[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6421-H6429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1886, PAKISTAN ENDURING ASSISTANCE 
      AND COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009, AND PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2410, FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL 
                          YEARS 2010 AND 2011

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 522 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 522

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1886) to authorize democratic, economic, and social 
     development assistance for Pakistan, to authorize security 
     assistance for Pakistan, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions of the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; (2) the further 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by 
     Representative Ros-Lehtinen of Florida or her designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall 
     be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 
     30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 2410) to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
     State and the Peace Corps for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, to 
     modernize the Foreign Service, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only 
     in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  In the engrossment of H.R. 2410, the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 1886, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 2410;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 2410 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of H.R. 1886;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my good 
friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
  All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 522.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  H. Res. 522 provides for consideration of H.R. 1886, the Pakistan 
Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, and H.R. 
2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 
2011. Both bills are debatable for 1 hour each, equally divided and 
controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  The rule on H.R. 1886 self-executes as a manager's amendment to 
resolve jurisdictional concerns in the bill and legislation providing 
for Afghanistan-Pakistan security and prosperity enhancement. It also 
makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute authored by 
Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, which is debatable for 30 minutes.
  The rule for H.R. 2410 makes in order 27 amendments listed in the 
Rules Committee report. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, 
except the manager's amendment, which is debatable for 20 minutes. The 
rule includes a motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States is faced with many challenges on the 
world stage. It is critical that Congress put forth the necessary 
funding to help rebuild our diplomatic capabilities abroad and mitigate 
the damage that was done under the previous administration's 
leadership.
  H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 
2010 and 2011, is the first foreign relations-related authorization 
bill to reflect essential democratic priorities since 1993. As such, it 
provides a new direction forward and vital resources to boost our 
diplomatic capacity, improve our relations around the world, protect 
our national security, and make use of America's smart power, rather 
than rely on the military only solutions of past Congresses and the 
previous administration.
  H.R. 2410 and H.R. 1866, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and 
Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, together, set forth a progressive 
foreign affairs agenda that emphasizes diplomatic, economic and social 
efforts at change, not just the use of military force.
  For years the Department of State has been denied critical resources 
to

[[Page H6422]]

fulfill its core diplomatic missions in furthering our global interests 
and protecting our national security. In neglecting diplomacy, we have 
missed opportunities to prevent and mitigate conflicts around the 
world.
  Our diplomatic activities are woefully underfunded, undermanned, and 
underutilized. We must rebuild our diplomatic capacity to meet the 
needs of our increasingly complex global relations. Diplomatic, 
economic and social assistance is a much wiser and less expensive 
investment than war. Rather than relying on either hard power or soft 
power, we must, instead, emphasize smart power.
  Promoting democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the 
development of civil society is a matter of leadership requiring us to 
think beyond unilateral military solutions and to, instead, embrace a 
much more comprehensive approach to our relations with the 
international community. This rule enables us to consider legislation 
to do just that.
  The first legislation on this rule, the Foreign Relations Act, 
advances crucial and laudable programs. The Department of State is 
authorized to hire more than 1,500 Foreign Service officers, ensuring 
that our overseas posts will be staffed with eager and knowledgeable 
workers committed to promoting American culture, values, and policies.
  Critical multilateral assistance is authorized to fund our 
obligations to international organizations, including the United 
Nations and global peacekeeping operations. This effort demonstrates 
the United States' commitment to working with our friends and allies as 
a true partner in peace and cooperation.
  I'm particularly pleased with the increased funding authorization for 
the Peace Corps, enabling a dramatic expansion in the number of 
volunteers and countries served. Peace Corps volunteers exemplify our 
national commitment to improving the world, devoting their lives to 
helping the world's poorest people build communities and lift 
themselves out of poverty. As one of our Nation's most treasured and 
effective international programs, we must ensure that it attracts top 
quality volunteers and can reach into the farthest corners of the 
world.
  Improvements in refugee and migration assistance are a critical part 
of this legislation. The United States has a long history of commitment 
to humanitarian issues, and this bill authorizes the funds necessary to 
improve resources and programs to effectively help families reunite and 
resettle.
  I fully support section 235, relating to Iraqi refugees, whom the 
United States has a special obligation to help. There are more than 4.7 
million Iraqis currently displaced within their own country and in 
neighboring states. Sadly, however, this situation has not improved 
much. And yet the principal reason, I believe, that this crisis has not 
received the attention that it should is because Iraqis are not living 
in refugee camps. Instead, they are a mobile population scattered 
throughout the region. This fact alone has made this humanitarian 
crisis virtually invisible to the international community. However, for 
those Iraqis who remain stranded, jobless, and deprived of essential 
services, with conditions worsening by the day, this deepening crisis 
only threatens to further destabilize the entire region. Section 235 of 
this legislation is an important step towards fulfilling our obligation 
to assist the Iraqi people recover from years of war and conflict.
  If a picture is really worth 1,000 words, then all one must do is 
look into the face of the Iraqi refugee, as I have, who has had a 
family member murdered, kidnapped or tortured, and their own life 
threatened, to know that the United States must respond. I'm, 
therefore, grateful that my language, introduced in legislation, was 
included in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule also includes H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring 
Assistance and Cooperation Enforcement Act. This legislation takes our 
Pakistan policy in a new direction, affirming the United States' 
commitment to a sustained partnership with Pakistan.
  Since 2001, the United States has provided over $12 billion to 
Pakistan, without specific goals or objectives. Frankly, the situation 
has only gotten worse since that time.
  By providing over $6 billion in 4 years in democratic, economic and 
social development assistance, this bill demonstrates our determination 
to help Pakistan build a stable, democratic and prosperous future.

                              {time}  1045

  This funding will provide critical resources for Pakistan to address 
the fundamental needs of its citizens.
  Through the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund, the United 
States is also committed to helping Pakistan combat terrorism and the 
Taliban insurgency. At the same time, mindful of the past history of 
neglecting oversight, this legislation provides a range of 
transparency, evaluation, and accountability standards to ensure that 
our money and efforts are being applied effectively and efficiently.
  Mr. Speaker, as I am concerned about the situation of Iraqi refugees, 
I am also concerned about the situation of Pakistan's refugees. 
According to news reports, more than 3 million people in Pakistan's 
northwest region have been uprooted due to ongoing fighting. Like the 
Iraqi refugee crisis, the Pakistan refugee problem, if not handled 
properly, could become a ticking timebomb with ramifications far beyond 
what we can conceive today.
  It is imperative that the mistakes of the previous administration 
with regard to Iraq are not made again. I am pleased that the United 
States has recently committed $200 million on top of a previous 
commitment of $110 million, but we must not think that this is the end 
of our responsibility. The United States must seize this opportunity 
and implement a comprehensive plan to address this growing humanitarian 
crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule that paves the way to considering 
essential legislation to put our foreign policy on the right path 
towards improving our relations around the world. I urge adoption of 
the rule and passage of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for 
the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First I would like to say a word about the session of the General 
Assembly of the Organization of American States, OAS, held last week. 
It was an embarrassment. Fidel Castro in Cuba wants the U.S. to 
apologize to him for having kept the U.S. market and its millions of 
tourists and billions of dollars in financing from him and for having 
denied him full diplomatic recognition for decades.
  He also wants the international community to kneel before him and 
apologize, which is what the OAS did last week. Fidel Castro has been 
recruiting advocates, spies, defenders, cronies, and servants for 
years. The ideological and psychological fascination and dependency 
that Hugo Chavez has on Fidel Castro has allowed Castro to utilize 
Chavez's billions of petro dollars to purchase many important 
defenders. It is part of the public record that a suitcase of Chavez 
cash heading to Mrs. Kirchner in Argentina was recently intercepted by 
authorities before reaching its intended destination.
  Castro has purchased advocates and spies through the years via the 
always-present threat of blackmail after trips to totalitarian Cuba, 
where the regime tapes visitors in compromising situations, as 
confirmed by Interior Ministry defector Roberto Hernandez del Llano and 
Cuban counterintelligence defector Major Roberto Ortega.
  Castro also serves as a banker for illicit money possessed by those 
who seek to avoid detection by the anti-laundering mechanisms set up by 
the international community. It matters not if the money's source is 
political corruption or narcotrafficking.
  Through his mastery of the semantic of anti-American Marxism-
Leninism, he has also conned others into being his spies. No other 
state sponsor of terrorism--no other state, in fact--has had more spies 
arrested and convicted in the United States in the last decades as 
Fidel Castro's dictatorship.
  Let us remember Ana Montes, one of the top analysts at the Defense 
Intelligence Agency who was arrested in 2001 and subsequently convicted 
of espionage in Federal court and whose treason led to the deaths of 
many, including U.S. Special Forces Sergeant

[[Page H6423]]

Gregory Fronius. And just last week, Walter and Gwendolyn Myers, a 
long-term State Department official and his wife with access to 
classified documents, were arrested for spying for their beloved hero, 
the Cuban tyrant.
  Hugo Chavez's absolute dependency on Fidel Castro for every major 
decision, even for his phrases and gestures in international forums, is 
unprecedented. While the Soviet Union used to send Castro economic aid 
and also orders and instructions, Chavez sends Castro billions of 
dollars and receives orders from him.
  What the world witnessed, first at the April Summit of the Americas 
and then at last week's meeting of the OAS, was a culmination of years 
of preparation in the purchase and cultivation of advocates and 
defenders by Fidel Castro. Castro's defenders know full well that 
chapter II, article 3d of the Charter of the Organization of American 
States requires the existence of representative democracy in all of the 
countries of our hemisphere and that the Inter-American Democratic 
Charter of 2001 carefully spells out the collective steps to be taken 
when an American republic's democracy is even threatened. They know 
that Cuba, under Castro, was the only country in our hemisphere where 
free elections have not been held in over 50 years and where dungeons 
are full of nonviolent political prisoners who are subjected to hell on 
Earth each day of their lives. They know that under Castro Cuba is a 
personal island-estate, a ranch, a personal landholding or homestead, a 
totalitarian fiefdom owned by one man with a brother who enjoys the 
title of head of State and carefully carries out his brother's orders.
  At the OAS meeting of last week, we witnessed an example of the Obama 
administration's diplomatic incompetence and its appeasement of the 
enemies of the United States. The administration went along and agreed 
to violate the OAS Charter and the OAS Inter-American Democratic 
Charter in an action that constituted a grotesque and unmerited 
betrayal of the oppressed people of Cuba.
  The Obama administration says that the OAS resolution was a great 
victory because even though paragraph 1 of the ``resolved'' clause 
unilaterally lifted the exclusion of the Cuban military dictatorship, 
in paragraph 2, the dictatorship was allowed to initiate a process of 
dialogue to reenter the OAS in accordance with the practices, purposes, 
and principles of the OAS. In other words, in the first sentence, the 
OAS ripped up and threw in the garbage can the practices, purposes, and 
principles of the OAS, including its charter and the Inter-American 
Democratic Charter. And then in the next sentence, it invited the Cuban 
military dictatorship back in in accordance with the practices, 
purposes, and principles of the OAS. Some victory. I mention this in 
the context of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act because the 
American taxpayer should not be paying for almost 60 percent of the 
putrid embarrassment which is the OAS.
  I recognize that on funding international organizations, the 
administration will get its way, just like the Bush administration 
would get its way whenever someone in the OAS would propose ending the 
exclusion of the Cuban military dictatorship and the administration 
would simply say, That's a nonstarter. But here is the heart of the 
issue with regard to U.S.-Cuba policy: The U.S. Congress must continue 
to condition access by the Cuban regime to the billions of dollars in 
U.S. tourism and massive investment in trade financing to the 
liberation of all political prisoners, without exceptions; the 
legalization of all political parties, without exceptions, labor unions 
and the press; and the scheduling of multiparty elections. That is 
critical leverage for a democratic transition to take place in Cuba 
when Fidel Castro dies, for he is the ultimate source of absolute 
personal totalitarian power in that enslaved island, like a modern day 
Caligula or Nero, and that moment is approaching.
  We must keep in mind the effect of unilateral concessions such as 
last week's shameful OAS action on Fidel Castro. How does he react to 
such unilateral concessions? The repression is more intense than ever; 
the brutality, more savage than ever. The alliance with Chavez, the 
Iranian dictatorship, the Syrian regime, Middle Eastern terrorists, and 
with the North Korean dictatorship is closer than ever. That is what 
must be kept in mind about unilateral concessions to the Cuban military 
dictatorship.
  Now, specifically with regard to the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act, earlier in the year Secretary Clinton testified before the House 
Foreign Relations Committee that she had challenged the State 
Department to reform and innovate and save taxpayer dollars. I found 
the Secretary's statement to be quite appropriate. Unfortunately, the 
majority has decided to ignore that challenge and instead today has 
brought forth legislation that authorizes increased spending by 35 
percent without increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency.
  This legislation will also increase U.S. taxpayer funding authorized 
for the United Nations by nearly one-third without requiring the United 
Nations to undertake necessary reforms to improve efficiency and stop 
blatant corruption.
  While failing to place accountability standards in this bill, the 
majority decided to include provisions in the Pakistan Assistance Act--
which is also being brought to the floor with this one rule--that will 
micromanage U.S. policy toward Pakistan. In a letter to the Armed 
Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen wrote that ``the degree of conditionality 
and limitations on security assistance to Pakistan'' in the legislation 
``severely constrains the flexibility necessary for the executive 
branch and the Department of Defense given the fluid and dynamic 
environment that exists in Pakistan.''
  This rule bringing forth two pieces of legislation limits the number 
of amendments that the House will be allowed to debate. Out of the 85 
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, the majority decided to 
make 27 amendments in order. I understand that the majority has a 
responsibility to move legislation and manage the time on the floor, 
but if we look at the amendments the majority made in order, they do 
not fully address the scope and range of issues of concern to House 
Members. For example, amendments that would prohibit funds from being 
used by the State Department to encourage U.S. courts to dismiss claims 
brought against European insurance companies to recover compensation 
from Holocaust-era insurance policies, or, for example, to re-list the 
North Korean tyranny as a state sponsor of terrorism were prohibited 
from being debated.
  I don't understand why the majority blocks a debate on such important 
amendments. I don't know if they're afraid of debate or protecting the 
Members from tough votes or afraid of the democratic process, or all of 
the above.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, my 
good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of the rule authorizing the Foreign 
Relations Act to come to the floor, H. Res. 522. This rule covers both 
H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 
2010 and 2011, and H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and 
Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009.
  These are both critical measures. H.R. 2410 provides the resources 
necessary for the President to realize his vision of making vigorous 
diplomacy a cornerstone of our strategy to promote U.S. national 
security.
  By wisely investing resources to strengthen our diplomatic 
capabilities, we can help prevent conflicts before they start and head 
off the conditions that lead to failed states. This approach is a much 
more cost-effective one than providing massive amounts of humanitarian 
aid, funding peacekeeping operations or, in the most extreme 
circumstances, deploying U.S. troops into harm's way.
  I think the Rules Committee has crafted a fair rule in regard to the 
bill, one that continues our efforts to include a number of amendments 
from the Republican side.
  With respect to H.R. 1886 regarding Pakistan, I do not need to remind 
my

[[Page H6424]]

colleagues of the challenge to U.S. national security posed by the 
situation in that country.

                              {time}  1100

  We cannot allow al Qaeda and any other terrorist group that threatens 
our national security interests to operate with impunity in the tribal 
regions or any other part of Pakistan. Nor can we permit the Pakistani 
State and its nuclear arsenal to be taken over by the Taliban. H.R. 
1886 was designed to address these threats by supporting democracy, 
enhancing U.S. economic assistance, and providing the Pakistani 
military with the tools they need to fight the terrorists.
  I am pleased we could work out a consensus on this important bill 
with our colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services as reflected in 
the amendment made in order by the rule. And I'm also pleased that the 
rule makes in order a Republican substitute. This way we can discuss 
the best way forward to ensure that we get the results we need in this 
ongoing effort to combat those who threaten our Armed Forces, our 
allies, and even our homeland.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Let me just say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s, I served as 
chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, 
at first having served as ranking member to Tom Lantos. Then when the 
House went Republican, we switched and I became the chairman of that 
committee. And one of the responsibilities of that committee was to 
write the Foreign Relations Act, the State Department Reauthorization 
Act, for the country. And we worked very hard, Mr. Lantos and I, very 
diligently in crafting a bill that was, A, truly bipartisan and, B, 
open to virtually every amendment that Members wanted to offer.
  I remember bringing a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, where every day 
Members just had to file their amendments in the Congressional Record, 
a preprinting requirement, so in the morning we would wake up and find 
out what amendments might be offered, and then we would deal and 
dispatch positively or negatively with those amendments. The process 
was open, transparent and fair.
  Today we have a very much closed rule, except on matters where there 
is consensus. Sure, there are some Republican amendments. But on areas 
where there is significant and fundamental disagreement, especially an 
amendment that I had hoped to offer to authorize the office for Global 
Women's Issues, I had been precluded that opportunity. And I want to 
say to my colleagues I didn't do that when I chaired the subcommittee, 
and I worked very hard in a bipartisan way with my friends, and I do 
consider you on the other side of the aisle friends, to ensure that we 
all got to express our voice and vote on things that mattered, that we 
all had an opportunity to express ourselves.
  In Committee, I offered an amendment to establish a Global Office on 
Women's Issues. It lost in a party-line vote. Every Democrat voted 
against it; every Republican voted for it. That legislation would have 
established a new Office for Global Women's Issues led by an 
ambassador-at-large, designed to coordinate and advise on activities, 
policies, programs, and funding related to women's empowerment 
internationally. The amendment would promote activities designed to 
expand educational opportunities and job training for women, equal pay 
for equal work, microfinancing and microenterprise programs for women, 
property inheritance rights for women, an improvement of maternal 
mortality, expand pregnancy care centers, combat forced abortions and 
forced sterilization, to enhance our efforts in the area of sex and 
labor trafficking particularly of women and other forms of violence 
against women, seeking an end to genital mutilation, stop child 
marriage, and promote changes in male attitudes and behavior that are 
detrimental to women. That was all prescribed in the legislation, and 
obviously other things could be included as well, consistent with core 
human rights norms that all human life, Mr. Speaker, is sacred and 
precious and worthy of protection regardless of age, sex, race, color, 
creed, disability, wantedness, or condition of dependency. My amendment 
sought to hold harmless unborn children and their mothers from the 
violence of abortion.
  The Smith amendment is abortion neutral and states that the new 
office shall not engage in activities to author the laws or the 
policies of foreign countries with regard to how abortion is regulated 
or permitted. Abortion neutral. I would like it to be a pro-life office 
that says it time to empower and embrace and enfranchise unborn 
children.
  I say to my colleagues, We live in 2009. We no longer have any doubts 
about the humanity of an unborn child. Unborn children are just like 
you and I except they're young, they're immature, and they're 
dependent. And their human rights are violated with impunity not just 
in this country but around the world. Sadly, the Obama administration, 
and I say this with great sadness, Mr. Obama is well on his way to 
becoming the abortion President. Virtually everything he has done 
through Executive order and through appointments and through other 
policies promote the killing of unborn children and the wounding of 
their mothers.
  So I rise in opposition to this rule, Mr. Speaker. Whether this body 
chose to vote up or down on my amendment, we should have had the 
opportunity. It saddens me greatly because, again, I have great 
affection for the chairman, Chairman Berman, and for his staff, with 
whom I have worked very closely on human rights issues. This is a human 
rights issue.
  There could be a consensus about the new office that's being created, 
that has already been created, and that this gives statutory 
affirmation to for women's issues. But, unfortunately, we will not have 
that opportunity.
  I will remind my colleagues that Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther 
King's niece--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the 
gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, 
has had two abortions. She now heads up an organization called the 
Silent No More Awareness Campaign, and she speaks out and says that 
this is the new civil rights movement, protecting the unborn child but 
equally protecting women from abortion. It is violence against women. 
It is violence against children.
  The new Global Office on Women's Issues ought to at least be neutral, 
I would say affirm the unborn but at least neutral when it comes to 
respecting unborn human life.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
colleague and a good member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 
2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 
2011. I would like to thank Chairman Berman and the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee for their continued insight, leadership, and their 
focus on diplomacy in the realm of foreign affairs and for bringing 
this much-needed reform legislation to the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, during the Bush administration, the Department of 
Defense acted as our primary foreign liaison, much to the detriment of 
our relationships worldwide. This bill corrects the damage done over 
the past 8 years by providing the State Department with much-needed 
resources that will once again make diplomacy the centerpiece of our 
outreach effort.
  This bill authorizes funding for the State Department and USAID to 
help prevent, navigate, and peacefully resolve foreign crises. This 
bill strengthens our own Nation by putting forth the image of America 
that we want the world to see: a hardworking nation rooted in tolerance 
and innovation. It reflects our commitment to intellectual diplomacy 
and allows the United States to lead by example.
  For instance, by doubling the amount of volunteers in the Peace

[[Page H6425]]

Corps, we can double our response to humanitarian and international 
development needs. By creating the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad 
Foundation, we would allow more students, regardless of their economic 
background, to experience foreign cultures.
  This legislation creates 1,500 foreign service jobs at the State 
Department with another 700 at USAID over the course of fiscal years 
2010 and 2011. It funds language training programs, sorely neglected 
for years due to underfunding.
  As the Representative of the Second District of Colorado, we have a 
large Tibetan and Tibetan Buddhist community, and I'm particularly 
appreciative that this bill establishes a Tibet section in the American 
Embassy in Beijing and a United States consulate in Lhasa, Tibet. These 
offices will follow political, economic, and social developments inside 
the country and report on human rights. It also establishes a Tibetan 
scholarship program that will enhance cultural exchange possibilities 
for American students and develop increased understanding of the region 
as a whole.
  Another crucial element of modernizing the State Department is 
fighting the discrimination against the LGBT community worldwide, 
including in Iraq. This legislation requires the State Department to 
monitor and track violence, criminalization, and restrictions on 
fundamental freedoms, basic human rights, consistent with U.S. law. It 
requires the State Department to demand foreign governments to change 
or repeal discriminatory laws that criminalize homosexuality as well as 
requiring reports on related violence and discrimination. This will 
ensure that our foreign counterparts heed our rejection of intolerance 
and ensure that all people are granted the dignity they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I also applaud H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring 
Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement, or PEACE, Act. It demonstrates 
America's commitment to foreign diplomacy and codifies the principle 
that social and economic development is critical to fighting terrorism 
and promoting peace.
  Both bills bring to mind T.H. White's idea that ``might is not 
right.'' Military intervention is not as strong a diplomatic tool as 
fostering understanding.
  I urge my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' on the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that Pakistan is at a very critical juncture. 
We have radical militants. We have radical madrasas that are graduating 
an ever-increasing number of jihadists out of those schools, and we 
have a weak government with nuclear weapons.
  This Pakistan bill is a good attempt to guide our engagement in 
Pakistan in a way that gives us the best chance to see that our aid is 
spent in a constructive and responsible fashion, which hasn't been the 
case. I commend its author, Chairman Berman.
  As to the rule, I think it is problematic. The State Department 
authorization bill, quite simply, spends money we don't have, over a 
third increase at a time when we're borrowing money from China and 
elsewhere. Amendments to cut this amount were not made in order. I 
think that was a mistake.
  I am very disappointed, let me add, though, at the addition done by 
the Rules Committee of a flawed trade provision. Don't get me wrong. 
Trade can do far, far more than aid for Pakistan's economic development 
and social stability, which is in our interest. The problem is that 
this provision is far too restrictive and burdensome as to do any good. 
In fact, it may be harmful to trade. At a time when Pakistan is perhaps 
the greatest threat facing us, this is no time for window dressing and 
business as usual. This preferential trade provision as it came out of 
Rules Committee is simply unacceptable.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman.
  Mr. BERMAN. I again thank my friend from Florida for yielding me some 
additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this time to deal with one of the 
points made by my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and 
then more substantially to the issue raised by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. Diaz-Balart cited a letter signed by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense that was sent a number of 
weeks ago, long before a series of changes were made in this bill. At 
the time that letter was sent, we had a very elaborate resolution of 
disapproval process for the Presidential determinations. That has been 
struck. We had a very high waiver standard vital to national security 
interests. That has been struck. We had a great dispute that was 
existing over how the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Cooperation Fund 
should work. Those issues have all been worked out with the House Armed 
Services Committee. The House Armed Services Committee has worked 
through all of these issues with us. They are reflected in the Pakistan 
bill. This is the committee to whom the Secretary's letter was 
addressed. A number of changes have been made. My friend's comments 
relate more to the Pentagon's view of this bill before all those 
changes were made than they do now.

                              {time}  1115

  The issues I would really like to focus on are the issues raised by 
the gentleman from New Jersey. This is a State Department authorization 
bill.
  The first thing was to put together this bill to say we are not going 
to use this piece of legislation to change the substantive law on the 
issue that is so controversial for which disagreements are so strong in 
this House. This is not going to be a vehicle for changing the law on 
that subject. So, when a number of the groups came with a compelling 
case--the pro-choice groups--that we should include a provision in this 
bill that prohibits any President in the future from imposing an 
executive order, such as the Mexico City policies, I said I would love 
to. I support that position, but we're not going to use this bill to do 
it.
  The gentleman from New Jersey, in his heart, is not truly driving at 
the Office of Global Women's Issues. This is an office that, in one 
form or another, has been around since 1975. Their purpose is to 
promote education for women and girls around the world and to promote 
political empowerment, like the right to vote for women and dealing 
with problems of violence against women. There is no basis for assuming 
that this office is going to do anything to promote or to lobby for 
abortion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Moreover, in the manager's amendment, which is made in 
order by this rule that we are now debating, I said let us establish in 
policy our statement of neutrality on this issue. We include in the 
manager's amendment a provision which says nothing in this section, and 
in particular, the duties of the Office of Global Women's Issues, shall 
be construed as affecting in any way existing statutory prohibitions 
against abortion. There will be no change whatsoever in existing 
statutory prohibitions against abortion or in existing statutory 
prohibitions on the use of funds to engage in any activity or effort to 
alter the laws or policies in effect in any foreign country concerning 
the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated or 
prohibited.
  That means the Siljander amendment, the Helms amendment and the Leahy 
amendment, which construct the current state of the law with respect to 
U.S. efforts on this issue abroad, remain in effect and unchanged, and 
there is nothing in the statutory institutionalization of an already 
existing Office of Global Women's Issues that will change any of that. 
We reaffirm that by this statute.
  What the gentleman from New Jersey wants to do--he didn't quite say 
it, but he acknowledges it when asked about it--is change the law. 
That's legitimate. He can have his efforts; but for those of us who say 
let's not use this as a vehicle one way or the other and for those of 
us who have rejected efforts that we, personally, support and to which 
I am very much committed in

[[Page H6426]]

the pro-choice community regarding this issue, there is no basis for 
saying that this bill is defective because it doesn't serve either 
side's agenda on this particular issue.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I had three amendments that were brought before the Rules Committee 
yesterday, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why the Rules 
Committee didn't make these amendments in order. Let me just talk to 
you about these three amendments. Then I'd like for the Rules Committee 
to comment on them, if they would.
  First of all, there is a man named Benon Sevan, who has been indicted 
in the Oil-for-Food scandal with Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was 
kicking millions of dollars to this guy in the Oil-for-Food scandal. 
This guy has been indicted. He is hiding in Cyprus right now, and the 
U.N., with our money, is going to pay his legal bills, and they're 
almost $1 million already.
  Why should the American taxpayer be paying the legal bills of Mr. 
Sevan, who was involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal that we all know 
about? Why should the United States taxpayer be paying his legal fees, 
especially when he is hiding out in Cyprus?
  Well, that was one of the amendments, and I hope you'll explain to me 
why the American taxpayer should be paying for that.
  The second amendment deals with liquidated assets that we give to 
enterprise organizations around the world. We give hundreds of millions 
of dollars to organizations around the world to help the economies of 
various countries. When those enterprise funds and organizations are 
liquidated, they take that money, and they put it into foundations or 
into other organizations within those countries. Right now, there is 
$900 million that is sitting out there of American taxpayer money that 
is going to foundations in other countries, and we don't believe all of 
that money should go there, because it is not for its intended purpose. 
So, if they want to do that, we think we should get at least half of 
our money back, which would be $450 million.
  For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Rules Committee 
wouldn't want to get at least half of our money back that's not being 
used for its intended purpose. It makes no sense to me, so I hope 
they'll explain that to me.
  Lastly, Jerusalem in Israel is our best ally in the Middle East. 
Since the 1967 war, Israel has maintained that united Jerusalem is the 
indivisible, eternal capital of Israel. On November 14 of 2005, 
Congress mandated that the embassy be moved to Jerusalem. We mandated 
that our embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2005, but we 
did give the President waiver authority under certain circumstances. 
Every single year, there has been a waiver granted that does not allow 
our embassy to be moved to Jerusalem.
  I think that's wrong. It's time to change that. My amendment would 
have said that we move our embassy and that we start building the 
embassy in Jerusalem now just as it was proposed and passed by this 
Congress in 2005.
  So I would like for my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee to 
explain to me why these three amendments were not made in order: one 
dealing with something we've already done, which was to order our 
embassy in Israel to be moved to Jerusalem. We've already ordered that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I hope you will explain.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), my 
colleague and fellow Floridian.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the Congressman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2009. This bill 
will allow us to advance our foreign policy and our national security 
goals, and I believe very strongly in those goals.
  I would also like to briefly speak about one provision in the bill 
that will help to ensure the safety of many Americans. As many of us 
know, June 1 is the beginning of hurricane season, and there are many 
ways to be prepared. Hurricane hunter planes, used by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and by the Air Force, fly into 
hurricane areas to more accurately predict where a hurricane is going. 
However, certain countries are not allowing these planes to fly into 
their airspace. If one country obstructs our hurricane preparedness 
efforts, it could be the difference between life and death. This 
legislation puts in place measures so that the State Department can 
resolve this issue as soon as possible and can help protect our 
Americans.
  I would like to thank the chairman for allowing us to work on this 
issue and on all of the others with me and with others. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 
point made by the distinguished chairman as to the strings on the 
military aid to Pakistan, I hope and expect that that will be engaged 
in during the debate with the ranking member, who very clearly in the 
Rules Committee pointed out that the strings are still excessive.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying bill. The 
legislation we're set to consider today is the latest demonstration of 
Washington's failure to understand how the middle class lives in these 
difficult economic times.
  Try, for instance, to explain the logic in granting a 23 percent 
increase to overseas foreign service officers to the workers in my 
district who are either taking pay cuts or who are losing benefits as 
their families in my district are doing their best to make ends meet. 
When Washington spends money, it does not have to fund these salary 
increases. It is not just the disconnect on spending that is cause for 
concern.
  In the last month alone, gas prices in my district have been up over 
41 cents. These are resources coming from individuals who are 
struggling in my district to make ends meet. Now Democratic leaders are 
pushing for an ambitious national cap-and-trade tax. This new energy 
tax will cost between $200 and $300 a month for struggling families. 
This affects not only families but small businesses, ranchers and 
farmers. I can't think of a worse way to deal with our pressing energy 
needs than to have a tax situation.
  We need to be looking at an all-of-the-above strategy, be it nuclear 
power, wind or solar. We need not be looking at trying to tax right 
now, which will push businesses further away and which will create a 
loss of jobs in our communities. Whether it's the excessive spending in 
the measure we are considering today or whether it's this new national 
energy tax, Washington continues to grow more and more out of touch 
with middle-class America and with the families of my district.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule and to oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do both of us 
have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would inquire of my friend if he has any 
additional speakers.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Then I would reserve at this time and would 
allow that you go forward.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thank you.
  I yield 2 minutes again to the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  I just want to say to my pro-life friends on the Democrat side of the 
aisle: think consequences.
  In late April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified one of 
our hearings--and this is the question I posed to her--Is the Obama 
administration

[[Page H6427]]

seeking in any way to weaken or to overturn pro-life laws and policies 
in African nations and in Latin American countries either directly 
through multilateral organizations, including the United Nations, the 
African Union or the Organization of American States, or by way of 
funding NGOs like Planned Parenthood?
  Secretary of State Clinton answered that the administration was 
``entitled'' to advocate abortion ``anywhere in the world.''
  She also went on to redefine the words ``reproductive health,'' which 
are found in many documents and in many laws around the world, in a way 
completely contrary to the accepted definition by the previous 
administration and by many others to now include abortion. So every 
time you see those words now in a document, to the Clintons and to the 
Obamas, they mean ``abortion on demand.''
  The Office of Global Women's Issues should be all about promoting 
human rights for women. Promoting violence against children and 
promoting the wounding of their mothers by advocating abortion is not 
human rights. It is the contrary. It is the exact opposite.
  I hope my colleagues will realize that the amendment that my good 
friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, is 
offering simply restates current law. It says the new office will 
follow the law. Did anybody expect that the office would not follow the 
law? Of course they would. Well, hopefully, they would.
  We need to make sure, we need to ensure that this new office, which 
will be a command and control center, for women's rights and 
empowerment and not become an office for NARAL, for Planned Parenthood 
or for others in the promotion of child deaths around the world. Let's 
hold harmless the precious lives of unborn children. Let's mitigate 
maternal mortality and all of the other crises affecting women, not the 
killing of unborn babies.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), my 
good friend.
  Ms. CLARKE. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2410, the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act. This authorization includes provisions 
that keep our country safe, that advance human rights, and that promote 
gender equality across the globe.
  In the 110th Congress, I introduced H. Res. 1504 in response to a 
2007 report by the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime and the 
World Bank, linking drug trafficking to rising crime rates in Caribbean 
nations.

                              {time}  1130

  The measure calls for increased cooperation between the U.S. and 
Caribbean officials to combat drug trafficking and promote 
counterterrorism. CARICOM, made up of 15 countries, including Trinidad 
and Tobago, Haiti and Jamaica, serves as our Nation's third border. 
Drug traffickers and criminals use these nations as transit points en 
route to the United States, making us less safe and contributing to a 
deterioration of the human welfare and social and economic development 
of those nations. This authorization acknowledges this problem and 
authorizes the President to incorporate CARICOM into the Merida 
Initiative. This will provide CARICOM with the technical and logistical 
support needed to combat drug trafficking and promote counterterrorism.
  Also included in this authorization is the enactment of the Shirley 
A. Chisholm Educational Exchange Program. I was an original cosponsor 
of the stand-alone bill, H.R. 416. This program provides scholarships 
for CARICOM students to study at American colleges and universities and 
requires that, upon program completion, participants either return to 
the CARICOM or seek a job that directly benefits CARICOM nations and 
their people. This exchange program will create a safe and economically 
vibrant Caribbean Basin and keep us safe here at home.
  The authorization also includes language that creates the Office of 
Women's Global Affairs with the fully empowered ambassador-at-large. 
According to the Center for Development and Population Activities, 
gender equality is essential for development, democracy, and global 
progress.
  Thank you for yielding time, and I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the rule and underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how 
much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) has 5 minutes. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. I am very 
disappointed that the Rules Committee did not rule my amendment in 
order. My amendment would have required the State Department to wait 
for a response from the CIA before issuing a visa to an applicant when 
a Security Advisory Opinion has been requested.
  National security is a primary function of the Federal Government 
under the Constitution, and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our 
Nation has had to take a closer look at our policies and create a more 
layered approach to security, including visas. However, as tourism has 
once again increased, so have the waiting times for some visas.
  Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security initiated a 
review of the State Department visa approval process, Mantis applicants 
in particular. The committee staff was finally briefed last week on 
changes that had already been implemented. According to details 
supplied during the briefing, DHS determined that the waiting period 
for Mantis visas was too long. The primary reason cited was lack of 
staff.
  Instead of simply increasing the staff and resources needed, DHS 
recommended and implemented several policy changes--a small window for 
certain intelligence agencies to respond before State could clear the 
visa. This is insane.
  Let me be clear. What we're talking about is allowing some foreigners 
to enter our country before our intelligence agencies have fully vetted 
their visa applications. Again, what we're talking about is allowing 
some foreigners to enter our country before our intelligence agencies 
have fully vetted their visa applications.
  I'm very concerned about these changes, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in investigating this issue. It's an important aspect of our 
national security, and I am disappointed that my amendment was not 
allowed to receive debate and a vote on the floor today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, 
and I'm prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance 
of our time to the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it seems like a long time ago, but I would 
like to begin by congratulating my friend from Miami for his very 
thoughtful and very passionate opening statement. It's very important, 
Mr. Speaker, that we get this bill right because it clearly has an 
impact on every bilateral, regional and multilateral relationship that 
we have in the world. And I hope very much that at the end of the day, 
we will be able to get it right.
  I would like to take my time to talk about just one of those very 
important bilateral relationships that we have, and that is the 
relationship with what Colin Powell described as the most misunderstood 
country in the world. I'm talking, Mr. Speaker, about the fourth most 
populous country in the world, the largest Muslim population in the 
world, and of course, by virtue of that, the largest Muslim democracy 
in the world, that being Indonesia.
  Now, as we look at the changes that have taken place over the past 11 
years in Indonesia, it is absolutely remarkable and extraordinarily 
impressive. The 32-year reign of Suharto came to an end in 1998, and 
since that time, we have seen democracy take hold and build.
  We all know that democracy is a work in progress. We in America know

[[Page H6428]]

that our democracy continues to be a work in progress and Indonesia's 
is as well. The challenge of ensuring that the military comes under 
civilian rule is one with which they're still grappling. And if you 
think about this country, 17,000 different islands and hundreds of 
languages and ethnicities, and yet they have been able to cobble 
together what President Yudhoyono described to some of us as the 
convergence of modernity, Islam, and democracy.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to this day to work on that 
relationship through our House Democracy Assistance Commission, where 
we're working to build the parliament which, again, a little more than 
a decade ago was a sham organization, and today it is growing and 
building well. Other institutions, including the very important rule of 
law in Indonesia, are continuing to build as well.
  So there are challenges. We all know that. And I hope very much that 
we will be able to continue to encourage the kind of reform that is 
taking place there. So at the end of the day, I have to say on this 
measure that we're dealing with, as Mr. Diaz-Balart has pointed out so 
well, there are some important amendments that some of my colleagues 
have spoken about that were not made in order. So I'm going to urge my 
colleagues to join with us in opposition to this rule because Mr. 
Smith, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, and others, argued that we should have an open amendment 
process that would allow a free-flowing debate on all of these issues.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule that paves 
the way to improving our relations around the world.
  As I listened to the ranking member, my good friend on the Rules 
Committee, I thought that he was going to support the rule because he's 
so impressed with the work that was put forward in this bill that 
covers developing democracies, which he has been such a tremendous 
champion of over a period of time.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'll yield for 5 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. I think it could be even better if we were to have an 
open amendment process.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, clearly it covers what 
you like, and I'm delighted. After years of neglect, now is the time to 
inject the critical resources that will enable the Department of State 
and other foreign policy agencies to carry out their important work of 
rebuilding lasting partnerships with our friends and allies.
  The underlying bills include important provisions to fulfill our 
obligations to the United Nations, to peace-keeping efforts, to 
humanitarian aid and refugee assistance, and to building effective 
counterterrorism and arms control policy, and yes, to do everything in 
our power to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. These bills 
are a great leap forward.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 2410. I especially want to express my 
appreciation to the Chairman, Members and staff of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, for crafting a bill that will allow the State 
Department and our embassies around the world to close the diplomacy 
gap and carry out their missions more effectively.
  I especially wish to thank Chairman Berman and his staff for working 
with me to include language in the managers' amendment to develop and 
implement a comprehensive strategy to address global hunger and food 
security, issues very close to my heart and also a priority for the 
Committee.
  A wide range of federal departments and agencies have jurisdiction 
over policies and programs addressing global hunger and food security, 
often lacking coordination and a coherent vision. A comprehensive 
strategy will increase the impact of the resources we invest in these 
programs and ensure that U.S. policies and programs contribute in a 
more substantial way to reducing global hunger and increasing food 
security around the world.
  Advancing such goals is not just a humanitarian and development 
priority, it also strengthens our national security. Every child who 
receives a meal in school, every farmer who can make a decent living 
from the land, every mother who raises a well-nourished child, every 
family that has hope for the future creates a more stable country, 
region and world, less prone to recruitment by those who would sow 
terror or the exploitation of old hatreds and prejudice.
  I salute the Chairman and the Committee for including this provision 
in the managers' amendment and in the House bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 522 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 453 and 
motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 454.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 183, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen

[[Page H6429]]


     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bono Mack
     Davis (TN)
     Ellison
     Granger
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Mack
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schock
     Sullivan
     Woolsey


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The Speaker Pro Tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1203

  Messrs. POSEY, ROGERS of Alabama, SCALISE, PETRI, MANZULLO and BARTON 
of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 317, I missed the vote due 
to traffic congestion. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________