[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16320-16325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2415, AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT 
                                OF 1999

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 247

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States 
     missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations 
     for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on International Relations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in

[[Page 16321]]

     order to consider the first amendment printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Gilman or his 
     designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for 10 minutes 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 that amendment are waived. 
     After disposition of that amendment, the provisions of the 
     bill as then amended shall be considered as original text for 
     the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     No further amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described 
     in section 2 of this resolution. Each amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules 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 except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. 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. 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. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on International Relations or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier 
     disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read (except that modifications shall be 
     reported), shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on International Relations or their designees, 
     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. For the purpose of inclusion in 
     such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of 
     a motion to strike may be modified to the form of a germane 
     perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be 
     stricken. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 2415, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 886 and to consider 
     the Senate bill in the House. All points of order against the 
     Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It 
     shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting 
     clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of H.R. 2415 as passed by the House. All points of 
     order against that motion are waived.

                              {time}  0010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 247 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 
1999. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
between the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  In addition, the rule provides that before consideration of any other 
amendment, it shall be in order to consider the first amendment printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman) or his designee.
  This amendment, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment. Further, this amendment 
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the 
House or in the Committee of the Whole, and all points of order are 
waived against that amendment.
  The rule also provides that no further amendment to the bill shall be 
in order except those printed in the Committee on Rules report and the 
amendments en bloc described in section 2 of this resolution.
  The rule provides that each amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report. Each amendment 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 except as specified in the report, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  Further, the rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc 
consisting of amendment numbered 4 through 41 printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules, or germane modifications of any such amendment 
which shall be considered as read, except that modifications shall be 
reported, and shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and 
control by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
International Relations or their designees.
  The en bloc amendments shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Also, the rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  The rule further provides that after passage of H.R. 2415, it shall 
be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill, S. 886, and to 
consider the Senate bill in the House. The rule waives all points of 
order against the Senate bill and against its consideration.
  Finally, the rule provides that it shall be in order to move to 
strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert 
in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 2415 as passed by the House. All 
points of order against that motion are waived.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain why we are making H.R. 2415, the 
American Embassy Security Act of 1999, in order as the base text. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 1211, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, as 
reported by the Committee on International Relations, increased 
discretionary spending in excess of what the committee was allowed to 
spend under the budget.
  In full consultation with the minority on the Committee on 
International Relations, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and 
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) introduced H.R. 2415 on 
July 1 to make their bill comply with the budget.
  Also on July 1, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier) announced on the House floor and the 
Committee on Rules sent out a Dear Colleague informing Members of the 
likely consideration of this new bill, H.R. 2415, this week. In this 
announcement, Members were advised that their amendments should be 
drafted to 2415 and not 1211.
  I hope that this clears up any confusion over the process involved 
with with today's legislation.
  In considering amendments, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules was as 
fair and open as possible, while keeping the commitment made to refrain 
from allowing any U.N. arrearages amendments or Mexico City policy 
amendments.
  Aside from the manager's amendment, which was given waivers so that 
it may be considered separately, as opposed to being self-executed by 
the

[[Page 16322]]

rule, only amendments which would have otherwise been in order under an 
open rule were allowed. In fact, of the 50 amendments filed before the 
Committee on Rules, we were able to make 41 of them in order. Twenty-
two from Democrats, 12 from Republicans, and 7 bipartisan amendments 
have been made in order. I believe this is a generous composition, and 
I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and my colleagues 
on the committee for reaching this balance.
  I am pleased to support, Mr. Speaker, this fair rule, which brings 
forth very important legislation aimed at providing U.S. diplomats, 
security agents, and law enforcement personnel the ability to safely 
defend U.S. interests around the world.
  Among the many strong points in this legislation, I am pleased to see 
that we are taking effective steps toward enhancing security at our 
embassies. I know none of us would like to relive the tragedies that 
occurred almost a year ago in some of our embassies in Africa, and I 
believe H.R. 2415 will provide necessary resources to help prevent such 
acts of terrorism.
  I am also encouraged that the bill is moving in the right direction 
in our fight against narco-trafficking by requiring the Clinton 
administration to inform Congress on the extent, the genuine extent of 
international narcotics trafficking through Cuba.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill also correctly expresses the sense of Congress, 
and I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on this, that the U.S. should 
increase its support for pro-democracy and human rights activists in 
Cuba. The time has clearly come to implement a plan to assist the brave 
internal opposition in Cuba like the administration of President Reagan 
did with such brilliance with the Polish opposition during the dark 
years of martial law there.
  This rule is not without precedent, Mr. Speaker. In the 103rd 
Congress, at the request of the Committee on International Relations 
chairman, the State Department authorization bill was considered under 
a structured rule. I look forward to a vigorous debate on this bill.
  I see that a primary author, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) is here and will address us, as well as the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman). It is an honor to serve with both of them 
in this House, and I look forward to listening to them, as I am sure 
all of our colleagues do, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule. It will allow for the 
consideration of H.R. 2415, which is a bill that authorizes funding for 
the operations of the State Department in fiscal year 2000.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 
explained, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, which will 
be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on International Relations.
  Only amendments specified in the report of the Committee on Rules to 
accompany this rule will be permitted to be offered on the House floor. 
The bill authorizes more than $1 billion for much needed improvements 
in the security of U.S. missions abroad, and in order to carry out 
foreign policy, our diplomats and their staffs in other countries must 
be able to work without fear.
  Last April I was in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and was astonished at the 
low security in the American Embassy there. This was as precarious as 
any I have ever seen in some of the embassies I have visited. The 
embassy's vulnerability is compounded by the unrest that is common in 
the city. I hope that the money from this bill will be used to improve 
the security in our Cambodian embassy.
  Though this rule is restrictive, the Committee on Rules made in order 
nearly all of the germane amendments that were submitted in advance. I 
am pleased that the committee was generous in making in order a large 
number of Democratic amendments.

                              {time}  0020

  Unfortunately, the bill does not authorize the United States to pay 
the Dreierback dues it owes to the United Nations. This is a major 
embarrassment for the United States. We owe more than $1 billion to the 
United Nations, going back almost a decade. We are the world's greatest 
superpower, but also the world's biggest deadbeat.
  For all its faults, the United Nations is one of the best hopes for 
world peace. The UN's food and health programs have improved the lives 
of countless people. We should be supporting the UN, not causing a 
financial drain.
  If we do not pay our back dues, eventually we will lose our vote in 
the UN General Assembly. We cannot let that happen.
  The Senate version of the State Department Reauthorization Act, as 
passed by the committee, does include some money to pay back our back 
dues to the UN. I hope that the Senate language will prevail in 
conference.
  One of the amendments made in order under this rule is an amendment I 
plan to offer expressing the sense of Congress in support of 
humanitarian assistance to the people of Burma.
  Earlier this year, I visited humanitarian projects in Burma. I also 
met with government leaders, the leader of that country's democracy 
movement, and humanitarian aid workers. I heard a lot about hunger and 
disease in Burma.
  President Reagan said, ``A hungry child knows no politics.'' That is 
every bit as true in Burma as it is anywhere else in the world. The 
people of Burma have the added misfortune of not living under a 
democracy. My amendment affirms the concern of Congress for the people 
of Burma without endorsing the policies of their government.
  I urge adoption of the rule and of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating, not 
only the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his superb 
management of this rule, but also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), the vice chairman of the committee who joins us here, and the 
entire Committee on Rules staff, well not the entire staff, but many 
members of the Committee on Rules staff who are here.
  I am proud of the fact that we, well many hours ago, opened this 
legislative day with work of the Committee on Rules. We are ending what 
will be this legislative day with work of the Committee on Rules. In 
just about 8\1/2\ short hours, we will be beginning the next 
legislative day with work of the House Committee on Rules. So we thank 
them very much. We enjoy this support and enthusiasm.
  We also have a Committee on Rules member and staff members of the 
minority side who are here.
  So I think that it is a great testimony to the hard work of this very 
important committee, which I am proud to chair.
  As has been said by both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), we were able to make a large 
number of amendments in order for the minority. In fact, by a 22 to 12 
ratio, the Democrats are favored when it comes to amendments here. As 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) said, we have seven 
bipartisan amendments.
  Now, frankly, this is a very, very serious measure. It was just a 
little less than a year ago that we saw the tragic bombings that took 
place in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. It had a very, very devastating 
effect on, not only Americans here at home, but obviously on any 
American who was overseas.
  This bill is designed to ensure that those Americans who proudly 
stand and represent the greatest Nation on the face of the earth and 
missions around the world have enhanced safety

[[Page 16323]]

as they proceed with that very important work.
  I want to say that we have successfully seen the demise of the Soviet 
Union and an end to the Cold War due in large part to the stellar 
leadership of President's Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
  We have, however, come to the realization that we do not live in a 
world that is free of any kind of threat. We not only face military 
threats, but we of course, as this bill addresses, continue to face the 
threat of terrorism.
  So it is my hope that we will be able to move ahead with, again, what 
I believe to be a very fair and balanced rule.
  I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Chairman Smith), all of whom are again here at this late hour 
to help us proceed with debate on the rule.
  Then we will, in the coming days, consider this important 
legislation. I hope that we will finally be able to see this bill, the 
State Department authorization language, become public law, which is 
something to which many of us have aspired for a long period of time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield as much time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to commend the Committee on Rules for their 
excellent job in presenting this measure to the floor at this time. We 
thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his astute 
leadership, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our 
distinguished chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the 
ranking minority member, for being here with us today, and the staff 
members, at this late hour as well as the staff of our Committee on 
International Relations.
  I rise in strong support of the rule on H.R. 2415, the American 
Embassy Security Act. The Committee on Rules, as I indicated, has done 
an outstanding job in working through the process to produce a fair 
rule. This rule, although technically structured, accommodates most all 
of the submitted amendments, and I think we will have some 40 
amendments before us before we are done.
  We have a very important bill to be considered by the House, one that 
will provide the authorization of funds to invest in the security of 
our Nation's personnel overseas and their workplaces, the 260 United 
States embassies and consulates around the world.
  This bill also authorizes the operations and programs of the United 
States Department of State that will allow this agency to conduct 
diplomatic relations to provide our U.S. citizens services, passports, 
screen visa applicants, and provide antiterrorism assistance.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support the rule if they 
support securing the lives of our American citizens and foreign 
national employees presently serving overseas.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me time on the rule for the American Embassy Security Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address my concerns briefly with regard to 
U.S.- India relations and how this legislation would affect that 
vitally important relationship between the world's two largest 
democracies.
  The rule makes in order a manager's amendment introduced by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations. This manager's amendment contains an important 
provision regarding the sanctions that were imposed last year on India 
and Pakistan following the nuclear tests conducted by the two South 
Asian nations.
  It would extend for another year the waiver authority provided for 
under the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, giving the 
President the authority to waive the unilateral U.S. sanctions that 
were proposed pursuant to the Glenn amendment of the Arms Export 
Control Act.
  I wanted to stress, however, I believe we should be going further 
than the 1-year extension provided for in this legislation. Recently, 
the Senate approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Defense 
Appropriations bill that would suspend for 5 years the sanctions 
against India and Pakistan as opposed to continuing to waive the 
sanctions for only 1 year.

                              {time}  0030

  When we discussed the legislation of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the Security Assistance Act, in the House about a month ago, 
the chairman indicated his support for lifting the sanctions on a 
longer-term basis, and I look forward to working with him on that 
effort.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the rule also makes in order an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that would prohibit 
foreign military assistance to countries which fail to support the U.S. 
at least 25 percent of the time in the U.N. General Assembly. I hope 
the House will defeat this amendment.
  According to the Goodling amendment, the sole method for determining 
how pro- or anti-U.S. a country is would be how the country votes in 
the U.N. General Assembly. This is largely an irrelevant way of 
determining who our friends and foes are, in my opinion. Under the 
Goodling amendment, all of our other diplomatic political strategic or 
economic interests would be sacrificed to the mostly symbolic indicator 
of General Assembly votes, often on issues of peripheral importance.
  In practical terms, the Goodling amendment would serve as a symbolic 
slap at India at a time when Congress is working on a bipartisan basis 
to lift the unilateral sanctions imposed on India last year, as 
evidenced by the manager's amendment; and enactment of the Goodling 
amendment would set back much of the progress we are trying to make. It 
would be seen as purely a punitive action, creating an atmosphere of 
distrust that would make it much more difficult to achieve vitally 
important goals.
  Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of resolutions adopted by the General 
Assembly are adopted by consensus. When we count those votes, India 
votes with the U.S. 84 percent of the time. If we look at the votes 
identified as important by our State Department, including the 
consensus votes, India is with us 75 percent of the time. And India 
also cooperates with the U.S. on a wide range of other U.N. activities, 
ranging from health issues to cultural and scientific matters. India 
has sent significant troop contingents to various peacekeeping missions 
around the world.
  But the U.N. is only a small part of the story of how the U.S. and 
India work in partnership. Passage of the Goodling amendment would 
create a poisonous atmosphere that would set back these other efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could just say, in conclusion, most of the other 
countries that would be affected by this amendment are already barred 
from receiving U.S. assistance under various sanctions; and thus, 
realistically, the Goodling amendment would cut $130,000 in IMET 
funding to one country, India, a democracy that shares many of our 
values.
  When we get to debate and votes on the bill, I hope we will approve 
provisions to build on the significant issues that unite America and 
India and not magnify our minor disagreements.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for managing this rule, and I also thank the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his statements as well.
  I also wish to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the 
chairman of the full Committee on International Relations; the 
gentleman

[[Page 16324]]

from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 
the Pacific, both of whom have been very instrumental in working on 
this bill. And my thanks also to my good friend, the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney), who is a cosponsor of this legislation. She is 
the ranking member of our subcommittee, and we have worked very 
cooperatively on this legislation as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the prime sponsor of H.R. 2415, 
the American Embassy Security Act. This legislation is the result of 
four hearings that we held, several days of markup in both subcommittee 
and full committee, and several weeks of negotiations with our friends 
on the other side of the aisle. Virtually every member of the committee 
had some input, had provisions that he or she thought should be 
included.
  We worked very, very hard during a lengthy process. And Joseph Rees, 
my chief of staff and general counsel, and other members of the full 
committee on the other side of the aisle all worked in a cooperative 
way to try to craft a bipartisan bill.
  The bill's unifying theme is about the promotion of American values. 
I am particularly proud that the bill authorizes $1.4 billion in fiscal 
year 2000 in security upgrades for our missions and for our personnel 
around the world. This is the worldwide security budget recommended by 
Admiral Crowe's commission, which was charged with investigating the 
terrorist bombings of our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania and determining 
how to protect our embassies and overseas personnel from future 
attacks.
  Unfortunately, the administration recommended only $290 million for 
embassy security in its fiscal year 2000 budget, about one-fifth of the 
Crowe recommendation, and a fifth of what Congress appropriated last 
year. So without this bill, we would have faced an 80 percent cut from 
the recommendation in security of our overseas missions and personnel.
  I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that if our Congress has one single 
responsibility with respect to foreign policy, and to me this is the 
most important, it is the protection of our people who work overseas in 
our embassies, our consulates, and other missions. They have to be our 
priority number one. This bill reflects that concern.
  Let me also point out that we held, as part of those hearings, a 
hearing on March 12 on the security of U.S. missions abroad. Admiral 
Crowe testified, and I would like to just quote him briefly in talking 
about security, ``the Boards were most disturbed regarding two 
interconnected issues,'' he said. ``The first of these was the 
inadequacy of the resources to provide security against terrorist 
attacks, and the second was the relatively low priority accorded 
security concerns throughout the U.S. Government and by the Department 
of State.'' He also pointed out, and I just want to continue quoting 
him, that he found it very ``troubling,'' the failure of the U.S. 
Government to take the necessary steps to prevent such tragedies, 
talking about the time since Bobby Inman's report on terrorism.
  We also heard, Mr. Speaker, from David Carpenter, the Assistant 
Secretary for Diplomatic Security at the United States Department of 
State, and he pointed out, and I quote briefly, ``The terrorist threat 
is global, lethal, multidimensional and growing. Our analysts estimate 
that during the 12-month period, there were over 2,400 threats or 
incidents against U.S. interests overseas. Their estimate for the same 
period for a year ago,'' he goes on, ``is approximately 1,150 such 
threats or incidents. This is an increase of over 100 percent in the 
past year.''
  We also heard at the hearing, Mr. Speaker, from Daniel Geisler, who 
is the President of the American Foreign Service Association, and he 
pointed out that our core message to the committee, to the Congress, to 
all of us is that we must commit ourselves to never again suffer 
needless loss of life from terrorism and directed violence. He pointed 
out in his testimony that he had ``grave doubts,'' and I am quoting him 
now, ``that this failure will be corrected. Our doubts were heightened 
by the administration's grossly inadequate request for funds to build 
safer embassies. The fiscal year 2000 budget request,'' he goes on, 
``does not have a single penny for construction funds, even though the 
State Department has proposed that OMB request $1.4 billion for 
worldwide security.''
  This legislation meets that commitment of $1.4 billion, and I think 
it is very important. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) had a 
hand in this, and we all are working to make sure that that happens. We 
hope the appropriators will do likewise.
  The bill also promotes American values by promoting human rights and 
protecting refugees. We authorize a modest increase for refugee 
protection, bringing the total to $750 million. And at a time when the 
world seems awash in refugees, we must do our fair share.
  I think it is worth noting that year after year the State Department 
has requested and gotten a raise for its own operating expenses, while 
at the same time cutting the budget for refugee protection. Our bill 
includes special provisions for protection of refugees from Kosovo, 
Tibet, Burma, Viet Nam, and Sierra Leone, as well as refugees 
resettling in Israel.
  We also single out the grossly underfunded Human Rights Bureau for an 
increase as well. This bureau of the State Department is charged with 
ensuring that the protection of fundamental human rights is afforded 
its rightful place in our foreign policy; yet it has only 65 employees, 
about half the size of the Office of Public Affairs and about the same 
size as the Office of Protocol.
  Mr. Speaker, the $7 million the Department now spends on human rights 
in its bureau is only slightly more than half the amount, and that is 
$12 million, it plans to spend on public relations next year. If human 
rights matter, we ought to be putting more not less resources into the 
bureau charged with seeing to it that our embassies abroad and also the 
reporting and our message is that human rights do matter.
  The bill further promotes American values by permanently authorizing 
Radio Free Asia, which would otherwise be required to close its doors 
on September 30 of this year. It continues the effort to ensure 24-hour 
freedom broadcasting into the People's Republic of China, and will also 
make possible additional RFA broadcasts to the people of North Korea 
and Vietnam. It also ensures the survival of Radio Free Europe and 
Radio Liberty into the next millennium and increases funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy.

                              {time}  0040

  Mr. Speaker, these relatively small programs are among the most cost 
effective of efforts to promote freedom and democracy around the world.
  H.R. 2415 also directs that our international exchange programs be 
conducted in a way that again promotes American values and fundamental 
beliefs. It authorizes carefully targeted exchange programs for the 
peoples of Tibet, Burma, East Timor, and sub-Saharan Africa. It 
requires that all of our exchange programs be administered so as to 
prevent them from being taken advantage of by spies and thugs from 
totalitarian governments and to include more people who are genuinely 
open to the principles of freedom and democracy.
  There are a number of amendments that will be offered. There will be 
an amendment that will get an hour's time on the United Nations 
Population Fund. I continue to believe that until the U.N. Population 
Fund gets out of China and stops its complicity with the most brutal 
and barbaric programs that have been used against women that we should 
stop our funding, as we did last year, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan 
way.
  The current law for fiscal year 1999 that was signed by the President 
says no money to the UNFPA, and our language says no money again unless 
they get out of China. And we will have that debate, of course, when 
that amendment is offered next week.

[[Page 16325]]

  This is a bipartisan bill. I support the rule, as well.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 2415 and, 
of course, the legislation.
  I want to particularly thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) and the members of the Committee on Rules and their staff for 
crafting a very fair, thorough, well-structured rule. I know that they 
gave intense and very thorough consideration to the amendments that are 
offered. They will make it easier for the Committee on International 
Relations to discharge its duties and to pass an authorization bill for 
the State Department and related agencies.
  I think it is particularly appropriate that the legislation is indeed 
called the American Embassy Security Act. As the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) explained, the chairman of the relevant 
subcommittee, this is a priority for our committee. It should be a 
priority for the Congress and the American people.
  Those of us who visit the embassies, the consulates and missions 
abroad have on our conscience the concerns about the security of our 
personnel working abroad. They need attention. We have seen too many 
problems that exist today.
  We have, as the gentleman from New Jersey emphasized, authorized the 
full amount requested and suggested by the distinguished commission led 
by Admiral Crowe. We believe that is appropriate emphasis. We look 
forward to the debate on the legislation upcoming.
  Again, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for their excellent job 
in crafting this fair rule, which will bring the legislation before the 
floor.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, supporting the underlying legislation, 
as well as the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________