of some wounds that aren't worthy of 
discussion.
  I do want to talk about the implications, however, of this particular 
cut on this bill.
  This bill is already $700 million beneath the President's request. 
The last I checked, the President of the United States is not from the 
majority party. The President of the United States is from the minority 
party. He is already suggesting that the bill itself is beneath the 
funding levels that he is requesting for the national security of the 
United States.
  But don't believe me. Believe the ranking member of the committee, 
Mr. Wolf, who said last night that he believes this is a good bill, 
that this bill has the potential to do a lot of good.
  I quote him: ``And I want to say that this bill will help save a lot 
of lives, not only here but around the world. This is the work of the 
Lord. And I know Members are going to come down here, and here they 
come, and they are going to be against this bill. And I hope that we 
can change some of the things to prevent a veto. But this bill 
eventually, when it passes,'' as the ranking member said, ``assuming it 
will be vetoed, is really about feeding the poor, about the hungry, the 
naked and the sick. Almost a better title would be the Matthew 25 bill. 
So it is has the potential to do a lot of good, and I hope to work with 
Chairwoman Lowey to ensure that the State Department has what it needs 
to do these things, the war on terror, to provide humanitarian 
assistance to the most needy, and to improve human rights around the 
world.''
  And the gentleman offers a cut to the ranking member's acknowledgment 
of how important this product is.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if this is the Matthew 25 bill, according to 
Matthew 25, which I repeated earlier, and these gentleman who obviously 
have come down here at the 11th hour to message on this bill, they 
missed this part of the statement when I read it earlier, but I will be 
happy to read it again:
  Then the king will say to those on the right: ``Come you who are 
blessed by my father. Take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for 
you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me 
something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I 
was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed 
me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to 
visit me.''
  Then the righteous will answer him: ``Lord, when did we see you 
hungry and

[[Page H6933]]

feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see 
you a stranger and invite you in? Or needing clothes to clothe you? 
When did we see you sick or in prison go to visit you?''
  The king will reply: ``I tell you, whatever you have done for the 
least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me.''
  Reject the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment goes to 
the heart of this bill, which is designed to feed the hungry, clothe 
the naked and liberate the captive.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had not wanted to take any more time this evening, 
but I was in my office and I heard several silly suggestions that 
somehow bills like this are going to seriously add to the deficit and 
require a tax increase and all of that other frothy nonsense.
  I would simply like to quote from a document by the Center on Budget 
and Policy Priorities, one of the most respected organizations in this 
country in terms of keeping everybody honest about budget facts. This 
is what they said in a report issued today:
  ``The main dispute between the administration and Congress is over a 
$21 billion difference in domestic appropriations. The administration 
proposes to cut these programs $16 billion below the 2000 levels after 
adjusting for inflation and threatens to veto bills that do not contain 
these cuts. Congress would reject these cuts and instead provide a 
modest increase to these programs of $5 billion or 1.4 percent.''
  The report then goes on to say the following: ``Some 81 percent of 
the increases in appropriations under the emerging bills consist of 
increases for military and homeland security programs that the 
President himself requested. Less than one-tenth, or $5 billion of the 
funding increases reflected in the congressional targets for the 2008 
appropriation bills, are for increases for eight domestic 
appropriations bills.''
  Then it goes on to say, ``Under the planned appropriations, those 
bills would increase a modest 1.4 percent above the Congressional 
Budget Office baseline.''
  Then, get this: ``In real per capita terms, that is, after adjustment 
for both inflation and population growth, funding for these programs 
would barely increase at all.''
  And as for the nonsense that somehow these bills will require a tax 
increase or add to the deficit, the report goes on to say, ``As a share 
of the economy, funding for these programs would actually edge down 
slightly.'' Then it points out also that the increases in these bills 
rise more slowly than the expected increase in revenues.
  What that means, for anybody who has been through second-grade math, 
is that you cannot add to the deficit, if that is the case, unless you 
decide to pass further tax cuts paid for with borrowed money, as the 
former majority so blithely did over the past 5 years.
  I would also say one other thing. It is easy for any citizen and any 
Member to demagogue foreign aid. I chaired that subcommittee for 10 
years. And let me tell you, there is no piece of legislation that this 
Congress passes each year that saves the lives of more children than 
this bill. If you take a look at what we do for children's health, if 
you take a look at what we do through immunizations and these other 
programs, there is no program that we pass that saves the lives of more 
children.
  We spent a lot of time talking about the right to life today. Well, 
this bill is a whole lot more effective than lectures from politicians 
about celibacy or any other matter. This bill actually delivers the 
goods in terms of the practical things we can do to help our fellow 
creatures on this planet.
  I want to say one other thing. My religious values teach me that we 
are not Americans because of any special merit that we have. We were 
just lucky enough that God decided to infuse our soul in a body born in 
the USA. He could just as easily have made us a child born in 
Bangladesh, Sudan, or any of the other most troublesome spots in the 
world, the most agonized spots in the world.

                              {time}  2130

  Any idiot can put together an across-the-board cut. All that means is 
that you don't think. This is supposed to be not the mandatory part of 
the budget, but the discretionary part of the budget. It means you are 
supposed to think and apply your values to what you do. That is what 
this bill does, and I urge you to reject these amendments.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask a parliamentary 
inquiry of the Chair, if the Chair might opine as to words that might 
offend and be inappropriate to the decorum of the House being spoken, 
and the Chair might want to admonish individuals to refrain from making 
those kind of statements.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members to refrain 
from any disparaging remarks of a personal character against another 
Member.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And I thank the Chair for that.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I think you are able to get time on your side. 
I don't believe I have time to spare.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia controls the time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do appreciate the chairman's passion and also appreciate his 
reference to ``frothy nonsense.'' I would suggest that frothy nonsense 
in my district and across this Nation comes due in the form of a tax 
bill when we increase spending across this Nation and that my 
constituents, and I suspect constituents around this Nation, would 
prefer that we decrease the frothy nonsense going on here in 
Washington.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is quite a debate that we are 
having tonight, and I appreciate the vigor and the energy that 
colleagues on both sides are bringing to this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I do have to stand and really oppose some of the things 
that are being said here. How interesting it is that we are hearing 
spending reductions called irresponsible, that we are hearing that it 
is jeopardizing our foreign operations, that it is devastating.
  You know, what we may want to do is reframe this debate. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Georgia for trying to make a 1 percent 
reduction.
  Now we heard this referred to as the Matthew 25 bill. Maybe we should 
make it the Genesis 1:1 bill and go back and look at the beginning and 
talk about how did we get where we are today.
  They want to talk about deficits. Well, it is historically what my 
colleagues on the left have done to grow a huge bureaucracy that 
continues to need to be fed and programs that grow and grow and grow.
  Now one of the things that we have heard is that we are going to have 
to fix this now. My colleagues only want to talk about today, yesterday 
or the day before. They don't want to go back and talk about previous 
administrations where we have piled on, we have piled on, we have piled 
on, and now we want to grow this budget 9\1/2\ percent. We want to pay 
for it with the largest tax increase in history.
  I would offer to my friends that, yes, indeed, let's go back and make 
it a Genesis 1:1 bill and look at the very beginning. You tax too much; 
you spend too much. And it is right that we would choose to find a 1 
percent reduction. What we are irresponsible to is the American 
taxpayer who is sick and tired. They are truly ill and fatigued when it 
comes to paying more and more of their budget.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman.
  I just cannot let this go. Pile on and pile on and pile on? Let me 
tell you what has been piled on, $3 trillion in debt, piled on by the 
other side.
  Growing government? The other side was in charge for the past many 
years. Their party ran the White House, the Senate and the House of 
Representatives; and they piled on $3 trillion of debt.
  And now we hear the unmitigated audacity of suggesting that we are 
the problem. Mr. Chairman, we are not the problem. We are trying to 
solve the problem.
  And I would say with all due respect to the gentlewoman and to those 
on

[[Page H6934]]

the other side who believe that this foreign operations bill is too 
expensive, is the gentlewoman advocating cutting by 1 percent foreign 
military financing or international military education and training? Is 
the gentlewoman suggesting to her constituents that we should slash 
budgets to professionalize other militaries to assist us in the global 
war on terror, to make sure that they have the technology and the 
equipment to help win the global war on terror?
  Because if you are suggesting a 1 percent cut or 2 percent cut or 3 
percent cut in this bill, you are suggesting a cut in our national 
security. You are suggesting reducing the amount of military 
assistance, education, and foreign military sales that we are providing 
to our allies around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, they are costing their own congressional districts 
jobs, defense contractors who are part of this Nation's defense. We 
will lose revenues because of these cuts to foreign military financing.
  This is not just a foreign operations bill. This is a national 
security bill. It is a homeland security bill. They go hand in hand, 
and we should not be advocating slicing off one of those hands while we 
are fighting a global war on terror surrounded by threats.
  We Democrats believe that we need a robust ability to meet that 
threat, not cut defense budgets as the other side is suggesting.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) 
to finish her speech.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, what an incredibly wonderful debate we are 
having. It is a philosophical debate. Government is not the answer. 
Government many times is the problem. More spending is not the answer. 
It is priorities and where you choose to put that money. That is where 
you find your answers in this.
  Now one of the things that we are saying is make a reduction. My 
goodness, look at the States. Many of our States have made across-the-
board reductions. You know what? Across-the-board reductions work.
  My State of Tennessee, oh, my goodness, we were going to have to have 
an income tax. Oh, my goodness, they were going to shut down every 
program in the State, had to have it, had to raise taxes. You know 
what? We defeated that income tax, Mr. Chairman. The people of our 
State said, no, we have had it. We are not putting another penny into 
the State treasury.
  Now what we see is a, believe it or not, Democrat Governor who came 
in and took what we Republicans had said and made across-the-board 
cuts. Not 1 percent. Not 2. Not 5 percent. 9\1/2\ percent. 9\1/2\ 
percent. And I would encourage my colleagues to know that greater 
efficiencies were there, that they now have record surpluses.
  One of the things that we have to realize, the American taxpayer is 
tired of sending money to Washington and see it go into a bureaucracy 
and know that they are not seeing the results that they get.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe it is because I have the old Davy Crockett 
district. I know that what you have to do is be very careful with the 
money that you have to spend. You have to make priorities.
  And yes, indeed, national security is a priority. We know that. We 
know that border security is a priority. We know that. But what we have 
to realize is we have to be a good steward of the taxpayer dollar.
  Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to start to tighten its belt. 
Maybe it is time for the bureaucracy to realize it cannot grow. Maybe 
it is time for the bureaucracy to realize we need to be responsible to 
the taxpayer and reduce what we are spending at the Federal level. They 
are tired of paying for the largest tax increase in history. They know 
that government spends too much. They know that this budget is bigger 
than it ought to be, and they don't like it, and we are hearing about 
it.
  What my colleagues and I are saying is, you know what, let's find 
some ways to make some reductions. Let's make certain that we are good 
stewards of every dollar that comes our way.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield that minute to my good 
friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the learned 
orthopedic surgeon from Georgia for yielding me this time.
  I want to say something to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. When he was talking about an idiot can offer a 1 percent cut 
amendment, I certainly hope he wasn't talking about my good friend from 
Georgia.
  Now if you want to talk about fuzzy math and idiots, we can do that 
here tonight. Because this bill increases the spending 9\1/2\ percent. 
What the learned surgeon's amendment does is cut that by 1 percent.
  Now you can say this isn't going to cause a tax increase, you can say 
it is not going to cost people more money, you can say anything you 
want to, but the people of this country are smarter than that because 
they know every day that if they spend more money it is going to cost 
somebody at some point.
  So they can say anything they want to. They can talk about all of the 
fuzzy math, whether it is going to be a tax increase or not a tax 
increase. But when you spend 10 percent more money, somebody is going 
to pay for it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 
already exercised the prerogative of striking the requisite number of 
words and was recognized for 5 minutes in that regard.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each 
side be granted an additional minute.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding.
  We are having a debate here about whether we should cut spending. 
Most American families go through a process of trying to decide what it 
is they can afford in their family budget. The American people send us 
here to make the same kind of decisions. But when we just add spending 
and add spending and add spending, which we have done all year, guess 
what, we don't have to make decisions.
  That is exactly what is happening here. The majority wants to 
denigrate this amendment because they think it is frivolous. They think 
it is an across-the-board 1 percent cut; you don't have to think.
  The point I am trying to make and my colleagues are trying to make, 
we are sent here to make decisions; and if the majority isn't going to 
make decisions, we are going to try to make the decisions easier. Let's 
just have a 1 percent across-the-board cut, bring this budget in line 
with what the President requested on behalf of the American people.
  I have been hearing all year from my friends on the other side that 
we heard the electorate and we heard the message they sent to us. Well, 
I have to tell you that one of the messages they sent to us is that we 
here in Congress need to be more fiscally responsible.
  We are going to have a debate over spending all summer. We are going 
to have a debate over spending all fall. Because, at some point, how 
much government do we need? How much of the American family budget to 
we need to take in taxes?
  I think my colleague has a very good amendment here. I urge my 
colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, talk about crocodile tears. This bill is $700 
million below the amount requested by the President of the United 
States. The other side cries about the fact that it is $2.9 billion 
over last year, and they say this is the baby that is going to break 
the bank.

[[Page H6935]]

  This is the same crowd that has supported over $600 billion, all 
borrowed money, to pay for the most misguided, misbegotten, destructive 
war in the modern history of the United States, all paid for with 
borrowed money.

                              {time}  2145

  I didn't hear any cries about fiscal responsibility then. No, no, no. 
They spent it blindly, and now they are saying that this bill, which is 
really an attempt to clean up a lot of the world's messes left over 
from past wars, that somehow this bill is the one that broke the bank. 
That is so silly, I would laugh if it wasn't so serious.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am pleased to yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I congratulate her 
for the work she has done.
  First of all, this bill is $700 million below what the Republican 
President asked us to spend. All of this stuff about how we're the big 
spenders, when this bill is $700 million less than President Bush asked 
us to spend. Number one.
  I have been in this House for 26 years. Eighteen of those years we 
have had Republican Presidents. During those 18 years, we have run up 
$4.5 trillion of deficit spending. One person in America can stop 
spending: a President. During those 26 years, a veto of a President 
that was vetoed because we spent too much money has never been 
overridden. Not once. $4.5 trillion of deficit spending under Ronald 
Reagan, George Bush I, and 6 years of George Bush II.
  Now, Bill Clinton was President for 8 years during those 26 years 
that I have served. And we ended up with a $62.5 billion surplus in 
those 8 years. And perhaps if you come to this floor and say it enough, 
the big lie said over and over and over and over again, just like Frank 
Luntz wrote it for you, maybe the American public will believe it. 
Isn't it a shame, however, that Frank Luntz can't fix the figures in 
your budget document.
  You have been in control, of course, for the last 6 years of 
everything. And guess what happened? We doubled the rate of spending 
from the Clinton administration to the last 6 years. Doubled it. And 
we, I can't know what the geometric figure is in terms of escalating 
the debt and going from a $5.6 trillion surplus which George Bush, 
President of the United States, said Bill Clinton left him, and you 
turned that into a $3 trillion deficit in 72 months. I daresay nobody 
in the history of the world has done that. Nobody in the history of the 
world has been that fiscally irresponsible. And for the large part you 
did it without a single Democratic vote. And you didn't need us to 
vote, because you were in control of everything.
  And I sit there and listen to this, and I won't characterize it as my 
chairman characterized it, although I can't say that I come here and 
disagree with my chairman, but I won't characterize it. But honesty at 
some point in time has a virtue. You ought to try it. Just for a little 
bit.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia 
rise?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Are comments not supposed to be addressed to 
the Chair?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that their remarks shall be 
addressed to the Chair.
  The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. My remarks are always addressed to the Chair, in case you 
need interpretation. Just assume that I am addressing the Chair.
  Now, if any of my friends when they hear about me talking about 
irresponsibility would take that personally, understand that it is 
meant simply to be addressed to the Chair.
  But if the shoe fits, put it on.
  My friends, you have been a part for the last 6 years of the most 
fiscally irresponsible leadership in our history. The facts speak to 
that. Your budget book speaks to that. And what did you do, this family 
budget leadership group that we hear talking about? They jettisoned, 
they abandoned, they eliminated PAYGO provision which, by the way, was 
adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1997 after we adopted it in 1990 in 
a bipartisan fashion. But you said, no, we can't live within PAYGO. 
That's too tight for us. Families might have to live in that, but we 
can't live in it.
  So what did you do? You simply eliminated PAYGO. Well, we've 
reinstituted PAYGO, and our budget reaches balance. And we don't raise 
taxes. You like to say we raise taxes because, after all, Frank Luntz 
told you, Just say they're raising taxes. Doesn't matter whether it's 
true. The American public will believe it.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this debate is designed to mislead the American 
public, because they don't read the budgets and the fine print. They 
perhaps do not remember that in 18 years, Republicans ran up $4.5 
trillion of deficit spending while under Bill Clinton's administration 
we created a $62.5 billion net surplus with 4 years of surplus, the 
first time that has happened in the lifetime of anybody in this 
Chamber.
  So I say to my friends that we can debate the substance of this bill, 
which is $700 million less than your President asked us to spend. The 
gentlewoman from New York has brought a responsible bill to this floor. 
The problem with these across-the-board cuts and what Mr. Obey really 
meant, Mr. Chairman, is that it is simple to say cut across the board, 
because you don't have to make any decisions. You don't have to defend 
any premise. You just have to say cut 1 percent. And as was pointed out 
earlier by Mr. Israel, does that mean 1 percent in defense spending? 
Does that mean 1 percent in military financing? Where they purchase, by 
the way, weapons from the United States of America. Does it mean a 1 
percent cut in salaries or administration of critical programs that 
might be small programs? You don't have to decide. It's so simple. One 
percent. Won't hurt anybody. Fine. Then say where you want to cut.
  I was an appropriator for 25 years and I don't like the across-the-
board cuts because they are simplistic, imprecise, and cut the good 
with the bad. May there be bad in this bill? There may be. Offer an 
amendment to cut the bad and let's debate that, whether it's good or 
bad.
  So, my friends, don't talk to me about fiscal responsibility. I've 
been here too long and I know too many of the facts. You cannot fool 
me. You can fool some of the people some of the time. You didn't fool 
them last November. And I don't think you're going to fool them in the 
future.
  This is a responsible bill. If you don't like some portions of it, 
we've had 50-plus amendments for you to strike certain portions of it. 
But don't come to the floor and pontificate on fiscal responsibility. 
And, by the way, my friend, the government today is larger than the 
government when you inherited it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:


                       ACROSS-THE-BOARD REDUCTION

       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act (other than for assistance for Israel) 
     that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 0.5 
     percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.

[[Page H6936]]

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, this debate has gotten very interesting. 
There are some of us in the Chamber, Mr. Chairman, that have been 
concerned about fiscal discipline for a long time. We have been called 
things like budget hawks. Mr. Chairman, we were willing to take on our 
own party on that issue and we were also willing to take on our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because, Mr. Chairman, when 
I think about this debate tonight and I think about the national debt 
being over $8.8 trillion, you know, I would have to think that there 
are people around this Nation tonight watching this debate and 
wondering why in the world Congress, and there have been many mistakes 
in the past, why Congress can't get serious about the way we spend 
taxpayers' dollars.
  My amendment would offer an across-the-board cut. And I know that has 
been criticized by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but, you 
know, sometimes an across-the-board cut makes a lot of sense. And I am 
interested to think about spending levels where we cannot cut 50 cents 
out of each $100 that we spend.
  I offered an amendment that was not accepted in the unanimous consent 
agreement that would have highlighted one of the more egregious forms 
of waste and abuse of the funding in this bill, and this was an article 
in the Boston Globe that I read, and they broke a story last February 
about the former executive director of the Global Fund and how he used 
Global Fund dollars. I want to tell you what the Global Fund is 
supposed to do. It's an organization that is supposed to combat global 
diseases like AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis.
  Let me tell you how he spent our American tax dollars. He spent 
between $91 and $930 a day for limousines in London and Paris and 
Washington and San Francisco, averaging almost $400 a day for 
limousines. He spent $1,695 for a dinner for 12 at the United States 
Senate Dining Room here at the Capitol. Then he spent $8,780 for a boat 
cruise on Lake Geneva in Switzerland; $8,436 for a dinner in Davos, 
Switzerland; and then they had champagne and expensive meals. I wonder 
if the American taxpayer thinks that this is frivolous nonsense. You 
know they do. They would be outraged to think that they get up, go to 
work every day, work for their children, work to pay for their home, 
work to buy the college education for those kids that they dream of, 
and people are spending their tax dollars like this.
  You know, I think an across-the-board cut sounds great. I would like 
a larger one, but I'm asking for a modest half of 1 percent, 50 cents 
out of $100. You know, when you look at your children and you look at 
your grandchildren, Mr. Chairman, and you think about that debt, and I 
don't care who you want to blame it on, Republicans, Democrats, 
Republican Presidents, Democrat President, we at this time in history 
have an opportunity to be responsible with the American taxpayers' 
dollars and cut this increase in this budget from 9.5 percent to 9.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we have expressed our real concerns about 
these cuts and I strongly oppose this amendment.
  In addition to the cuts that have been mentioned by my colleagues, I 
wonder if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado in particular, really understands the impact of this 
across-the-board cut.
  First of all, this bill has already been cut 2 percent from the 
President's request. Two percent. Now you are recommending another half 
percent.
  You support a $120 million cut for Israel, Mrs. Musgrave? You support 
a $120 million cut in aid for our ally Israel? You support a $250 
million cut for HIV/AIDS?

                              {time}  2200

  You support $200 million for foreign military financing; and my 
colleague, Mr. Israel, talked about the impact on the military that 
these cuts would cause.
  My colleagues, this is a bill that is in the national security 
interest of the United States of America. We have heard many people on 
the other side of the aisle that we have to fight it over there. We 
don't want to fight it over here.
  Well, when you are funding HIV/AIDS, when you are preventing avian 
flu, when you are funding our colleagues in the war on terror, we are 
fighting it over there rather than fighting it over here.
  I strongly, strongly, would not support the cuts which you are 
recommending. I strongly oppose them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct a statement I 
made. I referred to a cut.
  My amendment would take a 9.5 percent increase in funding in this 
bill over the last one to a 9 percent increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for 
bringing this creative amendment to the floor.
  While I address the Chair, let me also acknowledge there may be 
others looking in. I want to be very clear on the point that what we 
are asking here is for this foreign operations budget to get by on only 
a 9 percent increase instead of a 9.5 percent increase.
  Back in Indiana, we just call this a haircut. But it is a haircut, as 
the gentlelady from Colorado said, that is a reduction of the increase.
  As I listened to the distinguished majority leader, who I enjoy and 
admire more than anyone else in this Chamber, he said if the shoe fits, 
wear it.
  I understand the frustration of looking across the aisle and seeing 
many of my colleagues in my party who voted for an awful lot of 
government programs over the last 6 years complaining about government 
spending, but then there is another saying that says if it does not 
fit, you must acquit.
  I would offer that for many of us asking for this very small haircut 
tonight, it does not fit us. We fought these budget increases. We 
fought the creation of new entitlements. Now we are coming before this 
majority in a spirit of collegiality and asking might we not do with 
$171 million less. Might we not do with just, instead of a 9.5 percent 
increase, how about a 9 percent increase.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you the time remaining on both 
sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 8 minutes remaining; 
the gentlewoman from Colorado has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to thank my colleague from New York and 
also my colleague from Indiana.
  Mr. Chairman, you know, it's interesting to have that discussion 
about what is a haircut. At this very time this would lead, if I am not 
mistaken, this actual amendment would lead to about a $150 million cut 
to assistance in Israel. At no time is there a more precarious moment 
in Israel's history since the founding of the State of Israel, since 
you have now a war in Lebanon that is affecting the security of the 
State of Israel. You have the Gaza strip, which has been turned over to 
Hamas, an enemy of the United States. There is no time that is a more 
precarious moment in Israel's security.
  You have what's going on in Lebanon on its northern side. You have 
what's going on in Iraq, Jordan, dealing with over 1 million Iraqi 
refugees; Gaza being taken over by Hamas, which is committed to 
Israel's destruction.
  And what do our Republican colleagues recommend? A cut in assistance 
to the only democracy in the Middle East that is facing its most 
serious threat on its northern border, its southern border and, in 
fact, what's going on to its near eastern border. This is a precarious 
moment in Israel security.
  I do believe there can be cuts. I find every time we want to cut 
assistance to big oil companies, you guys can't find the will. But when 
it comes to cutting assistance to Israel, you find the will to do that. 
When it comes to cutting assistance, when it realizes with our military 
commitment to our allies

[[Page H6937]]

around the world, you know what, since everybody wants to make a quote, 
talk is cheap. Talk is cheap when it comes to standing next to your 
allies. We must put our resources to the only democracy in the Middle 
East.
  This would directly affect Israel. It would directly affect Egypt. It 
would directly affect the countries we rely on as the bulwark against 
the spread of terrorism in the Middle East.
  I would hope you understand. I see the politics. I know a little bit 
about politics. I see the politics in a simple half-percent cut. It 
happens to be politics at the expense of our allies who are on the 
front line in the fight against terrorism.
  I would think better of you, of what you have always said 
rhetorically on the floor about your commitment to democracies in the 
Mideast.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it perfectly clear 
that if you had read the amendment you would see that no assistance to 
Israel is cut. We have common enemies, we have common values, and I am 
a strong supporter of Israel.
  If the gentleman who just made the remarks would look at the 
amendment, he would see there are no cuts to Israel.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for 
offering this amendment, which is offered as one of a series of 
amendments put forward by the fiscal conservatives in this House in a 
modest effort to try to restrain spending when the new majority has 
adopted a budget that assumes the largest tax increase in history by 
assuming that the Bush tax cuts are going to go away.
  On the contrary, the President's budget, which we are trying to stay 
within, assumes that those tax cuts are going to stay in place.
  So it's important, Mr. Chairman, for everyone listening to know that 
these cuts, which we are offering in spending, which are very modest, 
can also be seen as tax cuts. Every dollar we save in this 
appropriations process is a dollar that will not be spent in the 
future, which the Democrats assume in their budget is going to come 
from the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.
  So I applaud the gentlewoman from Colorado for offering this 
amendment, and it's important to remember, also, as we go through this 
debate, that all of the Members who are offering these amendments voted 
against most of those big spending increases over these last many 
years. I, for one, got re-elected because I voted against most of those 
big new entitlements and spending increases.
  I know that the gentlewoman from Colorado, the gentleman from 
Georgia, my colleague from Georgia, my colleague from Indiana joined 
me, along with many other members of the Republican Study Committee, in 
voting against those big spending increases. So the shoe indeed does 
not fit these conservative Members.
  We are proud to stand up here to try to do our best, one brick at a 
time, to control the out-of-control spending by Congress and to prevent 
the biggest tax increase in American history.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to put a little bit of a face on this across-
the-board cut, squeeze and trim, the sort of idiotic approach to 
spending here in this United States government, particularly in this 
budget.
  We happen to have a global war of terrorism going on. In that global 
war, there are a lot of people that don't like the United States.
  But there is a program that the United States has that they very much 
like. They like it because countries are asking at an all-time high, 
send us more; we want more. More countries signing up wanting more 
people.
  What is that program? It's the Peace Corps. And guess what? It's 
funded in this program.
  You know what? The American public out there wants to join the Peace 
Corps at an all-time high. No, it doesn't matter. Just cut the program. 
Cut the program. Don't separate the good from the bad. Just cut it.
  Well, this is why it's also idiotic. Because, as you have heard, this 
program funds an international military education program.
  A few months ago at this roster, we had a Joint Session of Congress; 
and giving that address was King Abdullah of Jordan. Guess where King 
Abdullah found his love for the United States? Studying at the Naval 
postgraduate school in Monterey, California, where 500 foreign officers 
come and study along with our officers every year.
  But, no, that doesn't count. We want to work on trying to get mutual 
understanding to our allies. Cut that program. Cut it across the board.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard from a lot of cut, squeeze and 
trim fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle tonight. I 
would hope that their hometown press is looking whether they, example 
of leadership, are cutting their own budgets from what they have spent 
last year. If they have done that in their own offices, cut their own 
spending, then they have a leg to stand on. But to come up here and 
tell everybody else we ought to cut across the board foreign aid is a 
danger to Americans all over the world.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from New York has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rothman.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, what would my Republican friends have said 
if the Democrats had offered to cut the President's requested spending 
on foreign affairs by $700 million last year when they were in the 
majority? They would have said that the Democrats were irresponsible.
  This year, now that the Democrats are in the majority, we are 
proposing to cut $700 million from President Bush's request for 
spending on foreign aid. The Democrats, to cut $700 million from 
President Bush's request for spending, and that's what we are 
proposing.
  But my Republican friends, who were in the majority all those years 
rubber-stamping the out-of-control Bush budgets every single year, 
rubber-stamping those budgets, they say that this year, when the 
Democrats want to reduce President Bush's spending on foreign aid 
versus his request by $700 million, should be doing it another $170 
million more if we Democrats were really serious.
  I think people can see through that as the political argument that it 
is, the partisan attack when there is nothing else going for you.
  Because, after all, this is the same group that says there is going 
to be a tax increase under the Democratic majority this year. They say 
it over and over again.
  But, of course, that's not true. So why would someone keep repeating 
something, attacks on the Democrats, saying we are raising taxes this 
year, when it's not true? Why would the Republicans continue to say 
that time and time again?
  Well, you would have to say, well, they must not have much else to 
talk about, other than to make up something that's not true.
  Well, how about this for values, my friends? They talk about values. 
The Democrats' proposal on foreign aid will fund training of foreign 
troops to help us fight the war on terror, aid our allies like Israel, 
fighting HIV/AIDS all over the world and feeding the hungry all over 
the world. And they say we cut $700 million from the President's 
request, we should cut even more if we are responsible, when they 
rubber-stamped their President's high budgets before.
  They are criticizing $170 million in spending, which we think is 
essential. They are spending $50 billion, not $170 million, they are 
spending $50 billion on tax cuts for Americans with incomes of $1 
million a year. Americans with $1 million a year get $150 billion in 
tax cuts. I think the values are wrong on the other side.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
  Mr. Chairman, the other side has been very good tonight, as they are

[[Page H6938]]

most every night since they have been in the majority of retelling and 
retelling over and over the sins of the past.
  Quite frankly, those sins are hard to deny, given the empirical 
evidence is there. We have spent a lot of money and raised the size of 
this government.
  That being said, though, my colleagues' arguments seem to rest on the 
premise that, because the Republicans were spending more and screwing 
this thing up, that somehow this gives the Democrats, gives them some 
license to continue that process, to continue building on this growing 
government and spending more money in fiscal 2008 than we will bring 
in.
  Now, we have heard some arguments that this is not deficit spending, 
but, quite frankly, there will be more money spent under this budget in 
2008 than we will take in. In the simplest form, that is a deficit.
  I am not, personally, a big fan of across-the-board cuts. I agree 
with some of the arguments said on the other side that it's mechanical, 
but, quite frankly, we need to start somewhere on the path to fiscal 
responsibility, and this is a modest start down that path.
  I urge support for that amendment.

                              {time}  2215

  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I think that we're all beginning to figure 
this out now. When this original amendment was offered, it was 
advertised as a cut to the foreign assistance budget, despite the fact 
that Democrats already cut the foreign assistance budget.
  Then we were told, oh, except it doesn't really include Israel. We're 
exempting Israel.
  Then we were told, oh, it's Israel, and also, any appropriations that 
are not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a 
provision of law.
  And so we start off with a cut, and then we say, well, not really a 
cut. We're going to void this and ignore that and sequester this and 
sequester that.
  We're down to Secretary of State licensed chauffeur, my colleagues. 
That's what we're down to. We're down to the linens at state dinners. 
If you want to do a cut, do a cut. If my colleagues want to do a cut, 
do a cut. But don't try and fool the American people.
  All we've heard from the other side is we have to ferret out waste, 
fraud and abuse, except we can't exactly find it, so we'll let you 
figure out.
  Well, the American people have figured it out. You said you don't 
want to hurt national security, and yet this is a cut to foreign 
military financing.
  You've said you want to win the global war on terror, and yet this is 
a cut to international military education and training.
  You've said you want to cut, but not here, there, or anywhere else.
  As our distinguished majority leader said previously, the truth is 
important, and it ought to be tried every once in a while.
  What we have heard over the past several minutes is nothing but a 
hoax on the American people, and they're not going to fall for it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, some people would not call it a hoax if 
we save 50 cents on every $100 dollars that we spend, that the 
hardworking taxpayers of this country have provided for us.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I love coming down and listening to the majority 
leader when he comes down. You know, I was a real estate salesman. I 
felt like I was a pretty good real estate salesman. And a good salesman 
loves to hear another salesman. And I think the majority leader could 
sell an Eskimo ice cubes.
  But let me say this. He made a statement that the Republicans did not 
fool the people in November. We didn't. Y'all did. And I think the joke 
is up. I think the gig is up. I think the foolish is up, because now 
the ratings of this Congress are at 13 percent, which is about half of 
what they were when the Republicans in charge.
  So you're right. You can fool some of the people some of the time, 
but you can't fool all the people all the time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I would like to recognize the ranking member.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I 
would like to recognize, if I can, Roy Blunt for whatever time he may 
consume. And I will ask to strike the last word to do so.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I'd like to yield to my colleague, Mr. 
Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And this is a good 
debate. It's a little more spirited at moments than I think it could 
be. In fact, I didn't mean to speak again on this until I heard the 
second-grade math explanation from my good friend, Mr. Obey. And I did 
pretty good in second-grade math. I even did fairly good in 12-grade 
math. And I did okay in college math. But second-grade math was a 
little bit of a stretch, I thought, because I tried to follow the 
second-grade math outline we had on why this was actually, according to 
some group, a cut in spending.
  According to my friend, Mr. Obey, if I heard this right, if you took 
inflation, and then you took the population growth of the world, I 
thought that was an interesting element to the equation, and then if 
you took the deficit as a percentage of the economy, that that actually 
might be a cut.
  This spending is 9\1/2\ percent over last year's spending. I've never 
seen the President's numbers so praised by our friends on the other 
side as it's been tonight. It may be the only time that the President 
had either a perfect number or a number that was just slightly too 
high.
  In fact, I understand this is $700 million less than the President's 
number. That's a lot of money. But it's not as much money as the $2.6 
billion this is over last year's spending. That's a lot more money.
  Now, this is a 9\1/2\ percent increase. And somebody else said, is 
this going to be the baby that's going to break the bank? Probably not. 
But if every one of these bills goes up, it's going to have a big 
impact.
  And my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, said the government today is larger 
than the government you inherited, pointing at us. And then I guess the 
point is, and we're going to make it bigger. I didn't get that at all. 
The government's larger than the government you inherited, he said, 
pointing to us. So we're going to increase these spending bills, this 
one by 9\1/2\ percent.
  Very few American families got a 9\1/2\ percent increase last year. 
And almost none of them got to take the rate of inflation, the 
population growth somewhere, and whatever they had as a percent of the 
entire national economy and decide how that number added up.
  This is a 9\1/2\ percent growth in the foreign assistance part of the 
budget. This amendment says, let's just do a little less than we did 
last year and see if we can't make up with that with efficiency. One of 
the other amendments said, let's just do what we did last year.
  But this is a $2.6 billion growth. Let's not anybody be confused that 
that's a cut, or it relates to some complicated formula, or somehow if 
you didn't understand second-grade math, you would realize this wasn't 
a real increase. This is an increase. This is too much of an increase.
  We need to start doing the kinds of things on this bill and the other 
bill that hold the line, as we did hold the line on the discretionary 
non-defense budget in the past Congresses. We looked at the entitlement 
programs in the past Congress. None of that's happening in this 
Congress. So those programs are going to grow until we're told the 
budget's balanced.
  And by the way, in 35 of the last 39 Congresses, the budget wasn't 
balanced. And in seven of those, that was our fault, and the 
circumstances we dealt with. In the other 28, the majority party's 
party was in control.
  We need to be doing better. We need to start now. This is real growth 
that families couldn't just pass off as some complicated formula. We 
shouldn't either. We should be able to cut this budget by the one-half 
of 1 percent that the gentlelady from Colorado has suggested.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, tonight I again am amazed that our 
President's numbers have been so highly esteemed by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. And I don't believe I've ever heard a 
debate where so

[[Page H6939]]

much Scripture was quoted by the folks that constantly talk about the 
separation of church and state. So it's been quite an amazing evening 
here.
  When the American people see all this, perhaps their heads spin as we 
talk about all these things, and maybe they don't understand everything 
we say because we're in this political arena. We're serving in 
Congress. And they're working hard every day trying to provide for 
their families.
  But I think what the American people would understand, Mr. Chairman, 
I have 2 quarters in this hand. This is 50 cents. In this other hand I 
have a dollar bill, a $100 bill. The American people know that 
government spends too much money. All I'm asking for in this amendment 
is for us not to spend this 50 cents.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the 5 minutes. But let me say 
that I find it rather humorous that our good friends on the other side 
of the aisle would utter not one peep when this President decides to 
spend over $600 billion on a war in Iraq which he misled the country 
into, which he didn't have a clue of how to get out of, and now he's 
asking us to make a commitment that will lead over the next 20 years to 
the expenditure of at least $1 trillion more for that same misguided 
cause. Not a peep; most of their buttons wired right to the White 
House, wired right to Karl Rove's desk.
  And yet, it's the same crowd that will then make a Federal case out 
of the fact that when we cut the President's budget for foreign aid we 
didn't cut it quite enough. And so they're making a Federal case out of 
one-half of 1 percent.
  My good friend, Archie the Cockroach observed once, ``Remember the 
importance of proportion. Of what use is it for a queen bee to fall in 
love with a bull?''
  Think about it. If you do, you'll realize just how silly and 
misguided this debate is, because this is a crowd who spent willingly 
$600 billion on the most damaging war in recent American history, and 
yet are now objecting to the President's request to fund a bill which 
is traditionally meant to repair our relationships around the world and 
to pay a little bit of the cost of citizenship on a planet where many 
millions of people are a whole lot less fortunate than we are.
  I'm also amused by the fact that we hear a constant cry from the 
other side of the aisle, ``We need bipartisanship. Politics ends at the 
water's edge.'' And then when we try to demonstrate a little 
bipartisanship by giving the President most of what he asked, but not 
all, we then get the White House complaining because we've cut this 
bill too deeply, and we get their supporters in this House crying that 
we didn't cut it deeply enough. I get whiplash trying to follow the 
direction of a party that is that schizophrenic.
  So with all due respect, we understand that this is a marginal 
debate. It is a debate ginned up to try to find any excuse whatsoever 
to bring down this bill.
  It's not going to do it. Let's get on with the public's business. 
Let's be responsible. Let's reject this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund nongovernmental organizations, specifically 
     named in the report accompanying the Act, outside of a 
     competitive bidding process.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 20, 2007, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that a point of order has been 
lodged and will prevail, and I will withdraw this. But let me just make 
the point here.
  This bill, like previous years' bills making appropriations for the 
State Department and for foreign operations, doesn't include earmarks 
in the traditional sense. In other words, it doesn't direct agencies to 
fund specific programs for parochial interests.
  However, the report accompanying the bill makes reference to several 
nongovernmental organizations by name. I think it is most accurate to 
refer to these as ``soft earmarks.''
  Scattered throughout the report is language which reads as follows: 
``The committee is aware of the work of,'' and you can insert your 
favorite organization here, ``and encourages USAID to consider 
supporting such work in fiscal year 2008.''
  I would suppose that, given the agencies we are funding, some of 
these NGOs are based overseas or are international organizations, and I 
have no doubt that many of them are doing good work. But why are they 
any more worthy than the hundreds of other organizations that are not 
named?
  My amendment does not strike funding for any NGO. Rather, it simply 
would remove any funding preference for any of the organizations that 
are listed in the bill over organizations that are not listed in the 
bill. This amendment simply would prevent funding from going to any of 
these organizations outside of a competitive bidding process. With the 
efforts to shine more light on the earmarking process, I am concerned 
that we might see increasingly creative ways to steer funding to 
recipients of funding that Members of Congress want to see it go to.
  I would like to know how these organizations managed to get mentioned 
by those named in the report. Who made these requests? Was it the 
administration? Was it Members of Congress? Was it the committee as a 
whole? Or the organizations themselves? Will the committee disclose 
this kind of information? Are these agencies going to be under any 
undue pressure to give preference to these organizations? Will there be 
any accounting for whether they have received funding or whether they 
had gone through a fair bidding process? Are we going to see similar 
soft earmarking in the future now that there is a brighter spotlight on 
earmarking in Congress?
  I would welcome any answers to this question now or I would like to 
work with the committee to understand the rationale for this type of 
soft earmarking.
  With that, unless the chairwoman would explain this or enlighten me 
as to what these soft earmarks are doing or how they come about, I 
would be glad to withdraw this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the committee is going 
to follow the House rules, and I understand the gentleman is going to 
withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

[[Page H6940]]

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will not use the 
entire 5 minutes, because the amendment I present tonight is one 
similar to what I offered previously on other sessions of this Congress 
which have passed on voice vote in a bipartisan manner.
  This is an amendment which simply looks to the number of U.S. 
Government employees who attend international conferences.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to advise the gentleman that we are 
happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that.
  And I will just conclude then, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out what the 
purpose of the amendment was. And that is there have been certain cases 
where upwards of 150 employees of single government agencies have 
attended international conferences such as in Africa and other places, 
and we are just simply saying that it is not wrong for U.S. Government 
agencies to send their valuable employees over to these international 
conferences, but we should put some limit on them. Just as small 
businesses and families have to rein in their budgets and decide what 
is appropriate as far as their staff going to conferences and the like, 
so should the Federal Government.
  And I appreciate the gentlewoman for accepting the amendment.
  I will conclude by saying that perhaps, maybe not in this session but 
in future sessions, that these amendments may not be necessary on the 
floor; and I will be glad to work with the gentlewoman in the future to 
incorporate such language similar to this in the actual underlying 
bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. We are happy to work with you in the future on this 
amendment or any other amendments, and I am pleased that we are 
accepting this amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Conaway

  Mr. CONAWAY. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Conaway:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


                           DEFICIT REDUCTION

       Sec. __. It is the sense of the House of Representatives 
     that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act 
     achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House 
     should be dedicated to deficit reduction.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 20, 2007, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is pretty straightforward.
  We have heard hours and hours today of debate on whether or not we 
should cut spending out of this proposed appropriations bill that has 
been brought forward. The elephant in the room that we don't talk about 
is, under the mechanics of the law under House rules, were any of these 
amendments that we will be voting on in a few minutes to pass, they 
would not actually reduce spending. The amounts would still remain 
within the 302(b) allocation and would be spent somewhere else within 
the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  What my amendment would do would be to say that, instead of that 
being the occurrence, the savings would actually go against the 
deficit; and should we ever have a surplus, it would actually include 
that surplus.
  I intend to withdraw the amendment. I understand the point of order. 
But, before I do, Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other comment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a Christian, and I take very seriously the 
instructions in the New Testament, particularly verses like Luke 12:48 
that says, ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' I understand 
the parable of the sick and the unclothed and the jailed. But I see 
those instructions to me personally, to take my personal assets, my 
personal wealth, and deal with those issues for my fellow man. I see no 
instruction that tells me to take someone else's blessings and wealth 
to fix those problems.
  So I would urge my colleagues to be very careful when they invoke 
those instructions.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment if I 
could have some help from the other side in working towards a solution 
that would allow spending cuts that actually are voted on and passed to 
reduce deficits and increase surpluses, rather than staying within the 
302(b) allocation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pence

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pence:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, 
     except as otherwise provided by existing law.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today includes in 
various ways tens of millions of dollars that would be directed to 
advancing U.S. interests in areas known as the West Bank and Gaza.
  Given the recent violent and tragic events in the Palestinian 
territories and the strong commitment of this body to prevent taxpayer 
funding from reaching the hands of terrorists, I offer an amendment 
that reinforces previous prohibitions on funding Palestinian terrorist 
organizations and offer it for my colleagues' consideration on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states: ``None of the funds made 
available in this Act may be used to provide direct aid to the 
Palestinian Authority, except as otherwise provided by existing law.''
  So what is existing law? The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was 
amended by the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act last year, in 2006. It 
was signed into law in December. It states that, ``No ministry, agency 
or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority effectively controlled 
by Hamas'' would be eligible for funding unless it meets the basic 
preconditions of civil society, namely, recognition of Israel and the 
renunciation of violence.
  The purpose of this amendment today is to clarify that assistance may 
be provided to the Fattah elements of the PA government, assuming such 
elements are not engaged in the terrorism or compromise by the 
terrorism of Hamas. Concern about the application of this provision may 
have led the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mrs. Lowey, to put a 
hold and request information from Secretary Rice about her intent to 
release funding to the PA.
  Now, these safeguards and other relevant laws are critical because 
they prohibit assistance to terrorists, including to a Hamas-controlled 
Palestinian Authority, but they permit assistance to a PA government 
that is in

[[Page H6941]]

compliance with the principles of recognition of Israel, previous peace 
agreements, and a renunciation of violence.
  Why is it necessary? Well, because, given the systematic instability, 
we simply don't know what shape the Palestinian government will take in 
the coming months. Large portions of the Palestinian territories are in 
virtual anarchy at this moment. Even worse, Gaza is completely 
dominated by Hamas, a universally recognized terrorist organization. We 
cannot permit one red cent of U.S. dollars to find its way to Hamas.
  After lengthy discussions with the Department of State, including 
Secretary of State Rice herself, I would like my colleagues to know 
that this amendment is not opposed by the State Department. In fact, I 
had a warm and candid conversation today with the Secretary of State, 
and I told her then that it is critical that we clarify that the 
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 is still the law of the land and 
reiterate its intent, namely, to deny funding to terrorist entities 
within the Palestinian leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot permit any ambiguity to exist on this 
subject. This body should be on the record today, as we have before, 
that no American tax dollars can be delivered to any authority within 
the Palestinian territories that is compromised or even tainted by 
Hamas or other terrorist interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment.
  It is my understanding that it reiterates the restrictions on direct 
aid to the PA that are already in current law that are clearly included 
in this bill. I certainly expect the administration to abide by these 
restrictions, and I thank the gentleman for his amendment. In fact, I 
am wondering why the gentleman is offering the amendment if it is 
already included in the bill.
  I also understand that my good friends on the other side of the aisle 
are whipping against this bill. This bill provides millions of dollars 
for Israel and for many good causes all around the world. So for those 
who are standing up as friends of Israel and want to protect Israel, I 
wonder why you are whipping against a bill that is providing millions 
of dollars for Israel.
  And I thank the gentleman for your amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
for yielding.
  He makes a good point. I am actually for this bill coming forward, 
but we need to send an important signal.
  The administration has said that they are going to provide direct aid 
to the Palestinian Authority and provide $40 million to the U.N. Relief 
and Works Agency in Gaza. U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to 
finance a culture of ``welfare terrorism.''
  This morning, Secretary Rice agreed to work with us in upgrading the 
auditing regime of UNRWA, and we hope that that will include an end to 
Cash Assistance payments to terrorists and martyr families, with a full 
independent audit of UNRWA programs outside the U.N. structure.
  We have looked in the past at our errors, in the 1990s, when the U.S. 
poured hundreds of millions of dollars into assistance for the Yassar 
Arafat government and the return on taxpayer investments was very low 
indeed. In haste, we should not repeat our errors made just a few short 
fiscal years ago.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for her 
support of this amendment. Let me also say to the gentlewoman that I 
intend to support the underlying legislation and appreciate her strong 
work in support of Israel.

                              {time}  2245

  The reason for bringing this bill, to answer the gentlelady's 
question, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. In recent days, the State 
Department has indicated its intent to ``lift restrictions on aid to 
Palestinians.'' And the Pence amendment today will simply say that any 
aid that would go to the Palestinian Authority must, with an 
exclamation point, only go to the Palestinian Authority under current 
restrictions in current law. That is my sincere intent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. I also 
am delighted to know that you will support the bill. It is a good bill. 
The ranking member and I worked very closely in a bipartisan way. I 
have the greatest respect for my friend and ranking member, Mr. Wolf. 
It was really disappointing for me to hear that the whip's office was 
working against the bill.
  I thank you so much. It's a good bill. I appreciate your support, and 
I'm happy to accept this amendment because the current restrictions, 
which you rightly suggest, are in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the 5 minutes. I simply want to 
say that I appreciate the fact that the committee has accepted this 
amendment. But let me simply make one point.
  Because we have heard on this side of the aisle that the minority 
party is whipping against the bill, let me simply say that I would hope 
that there are no Members of this House who would engage in an act 
which would give hypocrisy a bad name by voting for this amendment, 
which in essence simply repeats existing law, and then use that as 
cover as an excuse to then vote against the bill in final passage. I 
don't think that friends of Israel would be conned by that. And I would 
hope, and I have full confidence, that no Member of this House would 
engage in such hypocrisy.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana 
for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to associate myself with 
his efforts though I believe it does not go far enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues when we will learn 
from our mistakes?
  Did we learn anything when Arafat took our money and stashed it in 
his Swiss bank accounts instead of providing for his own people?
  Did we learn anything when Fatah was exposed as nothing but a corrupt 
gang of thugs?
  Did we learn anything when Abu Mazen refused to rout Hamas when he 
had the chance and showed that his backbone is no stronger than a wet 
noodle?
  Did we learn anything when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza 
and Fatah failed to build one school, one hospital, one road, did one 
thing to improve the lives of its own people, but still came to us with 
their palms open for more money?
  Did we learn when the Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayad 
admitted that hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid had been 
siphoned off, thanks to corruption and malfeasance?
  Mr. Chairman, let's stop throwing good after bad. We should cut off 
funding to the corrupt and ineffectual Palestinian Authority. If I have 
learned anything it is this: If the U.S. gives Abu Mazen 50 cents or 
$50 million or $500 million more dollars he will be incapable of 
uniting the Palestinian people, leading the Palestinian people or 
bringing peace to a very troubled part of the world. I thank the 
gentleman from Indiana again for addressing this important issue and I 
yield back.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PENCE. 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 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. 2 offered by Ms. Berkley:

[[Page H6942]]

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


             PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSISTANCE TO SAUDI ARABIA

       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available pursuant to this Act--
       (1) shall be obligated or expended to finance any 
     assistance to Saudi Arabia; or
       (2) shall be used to execute a waiver of section 571 or 614 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa or 
     2364) with regard to assistance to Saudi Arabia.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Weiner, Mr. Crowley, Mr. 
Ferguson and myself to offer an important amendment to cut off funding 
to the Saudi Arabian regime.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons that we need not be sending 
foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. First, Saudi Arabia does not need our 
money. They are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with a 
GDP of over $286 billion a year. With poor countries begging us for 
help, why are we giving money to this oil-rich kingdom? Is not 60, 70, 
$80 a barrel enough?
  Second, Saudi Arabia exports and funds terrorists and terrorism. Need 
I remind anyone in this body that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? 
But the story goes on. By 2005, over 2,500 Saudi youths had entered 
Iraq to wage jihad against the Americans. That's waging jihad against 
us. By last month, 3,000 Saudis had been killed or captured in Iraq. 
Why are all these Saudis fighting in Iraq? Because their government is 
financing and teaching terrorism.
  Israeli officials believe that over half of Hamas' budget comes from 
Saudi Arabia. Just this week, two indictments were served against Saudi 
charities that are accused of funding Hamas. Their textbooks still 
teach Saudi children that Jews are apes, Christians are pigs, and that 
every other religion other than Islam is false. Their newspapers print 
anti-Semitic cartoons depicting the Jews as thiefs, and, most insulting 
of all, as Nazis. Already this year our State Department has counted 14 
human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, including beatings, arbitrary 
arrests, violations of religious freedom, and limitation on workers 
rights.
  The Saudis are not our allies. They are not our friends. King 
Abdullah called our invasion of Iraq an illegal foreign occupation. 
Those are not the words of a friend.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot trust them and we should not fund them. That 
is why every year more and more Members of this body vote to cut off 
funding to the terrorist regime. And yet, despite all this, the funding 
for Saudi Arabia has increased. Let me repeat that. It has increased 
each year because of an obscure loophole in the Foreign Assistance Act, 
up to $1.5 million in 2006. Well, this year we're closing that 
loophole. Our amendment will ensure that funding to Saudi Arabia is cut 
off once and for all.
  Enough is enough. Let's come to our senses and end this senseless 
promotion of terrorism. I urge support for the Weiner-Crowley-Ferguson-
Berkley amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. WOLF. I am not opposed to the amendment. I am for the amendment. 
So I will strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the time. And I of course 
rise in strong support of this amendment. I am delighted to, once again 
this year, work with Mr. Weiner, Mr. Crowley and Ms. Berkley.
  We've offered this amendment in the past. And each year that this 
Foreign Operations bill includes funding for Saudi Arabia we've offered 
this amendment, and each year we gain more and more support. Obviously 
we're disappointed that this bill does include some money for Saudi 
Arabia, but I'm pleased that offering this bipartisan amendment with 
broad support on both sides of the aisle, once again we will seek to 
strip that money.
  The bill before us provides $115,000 in foreign aid for a country 
that has time and time and time and again proven that it doesn't 
deserve one cent of American taxpayers' dollars, not only because Saudi 
Arabia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but also 
because it's not a partner with the United States and other nations in 
our efforts to combat terrorism.
  Saudi Arabia has a pretty poor record on a number of fronts. It's not 
just a poor record in joining with other allies around the world to 
combat terrorism. They have a pretty terrible record on human rights, 
pretty poor record on religious freedom, and they continue to support 
and participate in the Arab League's boycott of Israel. Now, even 
recently there was an Arab League boycott meeting in Damascus. The 
Saudi Government continued to participate in that meeting. All of this 
despite Saudi Arabia's repeated promises to dismantle the boycott and 
to support most-favored-nation status for Israel. And Israel, of 
course, our closest and most important ally in the Middle East, Saudi 
Arabia continues to undermine the efforts that we are building in the 
Middle East.
  Clearly, Saudi Arabia is not a country that is struggling to make 
ends meet. Saudi Arabia doesn't need financial support from other 
nations. And they certainly can't be considered a strong ally of the 
United States or the global war on terror.
  Last year, more than 300 Members of the House supported this 
amendment. I am really looking forward to continued broad bipartisan 
support for this amendment once again this year. And I'm really 
delighted, once again, to be working with Mr. Weiner and Mr. Crowley 
and Ms. Berkley in offering this amendment.
  I thank you for yielding.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, perhaps the amendment really doesn't go 
far enough in the sense that to do something that really matters, there 
is a real concern that many American Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia are 
now out working for the Saudi Government. And I have an amendment that 
we're trying to get through the Rules Committee. Mr. Lantos and I are 
working on asking various groups to look into this. There are actually, 
I understand, CIA station chiefs, American CIA station chiefs who were 
station chiefs in Saudi Arabia that may be now working for the Saudis.
  The Saudis funded the madrassas up along the Pakistan-Afghan border. 
There were 15 Saudis on the aircraft, one of them went into the 
Pentagon and killed 30 people from my congressional district. The first 
person killed in Afghanistan was Michael Spann, a CIA agent from my 
district, because of the activities of the Saudis.
  The Saudis are funding anti-Semitic, anti-Christian activities in 
some of the schools. This is Wahhabism. I've been kind of shocked. This 
is a milquetoast amendment. This is a weak amendment. There should be 
something really strong to get control of this Wahhabism that is 
spreading.
  So, yes, let's pass it. But I would hope the next time we really do 
something that really can make a difference because this is dangerous. 
Had they not funded those madrassas, frankly maybe what took place on 
9/11 may have never taken place.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to accept the amendment from 
the gentlelady from Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York and thank 
Mr. Wolf. It's nice to be on the same side of an issue for a change, 
and this is certainly one that I appreciate your support. Perhaps next 
year we can work on an amendment that will be even stronger than this. 
I quite agree with you.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Berkley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment 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.

[[Page H6943]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:


     LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR TRAVEL BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF 
   REPRESENTATIVES TO COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM

       Sec. 6_. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to fund or support travel 
     by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to Cuba, Iran, 
     North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, 
June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment is a fairly simple amendment. It goes into the section 
and limits the funds for travel by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives to countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. And 
it simply says none of the funds may be used to support travel by the 
Speaker to the nations specifically of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan 
or Syria. And the reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is that there are two 
constraints on the Speaker of the House. One of them is a 
constitutional constraint that vests the authority of foreign policy 
into the President of the United States. And that's clear. And that's 
established in the Constitution and codified by our founders 
specifically so there wouldn't be a division of messages, that we would 
speak with one voice on foreign policy.
  And when they had problems with that even after the ratification of 
the Constitution, then they passed the Logan Act, which has been in law 
for over 200 years. And the Logan Act prohibits anyone representing the 
United States, without the authority of the administration, to conduct 
foreign policy. And it's clear that's what happened in Syria, and it 
was reported in newspapers all over this country in April.
  And so this legislation, this appropriation, without my amendment, 
would allow taxpayers' dollars to support what I believe is 
unconstitutional behavior and statutory violations.
  I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my good friend 
from Iowa for providing comic relief at this late hour of this debate.
  This carefully constructed, exquisitely constructed absurdity 
masquerading as an amendment, and on the west coast there are still 
children watching this program, and I hope they are watching it because 
this is a rare moment in the history of the Congress of the United 
States.
  There are 435 Members in this body, every single one of us elected by 
our constituents. The Speaker of the House, at the moment, happens to 
be the Representative from the Eighth District of California. Now, if 
the gentleman were to offer an amendment saying that 434 Members may 
travel to Cuba and Sudan and Iran and Syria, but the Representative 
from the Tenth District of Illinois or the Seventh District of Texas 
may not, he would be laughed out of court. But that is precisely what 
this so-called amendment purports to do. It says nothing about any 
other Member of the Congress of the United States.

                              {time}  2300

  We are free to travel to Syria. We are free to travel to North Korea. 
But one of our colleagues, who happens to represent the Eighth District 
of California, may not.
  Now, San Francisco happens to have two Representatives; Ms. Pelosi, 
who represents the Eighth District, and I represent the Twelfth 
District. The absurdity that you pretend is an amendment allows the 
person representing a part of San Francisco to travel to North Korea, 
to travel to Syria, to travel to Sudan, but the person representing the 
other part of San Francisco may not.
  Now, I really don't think that this amendment can be taken seriously 
at its face value. There is a hidden message here. That hidden message 
is a low blow, a pathetically low blow, aimed at our most distinguished 
Speaker of this body.
  I was with the Speaker on her visit, not only to Syria, but to 
Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. She represented the United States with 
eloquence, dignity and distinction. It turns my stomach that this 
sickening partisan attempt to get at the Speaker's performance of her 
legitimate duties is presented here as an amendment.
  Let me, however, deal with the underlying issue. The underlying issue 
relates to travel to countries with which we disagree. May I point out, 
Mr. Chairman, that beginning in 1981, at the height of the Cold War, I 
was appointed chair of our Parliamentary Liaison to the European 
Parliament. It became obvious to me that most of our colleagues in 1981 
had never traveled in the Soviet Union or behind the Iron Curtain. So, 
every year I took it upon myself to lead a congressional delegation to 
the Soviet Union and to all the Communist countries of the Soviet bloc.
  Many of my colleagues at that time had no passport. But as a result 
of year after year after year going to these Communist countries, many 
Members of this body became familiar with the circumstances. Their 
commitment of anti-Communism was enhanced, and their understanding of 
the Soviet Union and the Central and East European satellites became 
much clearer.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the primitive, absurd, stupid notion that we should not 
allow Members of Congress to travel to countries with which we have 
disagreement is really beneath contempt. This know-nothingism has no 
place in this body. The discriminatory approach of allowing 434 Members 
of the House of Representatives to travel to the Sudan, to look at 
Darfur and the tragedy unfolding there, but not to allow the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives to see with her own eyes the genocide 
which is taking place in Darfur is not worthy of this body.
  I hope that my friend from Iowa will withdraw this pathetic absurdity 
masquerading as an amendment. It is not an amendment. It is a low blow 
at the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. I hope 
that if the gentleman does not withdraw it, it will be overwhelmingly 
defeated.
  This body is a body of adult men and women who are prepared to go to 
Syria, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea, and, if the Iranians will let us in, 
to Iran. At this moment, the Ahmadinejad government does not offer 
visas to any Member of Congress. I have been attempting to go there for 
well over 10 years. I hope, one of these days, a group of us will go 
there.
  But the notion of proposing an ostrich policy aimed at the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives, that she may not go to Cuba, while scores 
of Republicans and Democrats go, while scores of Republicans and 
Democrats go to the Sudan and to Syria, is a cheap partisan blow. Days 
before we went to Syria, three Republican colleagues were in Syria, and 
I salute them; days after we went there, another Republican colleague 
went there.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think after that 
speech, there is absolutely no need to say anything more. The amendment 
says a whole lot more about the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) than it 
says about the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment for three reasons. One, I would 
hope in the next Congress we have a Republican Speaker, and so I 
wouldn't want to see that side limit our Speaker. That is number one.
  Number two, Senator Sam Brownback and I were one of the first ones to 
go to Darfur. I wish more Members would go to Darfur. I think it is 
genocide. I think one of the problems is that this place hasn't moved 
fast enough because people haven't seen it.

[[Page H6944]]

They couldn't smell it. They just couldn't feel it. And so to say you 
couldn't go to Darfur where there is a genocide taking place now is 
just not a good idea. I have been to Sudan five times. Certainly you 
couldn't limit the Speaker to go some place that I, as a lowly Member, 
could go to.
  The third reason is that I was one of the Members who went to Syria. 
Now, I am not a weak person. I used to go to the Soviet Union during 
the days of Communism and speak out for the dissidents. Chris Smith and 
I went into Perm Camp 35 and interviewed Sharansky's cellmate and did a 
lot of things that really made a difference.
  When I went to Syria, here is what I said to Assad. With me was 
Robert Aderholt, not exactly a liberal Member of the House; Joe Pitts, 
again, God bless him, a very conservative Member of the House, a good 
person. Here is what we said to Assad four times, and it was good that 
he heard it. I said it twice, and Mr. Pitts said it once, and Mr. 
Aderholt said it once. We said, one, stop allowing foreign fighters to 
come and transit your border. I am not saying it is because of our 
effort, but 2 weeks after that, the Commanding General in Afghanistan 
said that the foreign fighters had slowed down. They actually saw the 
results.
  Secondly, Israel's right to exist. Assad should have heard Members. 
More Members should go tell Assad, Israel has the right to exist.
  Thirdly, I said stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. We were 4 feet 
from him. We looked at him directly in the eye and said no more 
support. We know and they know where Hamas and Hezbollah have their 
offices. They're in Damascus.
  Lastly, we said to them with regard to this, stop interfering in 
Lebanon's right to exist.
  So, I am of the mind, and I may be in the minority of my party, I 
take the Ronald Reagan approach. Ronald Reagan, when he called the 
Soviet Union the evil empire, his greatest speech was to the National 
Association of Evangelicals, Orlando, Florida, 1983. He called them the 
evil empire. But as he called them the evil empire, he sent people out 
to talk.
  If you recall his speech he gave at Danilov Monastery, where he 
talked about freedom, Gorbachev was there. Ronald Reagan defeated the 
Soviets because he went and engaged, not in weakness. He put the Cruise 
Missiles in in Europe in 1983 when people complained. But he was able 
to do it.
  So, one, I hope we have a Republican Speaker, and I would hope 
everyone on our side agrees when we have a Republican Speaker in the 
next Congress.
  Two, I went to Sudan. I think everybody in this body ought to go to 
Sudan. They ought to go to Darfur. Maybe it was because of the failure 
of people to go to Rwanda. Maybe that wouldn't have taken place.
  Lastly, intellectually it would be impossible to say this was a good 
idea if I was one of the ones that went. I think by going I served the 
interests of our Government. I was criticized. I had people criticize 
me.

                              {time}  2315

  But I thought it was good that Assad heard that.
  Lastly, I met with the leading dissident in Syria, and I said, 
``Should we put your name in our release?'' And he said, ``Please, put 
my name in.'' Sharansky used to tell us, ``When you spoke out for me, 
when you said things for me, my life got better.''
  This dissident said, ``Mention my name. Mention my name. I will stand 
with you,'' because, he said, ``nobody else is coming to meet with me 
and stand with me.'' We stood with him, and when we left Syria, after 
we left, the Syrian Government criticized us for the tone of what they 
thought we said.
  But, God bless, I would hope that every Member of this body would go 
to Syria and sit down with Assad and say, stop the foreign fighters; 
Israel's right to exist; stop the support for Hezbollah and Hamas; and 
stop messing around in Lebanon and let these people who want freedom to 
have freedom.
  For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that no one here that has traveled to 
a foreign country has announced a new foreign policy but the Speaker of 
the House. No one here has pointed out how it is you can contravene the 
Constitution. We all take an oath, solemnly swear to uphold this 
Constitution. And no one here has pointed to a law that supersedes the 
Logan Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, in all due respect to my good friend from California 
who knows I have a great deal of respect for him, this is not a 
sickening or pathetic amendment. It is not primitive, stupid or absurd, 
as it was described. It is not an ostrich amendment. And this is not a 
low blow, nor is anyone saying that the Speaker of this House is not an 
eloquent speaker and Representative as she goes forward out into the 
world as Speaker of this institution.
  Nor would I tell my colleagues, is this an amendment about Member 
travel. No one says that we should not be about educating ourselves so 
that we can better effect public policy here in our roles as Members of 
this Congress and as Representatives of the constituents that elect us.
  What this is about is about travel by an individual who is second in 
line to the President of the United States. Like it or not, for the 434 
others of us, it does mean something different when the Speaker of the 
House goes somewhere.
  As my friend from Iowa indicates, all reports say when the trip to 
Syria occurred, that somehow it was perceived on the ground and in the 
region that somehow the United States was embarking upon new foreign 
policy.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would say from Iran's hot pursuit of nuclear 
weapons to Syria's eagerness to stir violence against our interests in 
the Middle East, America faces a growing list of terrorist states, as 
my good friend from California is well aware. And amidst such threats, 
the United States must speak forthrightly and with one voice.
  Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, they all are feeble states 
whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours. Their regimes are 
vulnerable to international sanction, and they will not change until 
America and its allies apply enough pressure to endanger their regimes.
  I would just say when the Speaker of the House goes to these nations 
and it is perceived that somehow we are capitulating, it goes against 
our interests. That is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to conclude.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I take us to this path where we are, 
and I haven't heard the response to the issue of the constitutional 
constraints that we all have.
  I have traveled foreign and I have sat in there in diplomatic 
discussions and debates and I have heard us get off track. I have heard 
us put our national security at risk, because sometimes the people that 
were there on the codel weren't tuned in with the administration's 
policy. I have not seen us take us to the crisis moment, but I have 
seen the precipice of the crisis moment.
  But our founders understood this clearly and that is why they laid 
that responsibility in the hands of the President of the United States 
to conduct our foreign policy. That is why he appoints the Ambassadors. 
That is why he negotiates the treaties. That is why 200 years of 
tradition and history and constitutional law takes us down this path.
  And if we can ignore our oath to the Constitution, then on top of 
that, how can we ignore the Logan Act, which is the only controlling 
Federal statute that we have? The Logan Act says no citizen of the 
United States shall take foreign policy into their own hands.
  Our Speaker clearly traveled to a terrorist-sponsored state against 
the express wishes of the President of the United States.
  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 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H6945]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Unfortunately, I 
will shortly withdraw it, for reasons I will explain.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     assistance under the West Bank and Gaza program may be made 
     available to or through any individual, private or government 
     entity, or educational institution that does not expressly 
     recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist.

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 20, 2007, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would have ensured that none 
of the funds made available in this bill under the West Bank and Gaza 
program may be made available to any individual or entity that does not 
expressly recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. I 
brought this amendment to the floor to emphasize the strong sense of 
this Congress and the United States that the peace process in this 
region requires all participants to publicly acknowledge the 
fundamental right of the State of Israel to exist.
  Funding an organization that fails to recognize Israel is not 
acceptable and should not be tolerated by this Congress.
  While there have been many opportunities for the Palestinian 
Liberation Organization in particular to officially recognize Israel's 
right to exist, it has failed to do so. Until it is held accountable 
for its failure to make recognition of Israel a formal part of its 
charter, we as a Nation and in this Congress must be careful not to 
reward and enable this organization.
  Because Hamas controlled the Palestinian Authority after the recent 
elections, the last Congress felt the need to pass a law, the 
Palestinian Antiterrorism Act of 2006, to ensure that U.S. funds would 
not be provided to this terrorist regime. This law, however, does not 
go far enough, because it fails to make Israel's right to exist part of 
the law as it applies to the PLO.
  In contrast, my amendment would have created a simple formula for 
determining where to provide assistance and who would be eligible to 
receive funds by making the recognition of Israel's right to exist as 
well as refraining from terrorism a prerequisite for U.S. funding of 
all organizations.
  For the peace process to be successful, and everyone here sincerely 
wants this, it is imperative that all of the parties involved expressly 
understand and recognize the rights of the other parties. Until this 
happens, true peace, Mr. Chairman, cannot be achieved.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairwoman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this very 
important amendment to the floor. I think it is a critical reminder to 
the Palestinian Authority that they need to get their act together and 
that we are losing patience with them. I want to thank the gentleman 
for a very constructive dialogue earlier today.
  Mr. Chairman, I was at the border of Israel and Gaza when the gate 
fell down. The Israeli people said to the Palestinians, ``You can take 
this. You can have it. Try and build capability here. Try and build a 
country here. Try and build peace here.''
  Do you know what they did with it? They sent rockets over the border 
into Israel. They violated every commitment they made. They didn't 
develop a capability. They developed Qassam rockets.
  Israel is surrounded by threat in the north with Lebanon, where 
Hezbollah violated the border, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, rained 
rockets on the north; in Gaza, which has imploded; has an existential 
threat from Iran, which is our threat as well. In between all those 
places, you have people running around with grenades strapped around 
their bodies blowing up themselves and everybody else they can take 
with them.
  Israel has tried to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate, and every 
time it has negotiated, the result has been an interlocutor that has 
said, we can't really keep our promises nor can we keep the peace.
  So the gentleman's amendment is very, very important, and I want to 
pledge to work with the distinguished chairwoman, who has had these 
concerns and who has led this Congress in these concerns for as long as 
she has been in Congress, with Mr. Wolf, the ranking member, who has 
led the fight on these concerns, and with the gentleman, so that the 
Palestinian Authority gets the message that we are losing patience and 
we will not continue to sit by and allow them to pursue a policy of 
destructiveness.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the 
gentleman who offered the amendment. I appreciate your offer to 
withdraw the amendment. I pledge to continue to work with you and Mr. 
Israel and the other members of the committee and the Congress. We 
thank you very much for your intent and your willingness to withdraw.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, is it too much to ask, after nearly 60 years, that 
Israel's neighbors recognize its basic right to exist. There is simply 
no reason for the U.S. to be funding entities that do not recognize 
Israel, the Middle East's only democracy and our staunch ally.
  Mr. Chairman, we can argue about the Palestinian Authority and 
whether we should fund that corrupt and ineffectual government. But 
there should be no debate when talking about terrorist organizations 
whose singular purpose is to wipe Israel off the map.
  We must send a clear and firm message to Hamas and Hezbollah: as long 
as you are committed to Israel's destruction, we will commit ourselves 
to not aiding your survival. End of story.
  I thank the gentleman for his clear sighted amendment.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman and the 
gentleman, both from New York.
  Mr. Chairman, knowing that this amendment is vulnerable to a point of 
order because it goes beyond appropriating and into the legislative 
realm, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  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:
  An amendment by Mr. Boustany of Louisiana.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.
  An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 52 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
  An amendment by Mr. Pence of Indiana.
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boustany

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Boustany) 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.

[[Page H6946]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 74, 
noes 343, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 535]

                                AYES--74

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Carter
     Chabot
     Clarke
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Ellison
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Granger
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kilpatrick
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lee
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rogers (MI)
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Gordon
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Maloney (NY)
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Weiner

                              {time}  2347

  Messrs. REHBERG, KLINE of Minnesota, BILIRAKIS, CULBERSON, MCHUGH, 
DELAHUNT, BARTON of Texas, Mrs. BACHMANN and Mrs. DRAKE changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina, MCDERMOTT, ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, 
MCKEON, MEEKS of New York, EVERETT, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mrs. 
SCHMIDT, and Ms. LEE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203, 
noes 214, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 536]

                               AYES--203

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito

[[Page H6947]]


     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Christensen
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott (GA)
     Sullivan
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this 
vote.

                              {time}  2352

  Mr. CARDOZA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania and Mr. Michaud changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded the remaining votes in this 
series will be 2-minute votes, and are advised to remain in the Chamber 
for the execution of their votes.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Jordan) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 268, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 537]

                               AYES--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Meehan
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in this 
vote.

                              {time}  2356

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H6948]]

            Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 252, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 538]

                               AYES--168

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--252

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Meehan
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  0001

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Mrs. Musgrave) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 241, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 539]

                               AYES--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher

[[Page H6949]]


     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Berman
     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  0005

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pence

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pence) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 390, 
noes 30, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 540]

                               AYES--390

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--30

     Baird
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Dingell
     Ellison
     Gilchrest
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lee
     McDermott
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Rahall
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch (VT)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains in the 
vote.

                              {time}  0009

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were

[[Page H6950]]

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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84, 
noes 337, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 541]

                                AYES--84

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Hayes
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Reichert
     Rogers (AL)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--337

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
the vote.

                              {time}  0013

  Mr. HERGER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as ``The Department of State, Foreign 
     Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008''.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the 
Appropriations Committee for putting together a bipartisan bill that 
provides assistance for such important issues as global health, 
humanitarian assistance in Sudan, the environment and peacekeeping 
operations around the world.
  The 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill reinforces 
the notion that foreign policy is about more than the use of military 
force and that foreign assistance and humanitarian aid are important 
components of foreign policy making.
  The bill provides $949 million for Sudan, of which $210 million is 
for critical humanitarian and peacekeeping programs in Darfur. The 
remaining funds are for development assistance and to strengthen 
democratic institutions in southern Sudan.
  Global health efforts also receive funding in this bill. The bill 
provides $5 billion for HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention and care 
programs around the world.
  The bill also includes $501 million for clean energy and biodiversity 
programs worldwide. Educational and cultural exchanges receive more 
than $500 million to fund participation of over 42,000 individuals in 
educational, cultural, and professional exchange programs including 
Fulbright exchanges.
  The bill also contains funding for programs in many countries around 
the world, including Pakistan.
  The U.S. appreciates Pakistan's effort in the fight against global 
terrorism. However, President Musharraf's decision to enter into a non-
aggression pact with tribal leaders in the Waziristan region appears to 
have provided a safe haven for the Taliban and has led to an increase 
in Taliban and al Qaeda attacks inside Afghanistan. We should encourage 
the Pakistani Government to reconsider this policy.
  As we provide additional support to Pakistan, we must also make it 
clear that we stand with those calling for free and fair elections. The 
firing of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Muhammad Chaudhury 
raises serious questions about President Musharraf's commitment to an 
independent judiciary and the rule of law. The U.S. must make clear to 
the people of Pakistan that we support the democratic process and 
expect President Musharraf to honor his pledge to abandon his dual role 
as both head of state and head of the armed forces.
  The United States has long stood as a beacon for human rights, 
democracy, and the rule of law. That beacon has been dimmed as a result 
of the Bush administration's blunders and abuses in places like Iraq 
and Guantanamo Bay. These practices have created a perception that the 
United States has a double standard when it comes to the rule of law 
and the promotion of democracy. We must speak with a clear and 
consistent voice on these issues or we will continue to lose our 
credibility, erode our ability to influence decisions, and weaken our 
national security.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 
2008 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and also to 
congratulate Chairwoman Lowey for her impressive job in crafting a 
spending bill that meets our important commitments to the international 
community.

[[Page H6951]]

  I would especially like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and the State-
Foreign Operations Subcommittee for including language in the Committee 
Report that I requested regarding the science and technology literacy 
and capacity in the U.S. Department of State. Additionally, the 
Committee Report includes language I requested supporting the variety 
of science fellowship programs in the Department of State, including 
the science-diplomacy fellows of the American Association for the 
Advancemnt of Science (AAAS), the professional society fellows, and the 
recently established Jefferson Fellows Program.
  The Office of the Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of 
State (STAS) has played an important role at the Department of State 
since 2000. As the chief scientist at State, the Adviser has brought 
greater visibility to ``science for diplomacy'' and ``diplomacy for 
science.'' STAS has increased the number of PhD scientists and 
engineers employed at the Department, including AAAS fellows, 
professional society fellows, and most recently, Jefferson Science 
Fellows program.
  I am glad that the Committee Report includes language applauding the 
work of the STAS for continuing to promote the essential role of 
science and technology in diplomacy. More importantly, the committee 
strongly encourages the Department to continue to increase science and 
technology capacity and literacy within the Department and the role of 
science and technology in our Nation's foreign policy. And the 
committee requests that the Secretary of State be prepared to report 
during hearings on the Fiscal Year 2009 request on progress made during 
the 2008 fiscal year.
  I look forward to working with the State Department and the 
Appropriations Committee to ensure that advances are made to achieve 
these stated goals during this upcoming fiscal year.
  Second, language included in the Committee Report supports the JSF 
and the other science fellowship programs in the Department of State 
and makes clear that the committee believes they are valuable programs 
that should be expanded in the years ahead.
  As a former AAAS science fellow I know first hand about the important 
role that science fellows serve in helping policymakers better 
understand and are able to advance science and technology as a major 
component of diplomacy.
  One such program, the Jefferson Science Fellows (JSF) program was 
established Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2003. By providing 
1-year fellowships to tenured academic scientists and engineers from 
our Nation's colleges and universities, the JSF program works to 
incorporate the American science, technology, and engineering 
communities into the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign 
policy. Each Jefferson Science Fellow is hosted during their fellowship 
at the Department of State or a foreign embassy abroad. Jefferson 
Science Fellows are now contributing their scientific expertise to such 
challenging problems as nuclear non-proliferation, assessments of 
nanotechnology, pandemics like avian flu, and extreme weather. As the 
JSF program matures, this growing cadre of practicing experts with 
first-hand knowledge of the workings within the Department of State 
will be an increasingly important resource throughout the government.
  Again, I would like to thank the committee for including this 
language and I look forward to working with the committee as we build 
the role of science in our Nation's diplomacy.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal 
2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and to express my 
appreciation for the significant increase in funding for trade capacity 
building.
  This bill raises the Federal appropriation to $214 million, $87 
million more than the administration requested.
  Regardless of one's position on trade, helping our trading partners, 
particularly those in developing countries, with the financial 
assistance to improve enforcement of their labor and environmental laws 
is a good thing.
  I would encourage the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee to 
consider holding a hearing to assess how these funds have been 
effective at building capacity in these developing countries.
  I think there is a good story that should be told.
  Looking forward, however, we have several free trade agreements that 
we will be asked to consider in the next few months, Peru, Panama, 
Colombia, and Korea.
  Three, Peru, Panama and Colombia, are with developing countries that 
are eligible to receive trade capacity assistance.
  And while none of these agreements is a done deal, Colombia appears 
to be the one with the greatest level of concern.
  A number of our colleagues are rightly concerned about Colombia's 
record on human rights and the alarmingly high number of labor leaders 
that have been killed in recent years.
  Given this concern, I would like to see this appropriation clarify 
that some portion of the $214 million should go specifically to the 
Colombian Government, the attorney general's office, which is charged 
with investigating these killings and bringing the perpetrators to 
justice.
  The attorney general has is no easy task.
  President Uribe's effort to disband the paramilitary groups and bring 
about a peace agreement with the insurgents has made progress, but it 
has also overwhelmed the attorney general's office and the courts with 
a backlog of petitions to adjudicate.
  Thousands of cases of former paramilitary soldiers and insurgents 
must be investigated before any seeking amnesty can be pardoned.
  Only those proven innocent of any human rights abuses are granted 
amnesty.
  I understand that the killing of labor leaders is being investigated, 
but the progress is slow and complicated by competing demands to clear 
the backlog of requests for pardons and amnesties.
  I think Colombia would welcome our financial assistance to expedite 
the investigations into human rights abuses and killings of labor 
leaders.
  I also think an offer of assistance would be a tangible demonstration 
of our willingness to help them address our concerns.
  I encourage you to consider this request when you begin your 
discussions with the Senate on a final conference agreement.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly 
object to the reduction in assistance to Colombia and the significant 
redirection of funding for counternarcotic programs in this 
legislation.
  Now is not the time to turn our backs on one of our most important 
democratic allies in the Western Hemisphere. We need to reaffirm, not 
dismantle, our commitment to these programs, to the people of Colombia, 
and to American citizens.
  The drug trade in Colombia is a major factor in the instability in 
Latin America; it is killing Americans every day, and is a source of 
funding for terrorism in the hemisphere.
  I have traveled to Colombia several times over the past few years and 
can say firsthand our significant investment is beginning to pay 
dividends. Under the leadership of President Uribe, Colombia has 
experienced success in fighting narcoterrorism and bringing democratic 
stability to the country.
  Now is not the time to cut funding--when progress is being made.
  We must recognize the difficult work of President Uribe and the 
challenges he faces with guerillas, paramilitary groups, drug 
traffickers, and terrorists.
  Despite these difficulties, Uribe has rescued his country from a 
near-failed-state status and has reestablished state presence in areas 
of the country that for decades lacked it. Drug traffickers are being 
captured and extradited to the U.S. for prosecution, kidnapping rates 
have decreased significantly, and the Colombian people finally feel 
safe traveling within their own country.
  We are also seeing tremendous results in illegal crop eradication, 
and Plan Colombia's efforts have produced record reductions in coca 
cultivation and in the destruction of drug labs. Each week brings news 
of new seizures of cocaine and heroin--interdictions that are usually 
the result of U.S. supplied intelligence.
  Of course obstacles remain, and progress may be slower than my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like it to be.
  But now is not the time to turn our backs on this battle which is so 
intrinsically tied to our war on terrorism and the scourge of illegal 
drug use. The Uribe administration is committed to this war but it 
needs U.S. assistance to improve mobility, intelligence, and training.
  Congress must continue to provide sustained funding for Plan Colombia 
and Andean Counterdrug Initiative programs and approve a free trade 
agreement.
  The administration requested $589 million for promoting development 
and fighting drugs in Colombia.
  Full funding of programs coupled with a free trade agreement is 
critical to sustaining our success in Colombia, fostering development 
and investment, and protecting our interests in Latin America.
  It's simple, Mr. Chairman, we cannot win this war on drugs and drug-
supported terrorism without the proper tools and resources.
  Colombia is a key ally in an increasingly anti-American region--we 
must do everything we can to ensure it remains a political and economic 
partner.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
2764, the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY 2008 and to 
commend Chairwoman Lowey for her exceptional leadership in shepherding 
this bill through the legislative process.
  I strongly support this legislation because it is an indispensable 
measure in restoring America's international prestige and leadership 
position in the global community. Equally important, this legislation 
reflects what is good about America: its generosity, its concern for 
the less fortunate, its commitment to protecting the weak and uplifting 
the downtrodden, and the recognition that we live in an

[[Page H6952]]

interdependent world. You will recall the wise counsel of the Rev. Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, ``we will either live together as 
brothers or we will perish as fools.''
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 2764 because it rests upon a solid 
foundation supported by four pillars or guiding principles: (1) the 
United States must respond to humanitarian suffering and health crises; 
(2) the United States should set an example for the world in providing 
development assistance because development efforts play a crucial role 
in increasing global stability; (3) the United States must continue to 
make addressing global HIV/AIDS a key priority; and (4) the United 
States must increase its efforts to support its allies in the global 
war on terror. This legislation accomplishes all of these goals and 
does so in a fiscally responsible manner. In fact, the $34.2 billion 
dollars appropriated in H.R. 2764 is substantially less--$700 million 
less--than the amount requested by the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, as founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's 
Caucus I am constantly reminded of the importance of programs to 
enhance the health of women and children the world over. In fact, the 
best way to improve the life chances of poor children living in the 
poorest countries is to elevate the quality of maternal health of their 
mothers.
  In Sub-Saharan African countries, 1 out of every 14 girls entering 
adolescence will die before the end of her childbearing years. More 
than 11 million children will die before reaching their fifth birthday 
from preventable causes like pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and 
malnutrition. That translates to about 30,000 children deaths a day. It 
is unconscionable to lose these lives when they can be saved with low-
cost interventions.
  Mr. Chairman, during my last visit to the United Nations I was proud 
to attend the United Nations Special Session on Children, where I 
pledged my commitment to improving the lives of children over the next 
decade. H.R. 2764 takes a big step toward fulfilling this commitment.
  The bill provides $1.9 billion for the Child Survival and Health 
Programs Fund, intended to reduce infant mortality and to improve the 
health and nutrition of children, especially in the poorest nations. 
This is an increase of 25 percent over the administration's short-
sighted request. In addition the bill allocates $750 million in grants 
to organizations that support basic education programs, $300 million 
for safe water programs, and $501 million for environment and clean 
energy programs.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps nowhere on earth is America's commitment to its 
fundamental values more on trial than in the crucible of human misery 
and suffering that is Darfur in Sudan. Since 2003, we have witnessed a 
systematic campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, mass murder, and 
terror in the Sudanese region of Darfur. In the years since the 
conflict began, we have commemorated the 10th anniversary of the 1994 
Rwandan genocide and the 60th anniversary of the liberation of 
Auschwitz, but promises of ``never again'' ring empty as genocide is 
allowed to continue in Sudan. As violence persists despite peace 
treaties and African Union peacekeeping efforts, now is the time to 
follow admirable rhetoric with definitive action to stop the violence 
in Darfur.
  The Government of Sudan, through both support of the Janjaweed 
militia and direct military action, is responsible for systematic 
assaults against civilians belonging to the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit 
ethnic groups. In the past 4 years, the genocide in Darfur has claimed 
more than 450,000 lives and has displaced well over 2 million 
civilians. While some of these have made their way to over-crowded 
refugee camps in neighboring Chad, most remain trapped within Sudan. 
These displaced persons are completely dependent on international aid 
for their survival, the arrival and distribution of which has been 
impeded by the Sudanese Government.

  It has been nearly a year since the United Nations Security Council 
adopted Resolution 1706, authorizing the deployment of 20,000 U.N. 
peacekeepers to bolster the 7,000-strong African Union force already 
active in the area. It has now been over a year since I traveled to 
Chad and walked across the border to Sudan. I had the opportunity to 
meet with these African Union troops, who pleaded for expanded 
peacekeeping authority and the resources to protect the refugees from 
violence.
  In addition to the ongoing suffering of civilians within Sudan, the 
violence has now spilled across the borders into both Chad and the 
Central African Republic, and is undermining any prospects for 
stability in the entire region. Relations between Chad and Sudan have 
rapidly deteriorated, and, in addition to the flood of refugees moving 
across the border, the two nations have become locked in a proxy war. 
Chadian rebel groups, based in Darfur and supported by the Sudanese 
Government, have been launching cross-border attacks on civilians in 
Chad since late 2005. Similarly, fighting between rebels and government 
troops has displaced over 70,000 people in the northeastern region of 
the Central African Republic. The situation in these neighboring 
nations has deteriorated to the point where the United Nations is 
working towards the deployment of a peacekeeping force to these two 
countries.
  In short, the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan also 
continues. International observers, including the Bush administration, 
have determined what is taking place in Darfur is genocide. As we 
demonstrated in Kosovo, once roused to act in the face of evil, America 
will be resolute and triumphant. That it is why I am so pleased that 
H.R. 2764 provides $210.5 million for critical humanitarian and 
peacekeeping programs in Darfur, which is 90 percent above the 
President's request.
  The bill also provides an additional $738.8 million, $4 million above 
the President's request, for Sudan, primarily for development 
assistance to build the economic base and strengthen democratic 
institutions in southern Sudan. The bill prohibits any funds for the 
Sudanese Government unless the Secretary of State certifies that Sudan 
has ended all support for Arab militias attacking black Muslims in 
Darfur and unless Sudan allows unimpeded access for humanitarian 
assistance.
  Likewise I welcome the $1.3 billion in funding provided in the bill 
for U.N. peacekeeping missions. These funds will support peacekeeping 
operations throughout the world. The bill also provides $293 million, 
which is 31 percent above FY 2007 and 33 percent above the President's 
request, for targeted peacekeeping operations, missions that are of 
particular interest to the United States. This total includes an 
additional $100 million, not requested by the President, to provide 
critical support to the African Union Peacekeepers in Darfur.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to HIV/AIDS, we are talking about a 
tragedy of epic proportions, domestically and internationally. In my 
home State of Texas 3,298 new AIDS cases were reported in 2006, fourth 
highest in the country. Texas also claims the fourth largest population 
living with AIDS, nearly 30,000 people or 14.7 per 100,000. Of these 
new cases in Texas, nearly 42 percent involved African Americans. HIV/
AIDS is an issue that affects all of us, according to the U.N., 2.9 
million people died of AIDS in 2006; further there are now 39.5 million 
people living with HIV around the world.
  The $5.1 billion provided in H.R. 2764 for HIV/AIDS prevention, 
treatment, care programs, TB and Malaria assistance programs is 
desperately needed to resolve human suffering. It is also 33 percent 
above FY 2007 and 13 percent more than the President requested.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the 
Middle East and South Asia, I know how important it is for the United 
States to be engaged in the quest for peace in the Middle East. That is 
why I am pleased that the bill provides $2.4 billion in assistance for 
Israel, our strong ally, and the only flourishing democracy in that 
region.
  Another key ally, Egypt, warrants our continued assistance. H.R. 2764 
provides $1.3 billion for military grants and $415 million in economic 
assistance. However, the bill withholds $200 million of the military 
grants until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt is taking 
steps to address human rights concerns by reforming its judiciary and 
training its police, as well as addressing concerns about smuggling of 
weapons from Egypt to Gaza. Since Egypt has proven itself over the 
years to be a reliable friend and partner in the search for peace, I am 
confident that the Secretary of State will soon be able to make their 
required certification.

  While there will be those who have the view that the war in 
Afghanistan is over and we should shift our view, the truth is that 
Afghanistan is as vital to our Nation now as it was shortly after 
September 11. Operation Enduring Freedom was a success in removing the 
Taliban leadership and giving the Afghan people new hope; however our 
work there is far from done. We must ensure that Afghanistan has a 
bright and productive future ahead of itself, in which peace and 
prosperity will be possible. The bill provides $1.1 billion in 
humanitarian, reconstruction and related assistance to Afghanistan--
including $235 million in counternarcotics funding and $75 million for 
programs specifically related to helping women. The measure withholds 
all but $225 million of the economic support funds until the Secretary 
of State certifies that the national and local governments in 
Afghanistan are fully cooperating with U.S.-funded narcotics 
eradication and interdiction efforts.
  Although there is legitimate concern about what appears to be the 
Pakistani Government's disappointing progress in the area of democratic 
governance and the rule of law, we must remember Pakistan has proven to 
be a strong ally during both the cold war and the current global war on 
terror. Pakistan's strategically important location and the firm 
support of President Musharraf have played a major role in toppling the 
Taliban regime and preventing it from regaining power in Afghanistan. 
Pakistan is an important part of our national

[[Page H6953]]

security and critical to regional stability. The bill provides $350 
million for general economic assistance and $300 million in foreign 
military financing for Pakistan.
  Additionally, through various cooperative efforts between the United 
States and Pakistan, there has been a marked improvement in such fields 
as economic trade and investment, health care, democracy human rights, 
education, and science and technology.
  Colombia is a vital partner and ally of the United States. 
Recognizing the strategic importance of Colombia as I do, I strongly 
support the $530.6 million provided for drug interdiction and 
eradication efforts in Colombia, coupled with economic development 
assistance for drug-affected communities in Latin America.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me speak approvingly about the bill's 
funding of key State Department operations. H.R. 2764 fully funds the 
President's request of $1.8 billion for ongoing security upgrades to 
ensure that our embassies remain safe and secure for the tens of 
thousands of military and civilian staff serving in roughly 260 posts 
worldwide. Additionally, the bill provides $501 million, which is 11 
percent above FY 2007 and 3 percent above the President's request, to 
fund the participation of over 42,000 individuals in educational, 
cultural and professional exchange programs worldwide. I know the value 
of these exchange programs. In fact, last year I attended the 6th 
Annual Doha Forum in Qatar as an invited panelist at a special 
symposium focusing on this very subject.
  To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2764 because it is 
an indispensable measure in restoring America's international prestige 
and leadership position in the global community. I thank Chairwoman 
Lowey on her fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the 
House floor where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to two destructive 
amendments to the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2008.
  First, I oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts.
  This amendment will strike an essential provision in this bill for 
preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS around the world. Mr. Pitts' 
amendment would strike a provision included in the bill which give the 
President greater flexibility and the ability for U.S. funded HIV/AIDS 
programs to better respond to the epidemics in each country.
  This does not have to be a pro-choice or pro-life debate. In fact, it 
is short-sighted for us to think of it that way. This debate should be 
about prevention. It should be about providing necessary tools for 
proper prevention including providing contraception, ensuring access to 
condoms and providing educational information to those in need.
  We have the ability to reduce the number of cases of HIV/AIDS around 
the world by allowing for greater flexibility in how we implement 
prevention funding. Instead of taking an approach where we require that 
one-third of all HIV/AIDS prevention funds be spent on abstinence only 
programs, that are not only ineffective in preventing sexual activity, 
but in fact harmful to the health and well being of young women, we 
should be allowing for greater flexibility in how we allocate these 
essential funds.
  The statistics on the number of cases of HIV around the world are 
startling. In 2006, there were 4.2 million new HIV infections. 
According to UNAIDS, women and girls make up half of all HIV infections 
worldwide. And according to the World Health Organization, unprotected 
heterosexual sex is the leading cause of HIV infections around the 
world and 80 percent of new infections in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Clearly, calls for abstinence alone are not working. We must admit to 
ourselves that young people, whether by choice or through coercion, are 
engaging in sexual activity. We have the tools to prevent less 
unintended pregnancies. We need to use them efficiently and 
effectively.
  In order for any HIV/AIDS prevention program to be successful, we 
must make sure that we use proper prevention tools like condoms and 
contraception. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pitts amendment.
  Further, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered 
by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith and my colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
  Access to contraceptives and condoms is essential to stop the number 
of cases of HIV/AIDS around the world. With good reasons, the 
Subcommittee under the leadership of Ms. Lowey from New York has 
included a provision that will allow foreign organizations that are 
currently prohibited from received family planning assistance under the 
global gag rule to receive in kind contributions of condoms and 
contraceptives.
  I believe that the global ``gag rule'' is onerous and should be 
lifted because it not only bans foreign non-governmental organizations, 
NGOs, from using their own funds to engage in free speech and assembly 
activities on a woman's right to choose, but it also prevents health 
care providers from counseling the world's poorest women about all 
their legal health care options.
  But the provisions in this bill do not lift the global gag rule. What 
these provisions do is promote proper family planning information and 
services. As a basic prevention form of healthcare, family planning 
services can improve maternal and child health in developing countries, 
lead to better diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted 
diseases, and reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and 
abortion. The global gag rule has stopped U.S.-donated contraceptives 
from reaching 16 countries with people in desperate need in Africa, 
Asia and the Middle East. Simply allowing access to contraceptives is a 
small and necessary step in prevention.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, 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. 2764) 
making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, 
and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
for other purposes, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to 
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 498, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 178, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 542]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver

[[Page H6954]]


     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bonner
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sullivan
     Weiner

                              {time}  0031

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________